I wrote last week of the panel discussion on
"the state of the [GLBT] movement," including this comment by attendee Rick Rosendall, one of the leaders of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance here in DC:
The conversation became heated when Rick Rosendall, a local activist and vice president for political affairs for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA), angrily declared that despite the fact that the majority of gay rights supporters are Democrats, he feels that the majority of members in Congress strongly oppose same-sex marriage rights. ''In Congress it would be insane to push marriage rights now because Congress has a long history of stomping on the District of Colombia,'' he said.
(source: Metro Weekly).
Background: DC's laws are subject to oversight by Congress. Any law or action taken by the DC government can be overturned at will by Congress, where we have no official vote or Representative. End Background.
Since Rosendall's outburst,
several Wyoming state Republican legislators have shown themselves to have more political cojones by opposing a ban against recognizing legal same sex marriages from other jurisdictions. As I noted earlier, thanks to the Republicans, Dick Cheney's Wyoming is now more progressive on marriage equality than the District of Columbia, where the per capita incidence of gay people is much higher, one assumes, than in Wyoming.
Chris Crain, former editor of the Washington Blade, has made a strong case for why RosendallGLAA
are wrong:
Our new Mayor has expressed support for marriage equality.
A clear majority of the DC Council supports marriage equality.
GLAA's objections might have made sense when the GOP led Congress.
Now, the Democrats have control and chair the committees with jurisdiction over DC.
Democrats don't have to back gay marriage to block efforts to overturn it in the district -- they can support state rights and DC home rule which are longstanding planks in the Democratic Party platform.
The counterargument articulated by GLAA from their
Web site:
GLAA’s strong support for equal civil marriage rights for gay citizens does not blind us to strategic considerations. The U.S. Congress retains complete legislative control over the District. Until the Congress and the President are willing to allow us to recognize same-sex marriage, the District will not be able to do so.
For this reason, GLAA advocates, well, I'm not sure what. What if Civil Rights leaders had said in the 1960s, you know, it's just to dangerous to march or insist on our rights, let's just stay at home until America decides it's okay for us to be full citizens.
To Crain's arguments I would add my own:
What is GLAA so afraid of? If the worst happened and Congress did block gay marriage here, it could be undone by a future Congress. We don't risk a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage here in the District -- which is undone with much more difficulty than Congressional fiat. That makes DC one of the most logical places to make a stand, because we avoid that risk.
Further, I don't know how GLAA intends to move public opinion if we don't engage. In the same document from GLAA quoted above, GLAA notes that it will not endorse any candidate who does not equivocally state their support for same sex marriage. In other words, candidates have to commit to a vote GLAA is not willing to ask them to make.
At the leadership forum that spawned this long post, there were representatives from a diverse group of GLBT organizations. If they came together, organized a coordinated strategy that focused national organization energy and resources and grassroots and online activism in a coordinated way, we could move the needle for marriage equality not only in DC but in other targeted states. Wyoming has shown it to be possible. It's a shame some of our gay leadership refuse to see the possible, being overshadowed instead by fear.
