Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

Kenyon on Alternet.com: Gay Marriage In New York: Progressive Victory or GOP Roadmap?

Thought I should post my article on my analysis of the same-sex marriage passing in New York State for Alternet. I likes.

From Alternet.com

Many people are celebrating what seems on the surface a huge win for gay rights, with the passage of a same-sex marriage bill in New York State last week, by a Republican-controlled state senate to boot. This marks a real sea change for LGBT equality in the US, and therefore a major win not only for LGBT people, but also because this has been a major cause for progressives.

But now that the pride parade is literally over, progressives should be asking themselves about the potential long-term impacts of this “win.”

What does it mean when so-called progressives celebrate a victory in large part won by GOP-supporting hedge fund managers, Tea Party funders and corporate conglomerates—the oft-spoken enemies of progressive causes? Furthermore, this new strategy could be the testing ground for Republicans to peel a gay base and donors away from the Democrats while keeping their Christian conservative base. Read the rest here.

Kenyon on TheGrio.com: Not All Gays Support Same-Sex Marriage

I just started writing for a new Black-focused news site called TheGrio.com, and my first piece is on my growing frustration with same-sex marriage politics and the Black community:

I have spent many hours in lectures, panels and private conversations trying to explain why Black people, in poll after poll, overwhelmingly do not support same-sex marriage. But my arguments are beginning to lose steam and I am not sure I believe them anymore regardless of how I feel about gay marriage. At the end of the day, there is no excuse for homophobia and I am tired of indirectly defending it.

Hours after the California Supreme Court decided to uphold Proposition 8, effectively banning future same-sex marriages in that state, I found myself standing along a protest route where about 1000 same-sex marriage activists marched along 14th Street in Manhattan to rally in Union Square. Suddenly behind me I heard someone shout “God meant marriage for a man and a woman! Stand Strong Obama!” READ THE REST AT TheGrio.com

What it Looks Like Now: The Obama Presidency

Yesterday I appeared on GRIT.TV with Laura Flanders talking about controversy surrpinding Obama’s choosing Rick Warren as the person giving the Invocation for the Inauguration. I said on the show, that to me, the choice represented 3 things:

  1. Obama has officially bgean his 2012 run, and this choices was to bring Christian conservatives to his side.
  2. To finally neutralize the rumors that he’s a Muslim, and who better to reassure White American than Rick Warren?
  3. That perhaps he actually is more of a Clintonian Democrat than Progressives would like to believe.

My co-panelists disagreed, and I wish I’d have been better prepared for such opposition. I agree that some of his policy platform looks at this point to the left of Bill Clinton, but many of the people he’s appointed to carry out policy are either to the Right of, or very directly from the Clinton Administration. I also added that Obama’s use of the Clintonian political tactic of triangulation  is very much a part of his political strategy as a “uniter.” Wikipedia defines triangulation as:

Triangulation is the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being “above” and “between” the “left” and “right” sides (or “wings”) of a traditional (e.g. UK or US) democratic “political spectrum”. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.

Obama has clearly used this strategy in his statment about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (“When bombs are raining down on your citizens[ISRAEL, THAT IS], then there is an urge to try and put an end to that.”) But beyond triangulation in speech and Cabinet choices, there is just general political calculation that is going on.

Case in point: After many re-iterations of the “I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman” talking point, The Windy City Times just published a questionnaire from Obama in 1996 where he clearly states “I favor legalising same-sex marriages.”

Now I am not turning this into a “gotcha” blog post because I am interested in pusing Obama to try to pass same-sex marriage legislation–in the absense of something more expansive to self-define my family–I’ll take the civil union, thank you very much. But it is an example that our soon to be sworn in President is not capable of the same political re-positioning of past Democratic Presidents.  I think it’s time to put the party favors down and change the lenses in the rose-tinted glasses .  If we’re planning to have anything to really celebrate materially 4-8 years from now, we’ve got to take the kid gloves off.

Note: The New Issue of Black Commentator has apublished part 1 of a new 3-part  piece dealing with the significance of this moment, as it relates to the politics of the last 40 years withthe author, Dr. Horace Campbell refers to as the counter-revolutionary period.

Maryland to Extend Medical Decisions to All Unmarried Couples

Though the gays are likely to throw a fit, the Maryland Senate has decided (since it didn’t have the votes to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples) to extend medical decisions to all unmarried couples, regardless of gender. The bill now goes to the House. The Washington Blade has the full story.

Though it is not a sweeping bill to grant all couples, regardless of married status the same rights that married couples get, I think it is a step in the right direction. But there are the “marriage and marriage only” gays who will decry this decision as another block towards gays getting full equality. Blahblahblah.

Why would I want to deny unmarried people, regardless of relationship status, the ability to have legal protections?

The main problem with the Maryland bill is that it requires people who want to apply for this benefit to show, as the Baltimore Sun reports, “an affidavit attesting to their relationship plus two pieces of proof, such as joint checking accounts, mortgages or car leases; coverage on health insurance policies or the designation as a primary beneficiary in a will.”

Not every couple has joint checking accounts or owns property. Not all couples even live together! My ex and I lived in a month-to-month rental agreement where there was no lease. What would we have done? This seems to still privilege a certain class of couples who have access to some of the kinds of documentation that a lot of poor people do not.