Gravel vs. States' Rights
There were two things that Hillary Clinton said in last week's HRC/LOGO presidential forum that have nagged at me a bit. Whether they're show-stoppers for me is moot right now since I much prefer Mike Gravel or Chris Dodd as my candidate of choice.
Thing number one was, when discussing the "debate" over marriage equality for same-sex couples, Ms. Clinton said something to the effect that "this hasn't yet been a long-term struggle". Now, exactly what she was thinking is one thing, but what I heard is "gays and lesbians haven't suffered enough yet for their equality". How long is exactly long enough, one wonders? When it's finally been long enough does Ms. Clinton come on board with whole-hearted support, finally no reservations? The implication, of course, is that marriage equality will be ours — as it obviously should be — but we have to earn it somehow by waiting. Tsk. Such a limited concept of freedom and civil rights.
And then there's that whole state's rights thing. Yes, she idiotically said that she thought marriage equality was really a state issue. Now, while it's true that marriage is administered by states, civil marriage itself is a federal status, complete with federal benefits, and Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws, demonstrated that the Supreme Court thought so, too.
You, and I, and probably even Ms. Clinton knows that the phrase "states' rights" is just a cover for deferring leadership on the issue and facilitating continued discrimination, just as it has been since the phrase was used in the early days of the anti-racist, civil rights struggle.
Let me give the podium over to candidate Mike Gravel for a moment to say a few words about this issue:
During last week's historic gay debate, Hillary Clinton dredged up the old states rights argument when justifying her opposition to gay marriage. Apparently she thinks that the second class citizenship of gays and lesbians is a matter for the states to decide.
By drawing upon the language of states rights, Hillary embraces the tradition of John Calhoun and the defenders of slavery along with Strom Thurmond and the segregationists. Throughout our nation's history, every time national public opinion turns against oppression, opponents of progress use states rights to present themselves as defenders of liberty in the face of federal power.
States rights has always been the last refuge of the bigots. Now Hillary has given rhetorical cover to the homophobes. If she wins the Democratic nomination, opponents of gay marriage will cite her statement to justify their opposition to national marriage equality over the next decade.
[excerpted from Mike Gravel, "Hillary Chooses States Rights Over Gay Rights", Huffington Post, 14 August 2007."
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 17.42
Permalink
I obviously don't know what was going on inside Hillary Clinton's head when she said this hasn't yet been a longterm struggle, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
Rather than that sentiment arising from some notion gays and lesbians haven't suffered enough, it seems more logical to me that Clinton was focused on the rest of society. Specifically, that the majority straight population hasn't had enough time to adjust to the idea of marriage equality.
I can tell you from firsthand observation of some basically good and decent people in the deep South during the civil rights struggle, that change takes time. It doesn't come along quickly and evenly, across populations or even within individuals. But it does come. Unevenly, in fits and starts, change comes.
Gravel is absolutely right about states' rights being the traditional refuge of defenders of bigotry. And yet, it may be that our federal system also facilitates change. That's because some states can try things, and then people elsewhere get to see that a whole lot predictions of disorder and doom never materialized.
No, the result of that isn't people running out and proclaiming how wrong they were all aong, and calling for a big policy reversal from government. That's not how people do things. What you get instead, I think, is acquiescence from people who previously might've fought tooth and nail to prevent some change such as equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
After a time, though, the whole thing can pick up momentum. More young people with different attitudes get elected to state legislatures, even Congress. At some point, bam! You get a big change. In the civil rights struggle, I peg that eventuality at the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act — monumental big deals.
How long this is going to take for gays and lesbians remains to be seen. As I've said before, I'm confident it's coming.