Bitter taste in my mouth

[Black Star]

In an American election that actually matter, it seems as if Maine's same-sex marriage law is going to be abolished. California last year, Maine this year. Equality never wins.

EDIT: Could someone move this to the discrimination forum please?

[Q]

EDIT: Could someone move this to the discrimination forum please?
Ok, moved.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Damn :(
Regression is even worse then sagnation :(

[Sasha]

seems though that in the state of washington registered partnership is going to be a stayer...

[Il Medico]

Here is a telling graphic on homosexual equality in various nations/states.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/World_homosexuality_laws.svg/800px-World_homosexuality_laws.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/World_homosexuality_laws.svg)Minus Maine. :(

Edit: Oh, sorry didn't realize key wasn't on map.

Laws regarding same-sex sexuality
No information
Homosexuality legal
Same-sex marriage
Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)
Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
No recognition of same-sex couples
Homosexuality illegal
Minimal penalty
Large penalty
Life in prison
Death penalty

[Jazzratt]

While same-sex marriage is a hobbyhorse of the homophobic right and of the liberal equality movement I don't see it as something radicals have much of a place in campaigning for. The whole concept smacks of demands for assimilationism, a demand for everyone to validate their relationships and sexuality through ideas like marriage. I can see, obviously, pragmatic reasons for wanting to be married (tax breaks, greater recognition in society and countless other benefits) but it's only because our society is already geared, in typical heteronormative fashion, around monogamous relationships given meaning through ritual and contract.

If we are going to turn around and demand the state legislates our equality and our liberation then why simply talk of monogamous homosexual couples? What of the many other relationship structures that cannot comfortably fall into the 2 lovers paradigm? Why are there no demands to recognise polyamoury for example?

Yes, it is a good step toward equality but I think that equality falls well short of what our aims should be: namely liberation.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I feel sorry for the gay population in Africa and the Middle-East; it's hard to believe that in 2009 you can be killed for liking someone of the same gender. That's just insane.

[Sasha]

While same-sex marriage is a hobbyhorse of the homophobic right and of the liberal equality movement I don't see it as something radicals have much of a place in campaigning for. The whole concept smacks of demands for assimilationism, a demand for everyone to validate their relationships and sexuality through ideas like marriage. I can see, obviously, pragmatic reasons for wanting to be married (tax breaks, greater recognition in society and countless other benefits) but it's only because our society is already geared, in typical heteronormative fashion, around monogamous relationships given meaning through ritual and contract.

If we are going to turn around and demand the state legislates our equality and our liberation then why simply talk of monogamous homosexual couples? What of the many other relationship structures that cannot comfortably fall into the 2 lovers paradigm? Why are there no demands to recognise polyamoury for example?

Yes, it is a good step toward equality but I think that equality falls well short of what our aims should be: namely liberation.


sure but fighting state/official discrimination is something that for radicals should be high on our priority list.
if the state decides that homosexual people are not equal to hetrosexuals we should fight that tooth and nail.
silly wild comparison, i'm against nucluar power, yet if the goverment decides tomorow that people of color are not alowed to use nucluar created electricity we should be very very angry indeed.
or i'm against the military, if the state decide muslims are not alowed to join anymore i would first foccus my energy on getting this ridicules law scraped before i start campaining again for the abolishment of the army
everbody should have the same right to be stupid...

its like those silly turn of the century radicals who where against union struggle because getting an 6 day workweek and pay where people didn't starve from would only porspone the revolution...
or those idiot people who thought getting general vote would change nothing...

[Comrade Anarchist]

I was watching a show this morning and instead of calling it what it truely is, discrimination, they said it was the people using their vote to enforce the constitution and show that it is not the courts job to create laws. Quite frankly people who can not accept people for such a reason as homosexuality probably do not even know anything about the court system or what a republic or anything like that is. This conflict matches the brown v.s. board of education scenario; the courts ruling here was that seperate but equal was unconstitutional, and that is the same ruling these days toward homosexuals yet back then they didn't put brown v.s. board of education on the ballet. So if we ever want equality in this a pre revolution U.S. then we musn't let uneducated mind warped apes put these religious ideals on the ballot or let them vote that someone else is wrong for having the gay gene and instead must implore the courts to realize that church seperate from state counts even on the ballot.

[Comrade Gwydion]

That red spot next to venezuela..... isn't that a british colony? :S

(Or is it an ex-colony?)

[Luís Henrique]

Here is a telling graphic on homosexual

Is that map accurate, though? It seems that it has Uganda as a place where homosexuality is punished with life (that would be a proposal in the Ugandan parliament, not actual law). Also I was pretty sure that a lot of American states have "sodomy" laws forbidding not only homosexuality but actually any non-genital sexual action.

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

Is that map accurate, though? It seems that it has Uganda as a place where homosexuality is punished with life (that would be a proposal in the Ugandan parliament, not actual law). Also I was pretty sure that a lot of American states have "sodomy" laws forbidding not only homosexuality but actually any non-genital sexual action.

Luís Henrique
All such laws in America were struck down in Lawrence v Texas in 2003

[Music-in-a-bottle]

As a gay individual, I can't help but feel slighted by the christian right wing. These guys want everyone to live their beliefs and ideals, then we condemn the Taliban for their extremism. WTF? (I assume you can't swear here, because the religious right might convict me!)For those living in the countries that allow gay marriage, I applaud you! Heck, even in America, the right wing doesn't even want the average guy to have affordable health insurance. Look at all those tea parties. It's truly like living in the dark ages for som many of us Americans. You should taste the mentality of the Right wing arrogance in my state of Idaho!

[Il Medico]

Is that map accurate, though? It seems that it has Uganda as a place where homosexuality is punished with life (that would be a proposal in the Ugandan parliament, not actual law).
There was a note at the bottom that I didn't post that said the graph included laws which hadn't taken effect. Sorry.


Also I was pretty sure that a lot of American states have "sodomy" laws forbidding not only homosexuality but actually any non-genital sexual action.

Luís Henrique
What Demogoron said.

[Music-in-a-bottle]

There was a note at the bottom that I didn't post that said the graph included laws which hadn't taken effect. Sorry.

What Demogoron said.
Idaho, where I'm from, is one of them states.

[Manifesto]

That red spot next to venezuela..... isn't that a british colony? :S

(Or is it an ex-colony?)
You mean Guyana? It is an ex-colony now since the 60s I think.

[Music-in-a-bottle]

Wow! I'm stunned. I thought for sure that someone would pull the trigger on me here. Right on. Thanks for the tolorance comrades! You guys are great.:D

[Pogue]

While same-sex marriage is a hobbyhorse of the homophobic right and of the liberal equality movement I don't see it as something radicals have much of a place in campaigning for. The whole concept smacks of demands for assimilationism, a demand for everyone to validate their relationships and sexuality through ideas like marriage. I can see, obviously, pragmatic reasons for wanting to be married (tax breaks, greater recognition in society and countless other benefits) but it's only because our society is already geared, in typical heteronormative fashion, around monogamous relationships given meaning through ritual and contract.

If we are going to turn around and demand the state legislates our equality and our liberation then why simply talk of monogamous homosexual couples? What of the many other relationship structures that cannot comfortably fall into the 2 lovers paradigm? Why are there no demands to recognise polyamoury for example?

Yes, it is a good step toward equality but I think that equality falls well short of what our aims should be: namely liberation.

we want liberation but marriage is still attractive for alot of people, its not a revolutionary demand but as you said its only fair innit.

[Jazzratt]

sure but fighting state/official discrimination is something that for radicals should be high on our priority list.
if the state decides that homosexual people are not equal to hetrosexuals we should fight that tooth and nail.

This would be that definition of "fighting tooth and nail" whereby we go to state asking for concesions on this and that creating our enshrined "equality" from whatever crumbs the state deigns to give us. We've enough liberals fighting that fight for us.


silly wild comparison, i'm against nucluar power, yet if the goverment decides tomorow that people of color are not alowed to use nucluar created electricity we should be very very angry indeed.


Yeah, but unlike marriage (and your next example) this is because people without electricity are absolutely fucked in most modern countries. While marriage, no doubt, lends many advantages to couples (advantages that should be scrapped or applied to all) it is not nearly as bread and butter as electricity.


or i'm against the military, if the state decide muslims are not alowed to join anymore i would first foccus my energy on getting this ridicules law scraped before i start campaining again for the abolishment of the army
everbody should have the same right to be stupid...

I totally disagree. There is no reason to lend the state any more footroopers. There is nothing progressive about taking young working class people from any background to die on the frontlines for "their" nation.

It's like feminism that calls for more female bosses; what the fuck does it matter to us as workers?


its like those silly turn of the century radicals who where against union struggle because getting an 6 day workweek and pay where people didn't starve from would only porspone the revolution...
or those idiot people who thought getting general vote would change nothing...

How? If anything it is simply drawing attention to the fact that a lot of identity politics, especially the kind that demands equality in this manner, plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie.


we want liberation but marriage is still attractive for alot of people, its not a revolutionary demand but as you said its only fair innit.

Aye, it's only fair but I don't see it as something we should be overly concerned about campaigning for. Especially since the whole set up of marriage is something we should be aiming to pull from its pedestal - the benefits of marriage granted by the state should be available to all people in all relationships.

[Jimmie Higgins]

While same-sex marriage is a hobbyhorse of the homophobic right and of the liberal equality movement I don't see it as something radicals have much of a place in campaigning for. The whole concept smacks of demands for assimilationism, a demand for everyone to validate their relationships and sexuality through ideas like marriage.
Assimilation: like not having your lover deported for non being a resident? Like not being able to visit sick loved ones?

Why would black people want to drink from the same drinking fountain or swim in the same pool as a bunch of racist whites? Why would women want to vote in elections if it's for shitty bourgeois politicians? Why would immigrants want to join the US empire - are they reactionary?

Should radicals not fight against all segregated institutions and laws? Only by getting rid of the things the ruling class put in place to separate us can we hope to begin to have working class solidarity and a revolution.


If we are going to turn around and demand the state legislates our equality and our liberation then why simply talk of monogamous homosexual couples? What of the many other relationship structures that cannot comfortably fall into the 2 lovers paradigm? Why are there no demands to recognise polyamoury for example?Because the only people demanding pologamy are sexist mormon cults.

Restrictions on homosexuals are all part of a larger repression of any sexual minority (and heterosexual couple too for that matter). The right-wing says it themselves: this is about "tradditional marriage". If they win, then the idea of a society based arounf the nuclear family is reinforced and then women's rights are a target because if you have a hetero-headed family that's dystfunctional, according to the "tradditional marriage" defenders, it's because the wife is working and not in the house homeschooling the kids.


Yes, it is a good step toward equality but I think that equality falls well short of what our aims should be: namely liberation.Yes, it's a step, I agree completely - so why are you not building it? You want to get to liberation, but you can't be bothered about cutting trees for lumber to build a bridge there?

[Jimmie Higgins]

This would be that definition of "fighting tooth and nail" whereby we go to state asking for concesions on this and that creating our enshrined "equality" from whatever crumbs the state deigns to give us.

We've enough liberals fighting that fight for us.Yeah, and they fight like shit - if radicals are involved in reform struggles that actually help ease oppression or win benifits for our class, and help win it (since we have more effective tactics and a better understanding of how the state and ruling class works) then it makes it a whole lot easier to argue to people to stop supporting liberal groups and politicians.

Sitting on the sidelines just means that sincere working people will waste even more money and time on liberal lobbyist groups like HRC. Let's give them a militant and radical alternative - I think they'll like winning better.


I totally disagree. There is no reason to lend the state any more footroopers. There is nothing progressive about taking young working class people from any background to die on the frontlines for "their" nation.
And there's nothing progressive about letting one of the largest employers and institutions in places like the US OPENLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A WHOLE SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION!

LGBT people are being killed by and killing for US empire as it is - they just have to do it in the closet.

The military culture thrives on uniformity and repression of all independant thinking and behavior. If people have to hide their sexual attraction - how would they feel confident to dissent, go AWOL, resist?


It's like feminism that calls for more female bosses; what the fuck does it matter to us as workers?Um, it's harder for the ruling class to say that women can't be leaders, aren't smart, can't have opinions, and should only stay home and cook.

Seriously, that's a fucked-up thing for a radical to say. Should we not give a fuck if Israel bombs the home of local Palistinian elietes? Should we say that white people saying racist things about Obama don't matter or impact racism against working class black people because Obama is ruling class?


Especially since the whole set up of marriage is something we should be aiming to pull from its pedestal - the benefits of marriage granted by the state should be available to all people in all relationships.I agree, but how do you do that? Do you have a movement demanding this that you are relating to?

In the US we don't have a movement demanding the end of marriage as a social institution, but we do have thousands and thousands of young people mobilizing independent (and to the left) of the Democratic party and traditional liberal LGBT groups - working with them on this reform will help us build a new radicalism with a lot of people and that will one day help us win real liberation and get rid of the way the nuclear family is used in bourgoise society.

[Dr Mindbender]

Here is a telling graphic on homosexual equality in various nations/states.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/World_homosexuality_laws.svg/800px-World_homosexuality_laws.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/World_homosexuality_laws.svg)
Death penalty

its fucking depressing about the state of humanity that so many still operate the death penalty and so few acknowledge equal status.