OK here is were I start getting pissed off

[plantwomyn]

http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs_make-change-not-lawsuits.pdf
At the end of this cowardly crap they say.......
"So please, now’s the time to contribute – in time, in energy, in conversations, and in money – to
the efforts currently being organized to hold onto marriage in Maine and to win it back at the
ballot box in California."
To that I say Fuck California and Maine and all of the rest! I don't live in California or Maine! Let them fight their own battles and let me fight mine. Who are they to tell me I should fight for the right to marry in another state and wait for those rights in my own. When will they aqueous to turn their OH so fucking important powers to the state of Indiana?
Iowa fell into our laps! Who'd a thunk it? IOWA!
Well you know WHO? Lambda legal that's who.
"In 2005, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of six Polk County same-sex couples and their children who were denied marriage licenses in Iowa, arguing that this denial violated the liberty and equal protection clauses in the state constitution. In 2007, the Polk County District Court ruled in favor of the couples, prompting the county to appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.<2> On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously upheld the District Court's ruling holding that there was no important governmental interest in denying citizens marriage licenses based on their sexual orientation. Licenses were originally to be available 21 days after the ruling, on April 24, but the availability of licenses was subsequently postponed until April 27 due to a Furlough day."
So why are they tell me now to take a chill pill and wait, give the a donation and let them help Maine and California.
WTF.
Are these pillars of the "community" giving up on my rights and my state? What state do they want me to move to to guarantee my rights? Fuck that. This is where I live and this is where I will fight for full citizenship.

I just cannot believe this crap.

[Toasterlad]

1. A Victory Anywhere Is a Victory Everywhere.

Do you not understand that the more states that are flipped, the more it will be easier to flip? Not to mention, the easier it will be to get federal legislation passed?

Should we have equality everywhere? Of course. Should we fight for it everywhere? Absolutely. But a victory in California and/or Maine makes a victory in your state easier.

[plantwomyn]

4. What i don't understand is why one state is more important that another.

Hell, Indiana doesn't have a constitutional DOMA. California does. Why fight for rescinding a constitutional amendment in California OVER a state DOMA in Indiana? We have fought and squashed the attempt in Indiana for 4 years now. If we got some of the money and support that Maine and California had we could rescind our State DOMA. There are quite a few states in the same position. Why not fight to rescind state DOMAs? Wouldn't that make it easier to get the federal legislation rescinded too?

[Obama2012]

2. Personally, I care about battles for gay rights in every state, not just mine

Why should I only care about gays where I live and screw the rest of them?

[plantwomyn]

3. Why should I care about gays in other states and screw the gays in Indiana?

LGBT "leadership" is saying things like "don't spent money on the March for Equality, send donations to Maine and California" "don't bring lawsuits in your own state, donate to the cause in Maine and California". I donated to NO on 8 last year. But as they keep saying all politics is local. The ACLU chose to litigate a case in Indiana for a feminine male who was barred from prom because he wore a dress. No don't get me wrong, I'm all for wearing whatever the fuck you want to prom or anywhere else. But don't in the same breath tell us not to pursue our full equal rights as a married couple, because for some reason you feel that Maine, California or any other state should be first in line. Are we pushing our own to the back of the bus now?

[Obama2012]

5. Then, start a movement in Indiana

That's how things got started in Maine and California.

[plantwomyn]

6. And I'm doing just that

Instead of following the plea of Lambda Legal and the other signatures of this crap...
"So please, now’s the time to contribute – in time, in energy, in conversations, and in money – to
the efforts currently being organized to hold onto marriage in Maine and to win it back at the
ballot box in California."
I intend to donate to my own fight here in Indiana. Let's just hope that Lambda Legal thinks that my fight for marriage equality is as important as what one of us wears to a prom, and they step up to the plate to bring a suit against Indiana's DOMA on behalf of myself and my SPOUSE.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. your post makes no sense.nt

[plantwomyn]

8. Illuminating

Thank you for your deep consideration and thoughtful examination of the topic. It adds so much to the discussion.
The statements from Lambda et all make no sense to me either.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. Lambda Legal Makes perfect sense. Its you who doesnt make sense

They are asking people to be smart about which state governments to sue. What is so astronomically strange about that?

[plantwomyn]

10. So I guess I should just accept that Lambda Legal et al

have the right to make decisions about which marriages are worthy of fighting for.
"Summary: The fastest way to win the freedom to marry throughout America is by getting
marriage through state courts (to show that fairness requires it) and state legislatures (to show that
people support it). We need to start with states where we have the best odds of winning. When
we’ve won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts. At that
point, we’ll ask that the U.S. government treat all marriages equally. And we’ll ask that all states
give equal treatment to all marriages and civil unions that are celebrated in other states.
Couples who want to should get married, call themselves married, and ask (sometimes demand)
that family, friends, neighbors, businesses, employers and the community treat their marriages
with respect. Making the marriages of same-sex couples a conspicuous part of American society
will help us get something we’ll need to win ultimately: public acceptance of equal treatment for
lesbian and gay families. damaging consequences for some people. If you are in the military, on a visa, thinking about
adopting or getting government benefits, you should talk to a lawyer who knows that area, or get
in touch with one of the legal organizations]"

"(SOMETIMES DEMAND)" see that part?
But Lambda Legal et al decide who is worthy of demanding their civil rights and where?

"and we’ll ask that all states give equal treatment to all marriages"
Oh please Mr. Indiana, may I be "accepted" as a full citizen here?
NO! Okay, no problem, just asking. God forbid I should make an issue of it. Don't want to rock the boat.

I guess it makes sense to you that I should just accept that Indiana doesn't qualify as one of the states where LGBT civil rights is worth fighting for and I should just wait patiently, cheer and donate to other state fights.
OK. No problem. After 40 years of fighting I'll just take a chill pill and back off. After all we old queers just don't make any sense when it comes to understanding that these things take time.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. No. you dont. nor are they countersuing you for suing. they are offereing their opinion

based on their work on behalf of LGBT americans. You can choose to listen to them or not.

[plantwomyn]

12. Where in any of my posts have I said that my fight includes suing anyone?

Now that is what doesn't make sense.
Since our "leadership" has already informed the LGBT communities everywhere BUT Maine and California that we are on our own as far as marriage rights. They will only fight the battles they feel they can win.

Lambda Legal Indiana decided to bankroll the legal fight on behalf of K.K.Logan.

Federal Court Says Lambda Legal’s Lawsuit Defending First Amendment Rights of Transgender Student Excluded From Prom Can Move Forward
"In December 2007, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of K.K. Logan challenging a Gary School Corporation policy barring clothing that advertises sexual orientation or indicates that a student's gender is different from the student's sex. Logan argues that the policy violates students' First Amendment freedom of expression. Logan also claims that his exclusion from prom constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender. West Side High School filed a motion to dismiss the case in February 2008 leading to today's ruling."

I'm happy for K.K. and I'm sure she looked lovely in her prom dress. But I am sad that "our limited resources" are being spent on the First Amendment right to wear a dress if you wish and not on the Fourteenth Amendment right of due process and equal protection of the laws, in Indiana and elsewhere. In fact it "makes sense" to me that demanding our rights under the 14th would guarantee we were covered by the 1st.
So it's not a question of listening to them or not. It's a question of who decides where to spend "our limited resources" and where.
They have decided. I get the message. If you're not a resident in a state we deem important, don't call us for suppport.

But because I have been working on behalf of LGBT Americans LONGER than Lambda has existed...
No I don't have to accept the fact that our "leadership" makes the decisions about where to fight?
No I don't have to back off of demands for my own civil rights and instead "contribute – in time, in energy, in conversations, and in money – to the efforts currently being organized to hold onto marriage in Maine and to win it back at the
ballot box in California."?

No I don't.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. but the leadership is not asking you not to fight, so i dont understand your outrage

they are merely asking you not to sue for marriage

also, a transgendered issue of what to wear, is a big one. sorry your highness doesnt see it that way :eyes:

[plantwomyn]

14. You do not understand my outrage? Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x145146

"And for what its worth, you only see our anger and not see our strength, because you make a choice to do so. You make a choice to see only the negatives because it makes you feel somewhat justified in your bigotry."

"I mean, fuck you, of course I am angry. I only have one life to live and in this life I am a second class citizen. I am denied rights everyday that the majority take for granted. Not to mention the homophobia, racism, sexism, xenophobia and other social discrimination that minorities face."

Ironic that you felt free to post your rant yet seem hellbent on belittling mine. I was one of those who recommended your post.

"sorry your highness doesn't see it that way"

Guess La Lioness Priyanka is the only one allowed to voice outrage.

After 11 years in a monogamous relationship , 40 years of Marches, Gay Pride Parades, ACT UP protests in San Francisco and Chicago and an uncountable numbers of friends lost because of inaction by our government, I have a right to be angry and yes even outraged at the fact that my donations will be used to help everyone but me.

They are merely TELLING those of us that are not among their chosen few that our "outrage" is best channeled to the fights THEY CHOOSE to fight. They are merely TELLING us not to count on them for their support and that we can expect that any donations they receive will be used to support their chosen few.
So just as I will not donate to reelect Obama until he acts on his supposed FIERCE ADVOCACY, I will no longer donate to Lambda or HRC
I have just as much right to be angry as you do Lioness. Maybe more.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. You have a right to be outraged. However your particular outrage at

an institution that dedicated itself to further LGBT rights with NO rational reason, makes no sense

i have asked you repeatedly to state WHY you are angry with lambda legal. dredging up my OP out of context doesnt justify your anger with them.

[plantwomyn]

18. And you have the right to your opinion.

Your opinion that my opinion makes no sense is clear and now you add irrational.

Have some of your posts been edited to remove your repeated questions about "WHY you are angry with lambda legal"? Because I don't see them on this thread. My original post states it clearly, provides a link and my subsequent posts give further explanation.

"They are merely TELLING those of us that are not among their chosen few, that our "outrage" is best channeled to the fights THEY CHOOSE to fight. They are merely TELLING us not to count on them for their support and that we can expect that any donations they receive will be used to support their chosen few.
So just as I will not donate to reelect Obama until he acts on his supposed FIERCE ADVOCACY, I will no longer donate to Lambda or HRC."
I feel this is a cogent statement of my position. If you do not agree, so be it. If you fell the best way to disagree is to belittle me by calling me your highness and to discount my feelings as irrational, so be that.

I didn't "dredge up" your OP, it is one of your most recent posts. You express your anger at the "privileged asses who go around calling us angry" and having felt the same way toward "THEM" I recommended.
I suppose in retrospect I could have just generalized and posted something like the "LGBT leadership". I shouldn't have provided a link, named Lambda Legal, HRC and Obama, and just posted something like "with fierce advocates like these who needs enemies"? Then maybe we could have all agree and sang Kumbaya.

There have been innumerable posts here expressing that Obama shouldn't count on the LGBT community to open their checkbooks for his re-election if he doesn't fulfill his promises to our community. As a donor, I get email from Lambda Legal, HRC, the ACLU and Change.org. I wonder how many would have read the linked statement from our "fearless leaders" if I had not posted it here. I for one appreciate links, many of which I would never have connected to without a DUer pointing me in the right direction.
You odiously believe that Lambda Legal et al are within their rights to tell the LGBT community to focus on the fights they choose to fight. Great. Send them money, volunteer your time, whatever you see fit.
I have done so for the past 40 years, I will not do so in the future until that future includes my state and my rights. I hope that is a clear enough statement for you.

[Morning Dew]

17. I'm annoyed at your attitude toward K.K.'s legal battle.

Is it necessary to be dismissive of her real issue in favor of your real issue?

[plantwomyn]

20. No.

No more than it was necessary for Lambda Legal Indiana to be dismissive of my real issue in favor of K.K.'s. But they did.
I have an attitude toward K.K., I have an opinion about how my donations are being spent and who is making those decisions and why.
If you feel so strongly about K.K.'s case make a donation, I already have.
Jim Madigan, Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago and Cole Thaler, Lambda Legal's Transgender Rights Attorney are handling the case with co-counsel from the law firm of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP in Chicago.

[Morning Dew]

21. Since Ruth Morrison, et al. v. Sadler

It looks like the legal battle in Indiana is centering on staving off a constitutional amendment.

I'm not a lawyer but it looks like they had some good reasons.


http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2005/02/ind_decisions_g.html

"They all agreed that the risk of moving forward outweighed the benefits," she said.

The downside included the possibility of an unfavorable ruling, which would set a legal precedent that could hinder future challenges -- and an anti-gay backlash.

"If the plaintiffs had appealed and lost, the Supreme Court decision would have had influence beyond Indiana's borders. Just as the Indiana appellate court quoted from the legal opinions of sister states in its decision, so sister states could use an Indiana Supreme Court decision to deny same-sex families marriage-based rights," said Jennifer A. Drobac, an associate professor at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis.

and here's that appellate court ruling with lots of shout outs to "responsible procreation" by heterosexuals.
http://indianalawblog.com/documents/morrison.sadler.pdf

[plantwomyn]

22. As you see that is from 2005.

We have staved off the attempt to pass a constitutional amendment.
In the same vain couldn't Iowa's, New York's, and New Jersey's etc. decisions help to influence Indiana to recognize marriages from other states?

I think you would agree that in the last 3 years things have changed. The biggest thing that has change for us is that WE ARE MARRIED. We am not civil unioned as the plaintiffs in Ruth Morrison, et al. v. Sadler were. Nor are we registered domestic partners as those in New York or New Jersey or even the employees of some of the largest employers in Indiana, who receive benefits. These Indiana employers, including Purdue University, helped us fight the constitutional amendment. The Society of Catholic Social Scientists;1 Catholics Allied for the Faith; Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council; seven members of the Indiana General Assembly; and the Indiana Family Institute, the American Family Association of Indiana, and the Eagle Forum of Indiana will have to start the process all over again, a minimum of 2 years. Even Lambda acknowledges that every win makes it possible to win elsewhere. The Repugs support is dwindling as our support is growing.

Those of us who are married should demand equal recognition for our marriages in every state of the union. Then the idea that Indiana should not allow same sex marriage is harder to justify. And by the way, both of us are post menopausal so their crap about "responsible procreation" is moot, as it is for every marriage of "senior citizens" or those who are unable to procreate. The fact is we are already married. What is the states interest of denying recognition of a legal marriage that already exists? Even the Justice Department had a hard time justifying that crap. Every win makes it harder to justify. Even when the federal DOMA is repealed, we will still have to fight state by state to repeal each states DOMA. We all know that many will use the "states rights" excuse to deny our rights. In those states where there are NO constitutional amendments, such as Indiana, there will be no need to pass another constitutional amendment or repeal one, we will only have to repeal our state's DOMA.

We have about a year left to ensure that the legislators we put in office support LGBT civil rights and equality. From the local level to the Congress, we have to stand up and demand that those who want our votes will be TRUE FIERCE ADVOCATES for equality.
We intend to look as many of those running for office, or those who hold office, in the face and make them justify their positions, their votes, or their lack of support for legislation to codify equality for LGBT citizens. We intend to shove the documentation from a U.S. government human resource employee that sights DOMA as the reason that my spouse and I have been denied "family" coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program.
We intend to fight.
We'd like Lambda Legal and the ACLU to fight with us. If they refuse, they should have to explain to me and my spouse why they believe that Indiana has the right to deny us equal protection under the law and why "justice deferred" isn't justice denied.

I have a few more questions. Were Lambda Legal and the ACLU sure that we would win in California? Were they sure we would win the fight against Prop. 8? Since we lost, was it worth fighting? And if they were sure we would win WTF happened? If they weren't sure we would win why did they waste millions of dollars to lose?
I don't think we can be sure of anything. But I know we can't win anything we don't fight for.

[ThomCat]

16. Lacking unlimited resources, any organization needs to pick which

battles they are most likely to win, and prioritize where they attack, and how, and when.

Do you really expect them to magically come up with enough resources to mount an equal attack in every state simultaneously?

If you think that is possible, why don't you form an organization that does exactly that. You could be the person that revolutionizes the civil rights movement with your 50 states approach. Good luck.

:shrug:

Personally, I wouldn't mind if you started a new organization to expand the activism in your state. That would be wonderful.

But we need national organizations that are smart enough to figure out which states are most vulnerable to a legal challenge, and are able to concentrate their tactics there where they will have the greatest effect for all of us. Remember that Each state we win makes it easier to win the next state. And if we win a legal battle in any state then the precedent might apply to many states, so it matters less which state the win is in so long as we get the win.

[plantwomyn]

19. No I don't expect them to magically come up with anything.

But I am sure that there were many who thought that the fight in Iowa was a waste "limited resources" that could have been better on fighting Prop 8 or Martinez v. County of Monroe in your state. But the coasts are not the only place were our fight should be waged and Iowa proved that the middle of the country can be a part of a winning strategy.
"And if we win a legal battle in any state then the precedent might apply to many states, so it matters less which state the win is in so long as we get the win." I agree but I'd like to hear the reasons why Indiana can't be one of the states we win in. We have fought off a constitutional amendment for years and for the first time in a long time Indiana voted for a Dem for president. We need to keep up the momentum, not just on the coasts but here in the "heartland" too. Why can't Indiana be next? Why did our "leadership" decide to tell those of us who are on the "fringes" of the fight to focus on other states fights? What if demanding equal rights and benefits due to my legal marriage in Iowa to a Federal employee is just the case that SHOULD be taken to the courts? Would a win in Indiana be less effective for all of us than a win anywhere else?

"Personally, I wouldn't mind if you started a new organization to expand the activism in your state. That would be wonderful."
But our "leadership" disagrees, as do most of the replies. I agree with the attitude that divided we fall and that we need to
help each other if we are going to win. Like I said I have donated time and money to the cause in general and to supporting Californian's right to marry in particular. I disagree that Lambda et al should tell me to acquiesce until they get around to me. They asked me for help for Iowa, Arizona, Maine, California, New Jersey, New York, Florida, and even Indiana at one point. I never asked them to qualify those fights, I helped. Now they are telling me that I don't quailfy for their help even though their help is funded by my donations. Starting a new organization would just spread the LGBT communities and my "limited resources" thinner. As it is the cost of legal counsel is stretching our budget to the limit. So since our "leadership" has decided to take my money elsewhere, I will just have to "expand the activism" in my state by demanding my own civil rights the best way I know how. And that is not by accepting Mr. Indiana's or BCBS's denials. I may just have to make a stand on my own and to have a chance in hell to win, I'll need to keep the money I have been giving to everyone else, and donate my time and energy to our own fight for equality.