Comments on: re: DOMA: My guest opinion in Bay Windows

By: 2009: The year that was (or wasn’t) · InterstateQ.com

2009: The year that was (or wasn’t) · InterstateQ.com — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:46:45 +0000

[...] challenge of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I thought the move came at a bad time, and wrote a guest commentary which was published in the [...]

By: Jasmine

Jasmine — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:05:27 +0000

I appreciate this post. Like you, I’m from North Carolina, though I currently live in Boston. I enjoy the privileges of being legally married here, but my heart is never far from North Carolina. I understand my story as being inextricably linked to the stories of friends in NC who can’t get legally married, or who can be fired from a job tomorrow simply for being gay.

And this is why I would rather devote some of the ample financial and organizational resources that are housed in Massachusetts not to advancing my privileges as a resident of this state, but to furthering the protections available to our brothers and sisters in states like North Carolina, Missouri, and California. Our movement will not succeed without sacrifice and this sacrifice will take different forms for each of us. For some it means being out in hostile environments. For some it means coming out for the first time. And for others it means understanding that, in a national movement, being at the front of the pack is about pace-setting not about winning, is about helping those at the rear stay in the race, not about leaving them in the dust.

http://jbf.typepad.com/jasmine_beachferrara/2009/03/challenging-doma-its-bold-but-is-it-the-right-thing-to-do.html

By: InterstateQ.com » Blog Archive » DOMA challenge raises important constitutional questions

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:51:58 +0000

[...] it is no secret that I’m a bit displeased with the timing of this DOMA challange in Mass., the suit itself raises some important constitutional issues. Slate chooses to call it [...]

By: Juanito

Juanito — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:53:18 +0000

Very well said, Matt.

I tend to agree, though, that GLAD should still push on. I also agree that GLAD and others in the political fight for equality should meet and talk about a national, organised effort on what path we should all take. As shown in California, not everybody who wants equality can agree on the right azimuth to take.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:35:46 +0000

Put most bluntly, yes, you may need to wait until you are rescued by the US Supreme Court. It’s an uncomfortable process of forward, then backward; progress here, then regression there, but it is the only way change happens. As gay couples in Massachusetts continue to marry and benefit from marriage, their straight friends and neighbors now know exactly what marriage looks like. When they move from Massachusetts to North Carolina, they will be able to explicitly articulate the differences and injustices. If every state waited until the other states were “ready”, I’m not sure equality would ever come.

Evan Wolfson talks about a “critical mass” which must be reached, at which point the US Supreme Court (or Congress) will be compelled to intervene and mandate federal equality. We don’t know what that mass is, but until then, states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and even Maryland must continue pressing forward and encouraging others to walk boldly with them.

In all of that, I truly hope North Carolina is not forgotten. If you need me, let me know and I’ll come down and take a stand with you!

By: sickntired

sickntired — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:23:57 +0000

Nicely put….