is anyone going oct 11 to dc?

March on Washington Called for Oct. 11

Gay rights activist Cleve Jones announced plans on Sunday for a march on Washington to demand full equality for LGBT citizens, reports the Associated Press. The march, scheduled for October 11, will coincide with National Coming Out Day, which falls on a Sunday this year.

"We seek nothing more and nothing less than equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states," Jones said in Salt Lake City, where he served as grand marshal of Utah's pride festival, just blocks from the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid88809.asp
:luke:

I would probably go since DC is only a half hour away.

wish i could but i have a dog, and she doesn't do good in hotels by herself.

Cleve Jones would have been smart to talk to someone before calling for the March.

1 - The Mall in Washington was/is already booked on October 11 for other events.

2 - Congress isn't in session on October 11, therefore no lobbying would be done.

3 - No steering committee representative of the LGBT community had been assembled to put together a list of statements regarding the march.

4 - No one at any major LGBT organizations had been consulted regarding a march.

5 - Summer-October '09 (the length of time to prepare for the event) is a woefully inadequate amount of time to plan for a large-scale event.

6 - The march was called in the middle of a recession when the financial ability of people to travel is more restricted.

7 - The march was called in the middle of a series of state-by-state events (Prop 8 in California, for example. Upcoming proposition in Maine as another) which call for LGBT activism and dollars on a more localized level.


In a nutshell, Jones goofed. What he proposed wasn't a March on Washington (which has never done much for gay rights anyway), but more of a "Woo! Feel the power, man!" type event like the South Park episode when the town was invaded by hippies.

Remember the episode? They all congregated on South Park to "fight the power" and "make a real difference" but didn't actually do anything of any measurable worth except stand around, smoke dope, and listen to music.

Jones' march on Washington would be much the same way. Everyone would show up, walk around a bit, generally do nothing of any measurable worth. Then they'd go home, pat themselves on the back, and fail to donate as much money, time, and effort to local LGBT groups that they might have done otherwise.

Having been to a March on Washington, I can say that they are very fun events to attend, but have little in the way of a real impact on politics. And this March would have even less than usual.

--Aaron

edit: fixed a typo

I was listening to Q109 and they had on the guy that was doing this and he said they all ready talked to the other group that had the mall booked and it’s on for us. As for congress not being in session you are right there but it will make all the newspapers and TV news and that’s just as important. As far as the word not getting out it’s all over every where.
They have been advertising cheap air fairs and hotel rooms to DC, . Personal I feel there should have been marches all over the country like in lower NYC in the middle of the week and close the city down that would have shown the power of gay people. Think to if it happened at the same time in the mid west and west cost.
So it’s important to get out in numbers!

I would think that Congress not being in session would be a good thing.

When in session they're too busy having lunch with lobbyists (i.e., ex-members) in the members dining rooms to be paying attention to anything going on at the mall...

That and the media is covering every other issue and trying to make Obama look good while he works to sabotage any promises he made to his supporters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QueerLust

I would think that Congress not being in session would be a good thing.

When in session they're too busy having lunch with lobbyists (i.e., ex-members) in the members dining rooms to be paying attention to anything going on at the mall...

---

Don't take this personally, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard on these forums. :)

Members of Congress, particularly those in the House, fully understand that they are elected by the people. When their citizens come a callin' they listen. Otherwise they quickly find themselves out of a job.

Much of the entire reason for going to Washington is to lobby Congress. It is an equal branch of government to the presidency, and if President Obama's administration won't take action on our issues then we must pressure Congress to do so.

The people we're there to speak to aren't members like Barney Frank (D-MA) of the world who are on our side. Or members like Steve King (R-IA), who is preparing to run for governor on an anti-gay ticket. We're there to talk to the 100-200 members of Congress who are swing votes. They are potentially our allies but haven't necessarily signed on board. And some are vulnerable in their districts back home, meaning it's our job to let them know they may be out of a job without gay support.

But if Congress has left town for their districts, then it begs the entire question of why we're in Washington in the first place. To affect change you go to where the people are that can cause that change to happen.

In regards to pressuring the White House, the Obama administration has said "we'll get to your issues before we're out of the White House". And ratcheting up the public pressure isn't likely to cause much of a change to that policy.

So here's my question for you -- if we're not in DC to lobby Congress, and if demonstrating near the White House isn't going to be effective, then why are people going to DC?

--Aaron

PS, Barney Frank once said he thought gay marches on Washington were a bad idea. He agreed that they're fun, but pointed out that in politics things that are fun are rarely effective.

A March On Washington is not about one-on-one lobbying. It wasn't for the first one in 1987, and it wouldn't be now.

You don't "march" to lobby, you march for the media exposure. DOH! DOH! DOH! You don't get on the evening news lobbying behind closed doors, you get on the evening news when more than a dozen people assemble outside where cameras can get easy shots.

Cleve Jones is truly one of the smartest activists, since his mentor Harvey Milk.

The only thing that would be smarter than Cleve calling for a March, is if the cute guy who played him in Milk said he'd be there as a body double.

Or if the Milk screenplay author, who has also done porn, was going to be there as a body double...

Quote:

---

You don't "march" to lobby, you march for the media exposure.

---

We're already getting tons of media exposure. In the past six months we've had front page articles in major newspapers about:

• Don't Ask, Don't Tell
• Defense of Marriage Act
• Prop 8 in California
• LGBT anger at Obama's inaction on gay issues
• Barney Frank introducing ENDA in Congress
• LGBT-inclusive hate crime legislation
• Obama's Stonewall-commemoration reception in the White House
• LGBT Democrats boycotting the DNC's gay fundraiser
• Recognition of same-sex marriage in Iowa, Vermont, Main, and New Hampshire
• An openly gay host (Neil Patrick Harris) of the Tony Awards
• American Idol runner-up is rumored to be gay (and later comes out)
• New openly gay member of Congress
• NY about to pass gay marriage until their Senate implodes
• Obama appoints openly gay head of personnel office
• Two lesbians on the initial list of women being considered for Supreme Court seat
• Delaware adds sexual orientation to their state non-discrimination act
• Washington DC recognizes same-sex marriages from other states
• Iceland becomes first country with openly gay head of state
• India strikes down sodomy laws for New Delhi

This isn't even a complete list, either.

While the power of the media cannot be understated, we are already receiving massive coverage of our issues. The March on Washington in 1989 was to promote LGBT visibility. We have that now making it an insufficient reason to hold a march.

--Aaron

Edit: fixed grammatical error

GayGeek
We have to show our lame government that we mean business this time. The only way to do it, it seems to be marching! I remember my brother going to DC to and march against the Vietnam war and then a month or two later my mom and aunt went with mom’s against the war.
By the way you left off uniting families act in your list.

Yah, I left off a few issues on the list that have come to me in the past ten minutes.

• Uniting Families Act (thanks for the tip)
• Defense Secretary Robert Gates starts review to minimize DADT discharges
• Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) reverses stance on same-sex marriage, now supports
• Dick Cheney announces opposition to DADT, supports same-sex marriage
• HIV travel ban policy under review (being ended?)
• John McCain's daughter and campaign manager announce support of same-sex marriage
• Colin Powell calls for review of DADT
• Chastity Bono (now Chase, I think) announces he intends to transition from a woman to a man.

I realize I'm beginning to get fairly specific on some of these, particularly same-sex marriage and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and some of these last updates weren't necessarily on the front pages. But each development, however small or nuanced, is enough to get another round of newspaper articles.

I'll stop replying incessantly to this thread and let others chime in. I believe I have made my point -- the things a march can accomplish we don't need, and the things we need the proposed march won't accomplish.

--Aaron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GayGeek

Don't take this personally, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard on these forums. :)

Members of Congress, particularly those in the House, fully understand that they are elected by the people. When their citizens come a callin' they listen. Otherwise they quickly find themselves out of a job.

Much of the entire reason for going to Washington is to lobby Congress. It is an equal branch of government to the presidency, and if President Obama's administration won't take action on our issues then we must pressure Congress to do so.

The people we're there to speak to aren't members like Barney Frank (D-MA) of the world who are on our side. Or members like Steve King (R-IA), who is preparing to run for governor on an anti-gay ticket. We're there to talk to the 100-200 members of Congress who are swing votes. They are potentially our allies but haven't necessarily signed on board. And some are vulnerable in their districts back home, meaning it's our job to let them know they may be out of a job without gay support.

But if Congress has left town for their districts, then it begs the entire question of why we're in Washington in the first place. To affect change you go to where the people are that can cause that change to happen.

In regards to pressuring the White House, the Obama administration has said "we'll get to your issues before we're out of the White House". And ratcheting up the public pressure isn't likely to cause much of a change to that policy.

So here's my question for you -- if we're not in DC to lobby Congress, and if demonstrating near the White House isn't going to be effective, then why are people going to DC?

--Aaron

PS, Barney Frank once said he thought gay marches on Washington were a bad idea. He agreed that they're fun, but pointed out that in politics things that are fun are rarely effective.

---

I will even bother attacking you for your personal opinion like you felt the need to do to me. I wish to hold onto the belief that this is a serious debate by serious adults.

Congress works for the people? Why are the banks getting trillions of dollars in government assistance (both directly and indirectly) and yet people are still losing their homes? Did you ever stop to think that if taxpayers are covering the losses on bad loans that the banks would have every incentive to modify bad mortgages? The AIG bailout alone covered all losses that Goldman Sachs incurred from the housing bubble. If they were really working for us, they wouldn't have deregulated finance to the point that it was nothing more than a wild orgy based on false numbers and profits. The reality is that they work for big business and have for many years.

If they REALLY worked for us there would be no need to march. They wouldn't have let some of these silly laws go onto the books in the first place.

If you want to play with the big boys, you have to put together a PAC and pay-to-play. That is the only real thing they respond to. It sucks that citizens ever let it get to that point, but it's a reality and we have to play in that sandbox until citizens ban together and demand real systematic change.

We do not elect the Congressman you mention that needs to be swayed. The people in his district elect him. If an anti-gay ticket works for him then it means that his district is mostly anti-gay. Some March on the mall is not going to affect a homophobic voter in Iowa.

Gays are already a minority. Activist gays are an even smaller minority. If needed, politicians can change their tone and language enough to get enough gay votes to not care about the vocal minority. They can then go back on their word just as Obama has done.

And don't even try to defend Obama. HIS justice department compares homosexuality to incest and bestiality. I get that it is his job (and that of executive office departments) to uphold the law until it is changed but it could have been argued differently. When/if he does decide to TRY to change the law, his opposition is just going to throw that filing in his face. Perhaps that is what he is betting on. He sure wasn't comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality when he was asking for gay voters to donate paychecks to his campaign.

Money talks. Gay people need to get their money talking, whether it being Treasury losing 15% of its income or gay-friendly politicians getting flooded with campaign donations. If the latter, then it has to be done in a very visible way so that they can be shamed if they go back on their promises. Obama was a great lesson -- actions (Justice filing) speak louder than words (i.e., promises). The money has to have strings attached.

Gay people, on average, make more than their straight counterpart. This means that the minority has a lot more disposable cash to play with. With this money, 15% of the population can have a lot more influence dollar-to-dollar.

A peaceful march on the mall will most likely be ineffective. What did the Million Man March end up getting black men? Has their social and economic status improved as a whole? No. Some would argue it has declined. If you think it has improved, I encourage you to take a walk in a city like Baltimore or Detroit and talk to some residents about their life. The schools are so ineffective that slinging is about the only way to survive. The point here is that the Million Man March was a HUGE and VERY WELL ORGANIZED march.

Aaron,

And to answer your question as to why people are going to Washington. They are going to Washington because others are going to Washington. We're followers. The influence of the media is proof of that. I am gay and if I end up going its because I am curious, not because I think it will be effective.

Stonewall was not organized, was not a march and was not in Washington D.C. It is, however, considered the turning point. Stonewall wasn't a peaceful demonstration.

You say that it must be done when Congress is in session to influence them, but then go on to say that we need the media coverage.

Does Congress not pay attention to the media when not in session?

If the goal is to get the attention of Congress *AND* the media, then doing it on a slow news day makes the most sense.

The political news is dominated by health care right now. *IF* a march is going to be effective, you want to do it when there are not a ton of issues vying for limited attention.

It would be naive to think that business on the hill is going to come to a standstill because some gays roll into town. It will be business as usual but with a few extra people in town.

Hence my original comment.

I am friends with a congressman's son, two chiefs of staff's for members of the House and an Obama appointee awaiting confirmation (a consequence of living in DC suburbs). I have asked two of these people their thoughts on the idea and I got what is essentially a cyber chuckle via IM. They are gay-friendly and want us to have rights, but they know that this will do nothing to advance the cause with their members. Again, business as usual. As a side note, I have always thought that one of the people I asked is waiting to come out of the closet.

I personally believe that things are starting to turn around because being gay is now considered OK by the majority. Well, I get the vibe that it's sort of OK. It is a shift in public perception. Even some of the Bible thumpers I know have changed their views on homosexuality (but not gay marriage). Laws follow public perception. Let's keep getting out the message that we're EVERYWHERE and that we're normal. It has been working wonders for us.

What really gets me is, when someone says something bad about gay people, or a large company doesn’t support gay rights and helps like prop 8. Gay people still buy what ever they make??????????? I don’t understand that. Is it so hard to stop buying orange juice grown in CALIF.? Is it so hard to not to go skiing in UT?
One to the crazy things that’s going on in New York State is the senate there, and it’s all because of gay marriage in the state. The republics didn’t have time to come up with a plan to fight it, so they destroyed the state government.
You get a congressman like Peter King, who is a big bigot, and I’ve called his office over 5 times to see if he will vote for the uniting families act. They never return phone calls, or e-mails or faxes.
So they only way to get throw to them is take it to the streets and keep the pressure on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ponyboy

One to the crazy things that’s going on in New York State is the senate there, and it’s all because of gay marriage in the state. The republics didn’t have time to come up with a plan to fight it, so they destroyed the state government.

---

Well, that's a bit inaccurate. Everything I read in the New York Times each day on the subject suggests that gay marriage is a tangential issue on the deadlock with the exception of perhaps Senator Diaz, a Democrat and minister from Brooklyn (and vehement anti-gay marriage opponent).

In a nutshell, the split is a transition between the parties. Republicans have controlled the NY Senate for 40 years until this last January. During that time they consolidated large amounts of power for the majority and left the minority out in the cold.

After grabbing a few extra seats last fall on Obama's coattails the Democrats took control in January with a 32-30 majority. Their control almost wasn't, as four Democrats threatened to vote to appoint a Republican leadership in the Senate unless they were given certain concessions. Two of them received plum leadership jobs. A third, Diaz, is rumored to have gotten the Democratic speaker to agree to keep a vote about gay marriage off the floor of the Senate. I'm not sure what happened to the fourth person.

The months went by and the Speaker of the NY Senate said he would only bring up gay marriage for a vote if he was certain he had the votes to win. Gay marriage advocates wanted it to come up for a vote either way. Tom Duane, an openly gay state senator, announced he had the votes to pass the bill but refused to name names. Several Republican senators refused to publicly disclose their position on the bill stating they were protesting Democratic treatment of the Republican minority (which was bad, as the majority gets all the power, remember?) by not assisting the Speaker with his vote count whether the bill would pass or not. Whether it would pass or not no one was sure, and all knew it would be close.

About ten days before the end of the session there was a coup on the floor of the Senate. Two Democrats (Espada and Monserrate) suddenly put a motion on the floor to reconsider the Senate leadership. Stunned Democrats quickly announced the session was over for the day, while Republicans immediately ran down a roll call vote supporting a Republican leadership. Both sides began arguing with each other, journalists ran from all over the building into the Senate chambers, and someone eventually turned off the public access tv channel covering the Senate. Eventually the 30 remaining Democrats walked out of the room turning off the lights behind them.

The next few days were a madhouse. Espada was pronounced the Speaker for the remaining days of the session. Monserrate reconsidered and returned to the Democratic fold. And while Republicans tried to hold sessions in the Senate Chamber, they only had 31 people which was not enough for a quorum and quickly left. At one point both sides were in the chamber together holding separate meetings at the same time. Republicans voted to give the minority significantly more power in the Senate. Democrats mainly gave speeches and took symbolic votes. :catfight:

Now all this would be moot if there was a Lieutenant Governor to cast a tie-breaking vote. Unfortunately, Governor Spitzer in New York had a meeting with an Emperor's Club callgirl and resigned. (Turned out he'd been seeing quite a few of them). The Lt. Gov was promoted and his position remains unfilled.

The situation quickly degenerated into lunacy. Besides the ridiculous mock sessions both sides tried to exercise, both sides went to court (and are still there) to exercise their claim on the Senate. Several judges tossed out various cases pleading with Senate leaders to solve the issue through negotiation. The Democrats dumped their Speaker and appointed a new leader. The Daily News even sent a clown to the Senate building to walk around and get into as many pictures as he could with State Senators giving interviews. :joker:

Eventually the session ended for the summer. The governor began to call them into special session every day including Sundays and holidays. He promised to continue doing so until the two sides negotiated a leadership agreement between them and finished action on several bills before the Senate including the one on gay marriage.

The two sides met in a number of negotiation meetings but were unable to come to an agreement. The Democrats proposed alternating leadership every day and all votes would be agreed upon in advance between a committee with an equal number of people from both parties. The Republicans refused to consider any leadership agreement which did not give them control of the Senate with Espada presiding.

(Incidentally, just a month before the Senate blew up, Republicans were calling for Espada's resignation over an unrelated issue. Once he switched parties the calls ceased.)

As of a few days ago the governor's office was in court seeking to withhold all salaries and expense payments for the Senators. He can't dock their pay under the state constitution, but he hoped to annoy them into negotiating a compromise. Meanwhile, the two sides continue to sit in the capital every day, including weekends and holidays, unable to leave because of the governor's continued calls for a special session.

So gay marriage isn't really the primary issue between the two sides. The real issue they are feuding about is the amount of power the minority in the Senate is entitled to. Northern NY (the Republican area) has been hemorrhaging voters for years. Southern NY and NYC (the Democratic area) has been growing larger and more diverse. Some estimates in the 2010 Census have the Democrats picking up as many as eight seats in the Senate with no reversal of fortune in sight for Republicans.

Incumbent Republican Senators in the NY Senate are also virtually never defeated in elections, although contested races for open seats can sometimes go either way. Half of the Republican Senate is made up of men over 62 years of age, so they won't be there forever.

So Republicans want to give greater power to the minority while they can, as Democrats won't give it voluntarily while they are in control. 40 years of bitterness among Democrats have seen to that. Between changing Demographics in the state and the number of aging NY Republican Senators, Republicans are facing an ongoing exile from power with no end in sight.

That's what the split was about -- power. Not gay marriage. Gay marriage was simply unlucky enough to be caught in the crossfire.

--Aaron

PS, Remember that Senator Diaz previously threatened to vote for a Republican leadership. If gay marriage is passed with the support of Democrats, he may split the party causing further upheval in the Senate.

Stay tuned for details, folks! :)

I live In New York and have been following this. As soon as gay marriage was up for a vote this happened, End of story.

True, but there's also a bill having to do with property taxes before the Senate as well. It's heavily opposed by landlords. There's also an education bill that Mayor Bloomburg of NYC needs passed to do some revisions of the city's school system.

Moral of the story: there are more controversial bills than just gay marriage before the Senate. Gay marriage is the "sexiest" and clearly has the most public interest, but it's not the only issue at hand.

Either way, we're getting a bit off-track of from the March on Washington. My fault, as I posted that... well, let's call it a "historical treatise" on the NY Senate split. :)

--Aaron

if i could find some one to watch my dog I would go!
http://www.usimmigrationwoes.com/