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.
Bookmarks