PETER THE SAINT: Along with some others, I have questioned the wisdom of placing all of the LGBT movement’s eggs in one Democrat policitcal basket. A democratic socialist and one of only a handful of New Leftists who supported LGBT rights, I have no objection to the establishment of a third party in principle.
But US is not a parliamentary democracy and past similar efforts have failed.
TIM: It might also be wise poltical strategy to reach out to Republicans not only for this effort but for future ones on behalf of LGBT a/w/a other groups. Historically, parties have not avoided what they believe will be favorable outcomes in order to protect dissenters within their own party. Contrary to inaccurate extrapolations from the Kinsey study, Lesbians and Gays comprise only 3% of the population which would not be enough to determine most election outcomes. One-quarter of Lesbians and Gays vote Republican and one-quarter more would also do so were they not single issue voters when it comes to L&G rights (if Bisexuals were included, the numbers would be much larger, but Bi’s are discriminated against in the so-called LGbt rights movement. Furthermore, virtually all Bi’s and Trans along with most Black, Latino and Asian L&G as well as the majority of state LGBT organizations do not believe SSM should be the primary movement issue.
BRUCE IN MISSOURI: You are correct in stating that the “marriage only” strategy has been a dismal failure. In every jurisdicition in which domestic partnership has has been the issue, we have been successful. The original architects of spousal rights for L&G (from 30 years ago) oppose a “marriage only” strategy. Harvard Law Professor William Eskridge, the dean of gay rights law, has adovcated a civil unions strategy for both practical as well as legal reasons.
EL DORADO: I agree with you on all points. Nate Silver, a NYT statistician who is Gay, estimates that same sex marriage will be won on a stated-by-state basis in 20 years. The feminist movement is still fighting a culture war over the abortion issue 35 years after Roe v. Wade. CUNY Government Professor Dan Pinello, a SSM advocate, did a study after the Prop 8 campaign which showed that “coming out” is not a factor in voting on such issues. We need a new strategy.
KAT: I have worked in several successful political campaigns to elect radical-liberal officials in my home state of New York. But most of my poltical work has taken place outside of electoral politics which means I do not have to be an apologist for any party and can afford to be an absolutist. However, the twin pillars of electoral politics are compromise and incrementalism — in all things. Though not trans, I have been advocating for trans rights since Stonewall and during my time at the Task Force which was notoriously trans and bi phobic during the 1970′s and 1980′s. Not much has changed in those regards since.

Apparently, in P.G. County, finding pro-marriage equality delegates is not enough. We need to find candidates that are smart enough to understand the legislative process and what civil rights are and that just because you have a homophobic majority who want to Christian-ize the entire State of Maryland as your constituents does not mean that you vote that way. Can you imagine someone explaining 60 years ago as Delegate Alston has today that “Well, I’m for the right of blacks to be able to go to the same schools, but I have to stay where my redneck racist constituents are and they just aren’t into desegregation. So wait for the courts to help you.”

We need to replace Emmett Burns just as an act of spite.

“Has Equality Maryland considered passing a “marriage in everything but the name” bill first, and then go for full marriage equality later?”

No, ‘Equality’ Maryland only believes in so-called incremental progress for trans people.

It may take a generation or two more before a majority supports marriage equality. It will happen but not as fast as we would like it. Some of us may need walkers to walk down the aisle by then and that’s sad!

Has Equality Maryland considered passing a “marriage in everything but the name” bill first, and then go for full marriage equality later? How many of the Democratic delegates that were named might be willing to vote for a “marriage in everything but the name” bill now?