Saturday, August 11, 2007

MassEquality Can't Be Done

I'm a little late in getting to this, but sadly 1913 wasn't included in Bay Window's July 25th article on where MassEquality is going. In fact, it almost sounds as if Marc Solomon thinks we're done here:

“MassEquality is such a huge effort that the only way to really capture what it can be, what it should be and whether it should be, is to have a serious process,” said Solomon.
In that vein, Solomon's hired a consultant to study where MassEquality should go or even if the organization should still exist. They didn't need to hire anyone, I could have told them what to do for free. As MassEquality claims to be an organization that's looking out for the interest of all equality in Massachusetts, one would think there's still a lot of work to do yet. So far, it seems like MassEquality's only focused on bringing its methods to other states and helping those who switched their votes at the ConCon - both worthy efforts. However, as was noted in the article, Massachusetts has a long way to go on transgendered rights - and we need a visible and loud campaign to help get their protections passed now. Furthermore, how can MassEquality not even be talking about 1913 in such an article? We need to raise hell; marriage equality doesn't exist until 1913 is wiped off the books.

Marc Solomon, MassEquality and everyone who participated in protecting marriage equality did a tremendous job this summer. We cannot and will not forget all of their efforts. Furthermore, we cannot and will not blame them for being tired of fighting the good fight; it's been a long journey. However, equal rights is a battle of attrition: we will lose if we don't keep going. With our detractors on the run, we are so close to obtaining all of the equalities we've realized, as a society, are needed in this day and age. However, without some key institutional support, such as that of MassEquality, realizing true equality will take much longer than necessary. If the leaders of MassEquality are unwilling to keep up the fight - or unwilling to focus on the dire changes Massachusetts must make - other people are ready to take over. Just hand over the keys.


Anonymous said...

Marriage equality will not be a reality until the ability of all consenting adults to enter into a marriage arrangement of their choice is legal. So until polygamy is legalized, we're not done. Or now that the gays have it, you don't care about another minority that inconvienently has the same issue.

Ryan Adams said...

Honestly, I don't know where I'm at on that issue. However, there are some differences. First, polygamy in America has been historically one of many women and one man, where the dynamics are inherently unequal for the women partaking in the marriage. Furthermore, often times the women have been very young before entering in the relationship. That said, I've heard people on both sides of that issue make compelling cases using the facts and reason, so - like I've said - I really don't know where I am on it. But, that doesn't change the fact that there are important differences between the two.

Anonymous said...

If they're consenting I don't know how their situation can be viewed differently. Also we should get rid of the gender bias that women need protection from the state, because they can't make up their own mind about marriage.

Anonymous said...

Please, that's ridiculous. It's hard to "make up your own mind" when you're being sold to an 80 year old man as a 9 year old and kept in virtual slavery, separated from the rest of society, sexually abused.

Sure, that's not the kind of arrangement you're talking about. Well, lucky for you, polygamy is already legal. There's nothing stopping a bunch of consenting adults from living together. So? If you're looking for the right, say, to cover your 12 wives on your health insurance, you should probably consern yourself more with a "benefits for all" strategy, because I can't see people who live with sick relatives but can't cover them on their insurance, or single mothers who are platonic friends but can't cover each other or their kids on their insurance even though they've lived under the same roof for years getting all upset about how unfair your situation is just because you have that magic combination of sexual relationships you want recognition for. Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination, so long as two member married heterosexual couples are given access to all kinds of benefits. Not granting benefits to 3rd and 4th and 67th spouces is just the same sucky deal that everyone who lives with a bunch of other people has to deal with, no special discrimination there.

About Ryan's Take