How Great People Can Have Bad Ideas

Before I hit the sack last night, I promised to hit on the subject of Arline Isaacson's public support of not continuing to support a robust, active MassEquality. Instead, she'd like the organization to become inactive - reduced to just a single person who can keep track of the important news, presumably keeping at the ready in case marriage equality is ever threatened in Massachusetts again.

Of course, that's short sighted. By the time that happens, perhaps in the form of a federal amendment, it could be too late. Waiting and doing nothing has never been a particularly great option in the history of battles for civil rights. Continuing to push the envelope and advance rights inch by inch has, interestingly enough, been a recipe for success. Who wants to wait for marriage equality to be threatened, when we could be spending that time protecting all glbt people - at least by giving them the same sort of basic protections and equalities every other American enjoys.

The sad thing here is Isaacson's recognized the key fact surrounding glbt rights in Massachusetts: we've now fought the biggest battle, the one that caused the bells to chime across the state and sent people like Marc Solomon riding horseback screaming "the bigots are coming." Just listen to Isaacson's own words.

In an Oct. 22 State House News Service article, Isaacson called marriage a "white hot issue" that united the state’s LGBT organizations and said, "We will never, ever again rise to that level."

Out of that storm, MassEquality grew and became the go-to organization for gay rights lobbying in the state. They grew trust and relationships with both legislators and constituents that, as Isaacson correctly noted, may never be formed again. And she wants to shut the organization down?

There's a simple truth to life - it's easier to build off a foundation than from scratch. MassEquality's directions and mandates may need change after we successfully defended marriage equality in Massachusetts, but that doesn't mean its job is over. Now, we need to use MassEquality as a strong foundation to use for any number of other important issues, especially those that will require work done at Beacon Hill. Take away MassEquality and glbt people in Massachusetts will need another state-wide, glbt-rights organization, but this time it'll have to be built from scratch. This time, all those relationships now lost will have to be rebuilt. Yet, the new organization could never reproduce the same sort of energy, buzz and focus that existed since Goodridge - and thus, it would be much harder for it to ever become nearly as successful as MassEquality.

Thankfully, Arline Isaacson isn't the only talented woman with ideas on what MassEquality should do. Susan Ryan-Vollmer, editor of Bay Windows, luckily has a thing or two to say. Instead of allowing MassEquality to die, it should take on an expanded role in the GLBT community, fighting for more than just marriage equality. She brings up two great models for MassEquality: Empire Pride State Agenda (ESPA) and EqualityCalifornia. ESPA has used its legislative influence to help deliver millions of dollars to worthy, non-profit glbt organizations that clearly need it. They've shown that no smaller organization should fear the existence of a broad-based MassEquality, because such an organization could end up making all glbt organizations stronger and more successful.

EqualityCalifornia, on the other hand, has been very successful in getting dozens of laws and protections passed and signed by none other than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. With things like 1913 still kicking around, along with a severe lack of protections in the Bay State for transgender people, MassEquality has a lot to learn from its Californian sister. Whatever MassEquality becomes, we'll all know soon: November 3rd is the date they'll decide. Let's hope they ignore Isaacson's suggestions and embrace everything Ryan-Vollmar has to say.

MassEquality's Future: Beyond Rediculous

It's beyond rediculous that people even have to read about MassEquality's future. Isn't the answer obvious? Unless Massachusetts suddenly and quietly reached full equality over the past 24 hours and I missed it, paying too much attention to the World Series, this discussion should be over: glbt people need help, let's do what's necessary to help them. Yet, I was perusing boston.com before I went to bed - and what do I read? Globe staff-writer Lisa Wangsness's article about MassEquality's future in yesterday's paper.

There isn't much in it that I didn't explore in my LeftAhead chat weeks ago with MassEquality's Executive Director, Marc Solomon. However, there's one annoying hiccup that's putting MassEquality's future at stake (and, by extension, glbt people across Massachusetts). Apparently, some MassEquality board members who also represent other glbt organizations are afraid (jealous?) of MassEquality working on a broader scope of issues - you know, their pet issues. I could rant about that line of thought for ages, but I'll keep it short: it's petty, stupid and will prevent key members of the movement from gaining important rights. Brilliant!

If GLBT organizations in Massachusetts are worried about having more than one non-profit working on similar issues, fine. While I think that's beyond silly (ever hear of the expression, 'don't put all your eggs in one basket?'), I can live with it. However, we have a MassEquality brand name that's become incredibly credible within Beacon Hill politics. They're able to get people into every legislator's office with plenty of stories, putting a human face to issues that matter. MassEquality can raise the cash necessary to run expensive, state-wide campaigns. In short, MassEquality can do things that literally no other state-wide glbt organization can do - and there are board members that want to kill it? Talk about shooting your own feet.

Let's get rational. There are lots of other great glbt organizations out there that can do different things that MassEquality perhaps shouldn't get involved in, but no organization (perhaps even outside of glbt politics) is better at doing what MassEquality clearly excels at in the Bay State: lobbying for civil rights. Doesn't it make sense to keep MassEquality around to work on legislative issues - to be the unofficial go-to guys when we need to lobby on important glbt rights and bills? MassEquality built relationships that will last. They know who to talk to. People can't buy that kind of expertise; it takes time and energy that may never be reproduced on glbt issues again (what else will galvanize the community in Massachusetts like marriage equality did?). At the very least, MassEquality can help other organizations help themselves by showing them the legislative ropes and working with other organizations as allies.

Smaller organizations need not concern themselves about stepping on each other's feet. It almost sounds like they're worried about a wide stance. They should open up their bathroom stalls and realize that we need more organizations demanding all of the protections necessary to bring us to equality, not less or the same. In other states across the country, large, state-wide organizations excel at working together with smaller, sister and brother non-profits, helping them succeed in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps Massachusetts is different - more petty, divisive, uncooperative, afraid and jealous? That certainly sounds like Beacon Hill.

The status quo clearly isn't working beyond marriage equality. Trying to push aside the one organization that was more successful in changing our status than any other in this state would be a severe waste of time, counterproductive and unacceptable to the tens of thousands that are counting on equal rights and protections. MassEquality's role may be different in the future, but the glbt movement inside Massachusetts can't afford to live without them, at least on Beacon Hill.

There's plenty more on this issue that I'll tackle later in the day, especially Arline Isaacson's role in all of this (sadly, her view doesn't jive with mine), as well as Susan Ryan-Vollmer's excellent open letter to the MassEquality Board, illustrating just how MassEquality and all of the state's glbt organizations could work together and achieve widespread results that would otherwise be improbable, at best. However, that'll have to wait until the morning.