Sotomayor

My queasiness about identity politics has been expressed here before. Because of Obama's pick of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court much discussion is erupting around this issue.

A few points to make quickly:

1. She seems qualified. I know as little about her as most. We will find out more in the weeks ahead. Thus far I have no reason to believe, she, as a sitting Appeals court judge, is not qualified.

2. I do not like identity policies. It is dangerous in the long term, corrosive and misleading. However, the hundreds of white men who have been chosen as justices before benefited as surely from "identity politics" as more recent elevations of members of minority groups. Expressing concern about identity politics does not negate all of our history in which the only "identity" allowed to move through the system was "white" and "male". (and straight. and mostly Christian) Identity politics cuts both ways. If no woman or minority could move through the systems of power then, of course, there was no concerns about "Identity politics". Only one identify was assumed for any given position.

3. The fact that Sotomayor is a Latina is interesting and inspiring - but is of lesser concern than her qualifications - which, as I said above - she seems to have. I'll watch closely along with many others. As we learn more about her the same rules apply as for anyone else. Where her decisions sound and well considered? Are they within the parameters of precedent and our values?

Obama's pick of Sotomayor is compelling. I look forward to learning more and, as always, the arguments. The inefficiency of the U.S. Constitution is its strength. The executive picks and the congress must assent. Those for and against her must now make their cases. I hope they make them fairly and aggressively.

Final note: I am choosing to ignore the far Right megaphone on this pick for now. Their arguments that I've read or heard so far carry the whiff of racism and sexism. Buzz words like "emotional" are the order of the day. Damaged as I still am from the last election, I, unfortunately, can't read this as anything but pointers to make me fear her gender or ethnicity. If proof emerges that she is driven by emotions that is fair game.Conversely the she is "secretly anti-choice" meme on the Left is odd as hell. Why would Obama pick a a covert anti- Roe agent?

I will peruse sane conservatives who make cogent arguments. There is, no doubt, solid arguments against her. It will be a task to hear truth - but Supreme court picks are supremely important.

the next step

The California Supreme Court will release its decision of the constitutionality of Prop 8 at 10am on Tuesday morning. It is widely expected to uphold the proposition and ban gay marriage in California.

Gay rights supporters have planned protests and candlelight vigils up and down the state. There is nothing wrong with this response. But it is time now to get past candles and vigils. Gay marriage is now legal in 4 states and gay marriages are recognized in the District of Columbia. The legal avenue has garnered some success. But this, too, is no longer enough. While this is a legal issue it is not only a legal issue - it is a moral issue as well. Disallowing 10% of the population to participate in a right the other 90% assumes is immoral.

Nonviolent civil disobedience is the next step. The myth of Rosa Parks, a genuine patriot, is that she acted alone. In fact, a large and organized support system backed her up and was galvanized by her brave act of nonviolent civil disobedience. During the Civil rights movement brave people were willing to put their bodies on the line to move the greater population's moral compass.

Gay rights advocates must now be willing to do the same. How would this look? I can not say for certain. But the institutions now enforcing the immoral laws must be put on the front line - nonviolently. In fact, nonviolence must be the animating principle here.

Any violence - even minor incidences - is unacceptable.

Linked here are the requirements for civil ceremonies in California. Gay couples who wish to be married could go to county clerks and request a license - refusing to leave until they are granted. These sit ins should be supported by as many people as possible. All refusing to leave. County clerks offices may well be the Woolworth's counters of this movement.

People will be dragged away. It will be ugly. Nonviolence training is a must.

Another important point here is this: Churches must be avoided. This issue has nothing to do with any one institution's beliefs. It is an issue of legally recognized basic rights by the state. If the Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, or any other denomination or religion will not or feel they can not recognize same sex marriages that is their right and must be respected. Gay Marriage rights advocates would be wise to stop arguing religion entirely. However, if churches such as the Mormons finance campaigns against gay marriage their histories are fair game.

Where else nonviolent disobedience is appropriate will become clearer. It may be clear now to those more involved with this movement than I. What is absolutely clear to me is the need to claim the moral high ground. Gay rights advocates already own it. But it must be claimed in order for the rest of the sympathetic but disinterested population to get on board. This is not even about gay people being treated as equal. It is about what is right for a representative, diverse democracy.

Tradition is not an argument. Slavery is a traditional institution in human history. It is also wrong.

What is best for child rearing is not an argument. There is no evidence that heterosexual couples raise children better than homosexual couples. By this thinking "straight" couples who cannot or have no desire to have children should then be banned from getting married as well.

What the "majority" desires is not an argument. Civil rights are not conferred upon minorities by the majority. If this were the case many hotels would still have signs declaring "No colored or Jews allowed."

Finally the word "marriage" cannot be compromised on...unless heterosexual couples married by the state are willing to accept calling their binding commitment a "civil union". It is important to note that those in favor of "civil unions" for gays but not full marriage rights are the judicial activists on this point. They want to carve out a special class instead of accepting simple equality for all. Marriage rights are conservative in nature. Marriage solidifies a society.

And let's not pull any punches here. Much of the gay community is immature - with men in particular. All oppressed minorities evolve defensive survival mechanisms. Ghettos for gay men evolved and stereotypes emerged from these communities and about these communities. There are nuggets of truth in these stereotypes. With many gay men there is a flipness and self hating secretiveness about sex. Crystal meth addiction hammered gay men living through a holocaust in the 80s and 90s - it also aided in the spread of this plague. However, within this community there is also an understanding that marriage rights are an important milestone for gay men. It is part of growing up.

How oppression and self hatred expresses itself among lesbians is outside my experience. I won't comment on it - except to say that struggles of lesbian women in this society are no less real and no less painful because straight men - who hold the power - find them less of a threat to their manhood.

California is one state. However, in many ways it is a nation-state. Creating a group of literally millions of second class citizens is unacceptable and immoral for this state and the entire nation.

The Civil Rights movement of 50s and 60s shows the way. On Tuesday at 10:01 AM it will be time to take the next step.