OUR
WORK
TO
eliminate
discrimination
against
same-sex
couples
in
the
institution
of
marriage
will
take
years,
perhaps
decades.
With
this
in
mind,
a
group
of
activists
in
the
Bay
Area
have
worked
to
create
a
Web
site
intended
to
support
direct
action
and
non-violent
civil
disobedience
related
to
marriage
equality
and
to
serve
as
a
focal
point
for
thoughtful,
critical
analysis.
On
this
site,
we
hope
to
post
reflections,
analyses,
activist
reports,
tips,
and
personal
critiques
of
the
strategies
and
rhetoric.
Please
visit
www.perfectunion.net
and
join
in
the
dialogue.
I’ve
developed
three
specific
concerns
that
I
hope
organizers
will
consider
as
they
go
forward
in
their
work:
Concern
No.
1:
The
strategic
focus
on
love
and
romance
in
our
campaigns
must
be
balanced
with
a
focus
on
liberty
and
full
and
equal
participation
in
the
institutions
of
democracy.
It
is
essential
that
we
reach
regular
people
and
speak
to
them
using
issues
and
symbols
with
which
they
can
relate.
The
repeated
focus
on
love,
romance,
family
and
children
goes
a
long
way
toward
allowing
the
broader
populace
to
relate
to
the
issue
of
same-sex
marriage.
At
the
same
time,
this
issue
involves
the
right
of
all
people
to
participate
in
the
institutions
of
a
democracy,
as
well
as
equal
protection,
civil
rights
and
basic
concepts
of
liberty.
At
all
rallies
and
events
related
to
marriage
equality,
we
should
rotate
speakers
focused
on
love
and
romance
with
speakers
who
emphasize
democracy
and
civil
rights.
We
must
be
aware
that
our
focus
on
love,
romance
and
“coupledom”
may
alienate
some
potential
supporters
—
queer
and
non-queer
—
who
are
single
and
find
the
rhetoric
and
symbolism
to
be
smarmy,
uncritical
and
offensive.
Concern
No.
2:
Racial
diversity
in
the
fight
to
democratize
marriage
must
be
addressed
seriously
and
immediately.
With
the
possibility
of
voter
initiatives
throughout
the
country
(including
Massachusetts),
the
face
of
the
marriage
movement
must
be
not
be
solely
a
white
face.
Media
and
activist
campaigns
must
self-consciously
avoid
a
narrow
focus
on
white
voters.
Marriage
equality
rallies
must
feature
prominently
speakers
who
are
visibly
identifiable
as
people
of
color.
The
elected
officials,
community
leaders
and
married
same-sex
couples
who
crowd
the
stage
—
and
appear
on
television
news
programs
and
in
newspaper
photos
—
should
be
racially
diverse.
Resources
must
be
directed
immediately
to
the
creation
of
specific
organizing
efforts
among
African
Americans,
Latinos,
Asian-Pacific
Americans,
and
Native
Americans.
We
may
need
one
mainstream
campaign
that
is
visibly
multiracial,
but
we
need
additional
targeted
campaigns
that
are
specifically
organized
by
and
for
communities
of
color.
Concern
No.
3:
The
repeated
refrain
of
“We
all
deserve
the
freedom
to
marry”
is
problematic
politically
and
philosophically
and
should
be
reconsidered.
One
lesbian
couple
was
featured
on
a
news
program
saying,
“We’ve
been
together
15
years.
I’m
a
doctor,
and
my
partner
is
a
school
teacher.
If
this
hasn’t
earned
us
the
right
to
be
married,
what
else
could
we
do?”
Promoting
the
idea
that
civil
rights
and
participation
in
the
institutions
of
democracy
should
be
granted
to
“deserving”
or
“meritorious”
people
plays
into
the
conservative
strategy
of
shifting
civil
rights
from
universal
entitlements
linked
to
citizenship
or
residency
to
rewards
that
are
delivered
to
only
the
“deserving.”
They’ve
deployed
this
strategy
against
people
of
color
on
affirmative
action,
bilingual
education
and
voting
rights,
and
queer
activists
should
refuse
to
replicate
this
profound
reframing
of
civil
rights.
