RE: Replying To Charlie was Re: [Marxism] Cockburn on the elections

["Charlie Parks" <jcparks5550@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that Cockburn's characterization of marriage rights as a "sidestep
on freedom's path" for gay equality trivializes the issue in a very crude
way, and I didn't mean to suggest that this position was acceptable even as
a joke, rather that it wasn't quite as bad as his more recent suggestion
that pro-gay marriage Democrats like Gavin Newsome were to blame for the
Dems electoral defeat. When I first read this Counterpunch article when it
came out in shorter form in The Nation, I was just as appalled as you were,
Gary, and I think it shows Cockburn sinking to a level of philistine crudity
equalled only by his infamous suggestion that Ward Churchill should pipe
down about Native American genocide because modern day indians are now able
reap the profits of casino gambling (a position that is wrong in so many
ways one scarcely knows where to begin).

In any case, Cockburn should know damned well that the problem lay not in
the Dems' association with the issue but rather in the Republicans' ability
to make the most of the the Midwestern and Southern voters' reaction to the
issue, availing themselves of ballot referenda in on gay marriage in 10
states to get as many conservative Christians to the polls as possible. The
Democrats' advocacy of gay marriage rights, even among the Democrats who
actually favor it, has so far been hopelessly pusillanimous, when it is
actually a fairly simple civil rights issue. The way to fight reactionary
state referenda on issues affecting minority civil rights is to argue
precisely against the referendum as a wholly inappropriate and undemocratic
means of deciding issues affecting the rights of minorities, and to argue
for the role of the state (whether through the federal or state judiciaries
or whatever) in protecting minority civil rights. Specifically, the
Christian Right's frequent charge of "judicial tyranny" on this issue (as in
the case decided by the Massachussetts supreme court) could easily be
refuted by the familiar argument about the essential role the judiciary has
played (however relunctantly, and even then only in response to mass
movements) in protecting minority civil rights.  One could hardly be taken
seriously today by arguing that the Supreme Court was being "judicially
tyrannical" in reaching its decision to desegregate schools in 1954, even if
it contravened the opinion of the white majority in the South(and it
essentially did). This is not a radical position; it could easily be
articulated by the most mainstream of Democrats on the issue of gay
marriage.

These folks, however, as on so many other things, are simply too afraid to
take a strong and principled stand on the issue, and as a result the
Christian Right's scurrilous charge of judicial tyranny has gone shamefully
unanswered in public debates. Besides (to return to Cockburn), Nader,
Cockburn's favored candidate, was unequivocally in favor of gay marriage
rights, so one wonders why he's making an issue of it at all.--CP



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism