In 2004, beat the amendment.

IN 2004, BEAT THE "ANTI-MARRIAGE AMENDMENT"

When outgoing SF Mayor Willie Brown spoke on KQED-FM, Jan. 6, I sent in a question by email, asking:
Which Democrat has the best chance of beating Bush in November?

His answer boiled down to this: None of them, even if they ran as a pack.

Alas, Bush has a natural gift for campaigning, which he does nonstop. His 2004 race began around 20 January 2001, when he was sworn in for his first term. I fear that this Bush, unlike his dad, will get a second term.

So what?

To me, this means that queers might as well give first priority, during 2004, to defeating the proposed anti-marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We may be able to stop it in Congress (where it needs approval by two-thirds of each chamber). If not, we'll need to block it in 99 separate legislative chambers (that's one in Nebraska, plus two in each of the other 49 states).

Luckily for us, and for the U.S. Constitution itself, it's easier to stop a federal amendment than to ratify one. Rightwing anti-feminists proved this, circa 1972-82, by blocking the Equal Rights Amendment, even though polls showed support by national majorities of men and of women.

In a struggle against a federal amendment, a strongly motivated minority CAN win. That's why so few federal amendments (a mere 17) have passed since we adopted our Bill of Rights in 1791. Indeed, no truly controversial amendment has been ratified since 1933.

What will count here won't be the size of the dog in the fight, but the amount of fight in the dog.

Freedom until death!
Tortuga Bi Liberty