Socialist Party and is committed to a Bill Clinton's "defense" of marriage strategy of lobbying.
On this crucial issue it made only moderate criticism of the socialists and became a hostage of its political relationship with the government party. They failed to mobilize people to demonstrate for their rights even though this would have been possible and might have forced the government to make concessions.
At the same time, they always present themselves as a non-political organization, in the hope of recruiting as many people as possible. Because of their fear of politics, which they confuse with political parties, they were afraid of identifying the right wing parties as their adversaries, preferring to try to persuade them. They didn't even answer the church's provocation, because they were afraid of offending what is still a very Catholic society.
This strategy undercut the real possibility that existed to bring many people into activity on this issue. On the other hand it did have one positive side effect: the lobbying strategy lost its credibility among a whole layer of people.
Many gays and lesbians understood the necessity to go further and organise serious action. The movement has nothing to expect from the main political parties unless we force them to concede our demands by mobilising.
This episode is the best argument to undercut the reformist tendencies leading the queer movement and force them to act more seriously to demand radical change. It will create a better relationship of forces in future struggles among the different currents. The lack of democracy and imagination in the small gay and lesbian movement is being replaced by a new atmosphere of debate and action. * The author is a member of the PSR, Portuguese section of the Fourth International. 28 International Viewpoint #308 February 1999
The lesbian/gay/bisexual movement in the US is hardly strong enough to make legal recognition of same-sex relationships into a national issue Same-sex sex is still illegal in 19 of the country's 50 states, and in the colony of Puerto Rico.
A small minority of the states (and a number of major cities) have passed anti-discrimination laws. But it will be many years before we see the approval of a federal anti-discri-
The brutal murder of gay student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming last year revealed the depth of anti-gay hatred and violence that still exists in much of the US.
Who would expect in such circumstances that 'gay marriage' would be seriously debated?
But the country's enormous size and diversity can always make for surprises. The fact that each state has its own constitution and bill of rights also creates many possibili-
In this case the surprise came from Hawaii, an island state in the Pacific thousands of kilometres from the US mainland. Whites are a minority (they overthrew the indigenous Polynesian monarchy a century ago) and the social climate is more tolerant than the US norm.
Two years ago, the state's supreme court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marrying was contrary to the state constitution. Efforts in the state legislature to overturn the court decision failed.
The ruling set off a wave of revulsion and panic in the US fundamentalist right. A clause in the federal constitution requires states to give "full faith and credit' to all of each others' legal pronouncements.
Hawaii is already a popular vacation and honeymoon spot, and conservatives had nightmares about thousands of lesbian and gay couples flying to Hawaii to get married, and returning home with unassailable marital rights.
The reaction came quickly. A Defense of Marriage Act was rushed through the federal congress, declaring that marriage means male-female marriage and that no state law to the contrary need be
Despite its dubious constitutionality the law was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress, with the support of not only traditionally anti-gay Republicans but also supposedly pro-gay rights Democrats. Similar legislation was already in force in Puerto Rico
In November 1998 a referendum in Hawaii reversed the state court's decision, and barred the possibility of same-sex marriage even in that
President Clinton's empty support for gay rights was made clear early in his first term when he accepted a compromise which gutted his pledge to allow lesbians and gays to serve in the military. No surprise, then, that he gave early support to the Defense of Marriage Act, and signed it without hesitation. [PD] *
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
United States