Governments are not Businesses

Every day we get to suffer as we watch the political back-and-forth. During election season it just gets worse. In this week's version of the game...

Hillary stands in front of (the former) Trump Casino and criticizes Trump's bankruptcy, saying "he'll do the same thing to America"...i.e., default on debts and screw over the working class.

She's right, but in a way which is much more complicated than the simple optics of the campaign stop.

The Donald retorts that "This is what many elite businessmen do", suggesting that it shows how clever he is, and what a good businessman he is.

He's right, depending on how you define "good businessman". He clearly means the businessman who is able to acquire the most value for himself and his investors. Isn't that an irony? The working man's hero is the guy perfectly willing to screw the common man.

At its heart, this points to one of the biggest problems with a Trump candidacy (or heaven help us, presidency). Because here's the thing.....

Governments are not businesses. And anyone who thinks governments should be run like businesses has no place being a public servant. There are some practices which are of value to both:

• Don't be wasteful. That's a value which has a place in the Pentagon and at Ford Motor Company.

• Build employee loyalty/morale. It's always easier to keep an employee, than hire a new one. This is true whether you are in the Department of Education or Google, Inc.

• Give great customer service. This is how you build brand loyalty whether you are Delta or Amtrak. (For irony's sake I was going to use Comcast as my example, but I didn't want to lose you here).

The difference is in what the GOAL of those practices are.

In the corporate world, the goal is to improve the bottom line. Your company may have great values and do great things for the community. In order to do that the company has to have a healthy bottom line.

In the world of government the reason is to not waste taxpayer money so that you can provide the services which a government is supposed to provide for its citizens.

We can argue about what constitutes the services a government provides. Does protecting our citizens include an invasion of Vietnam? Do we provide health care for everyone? Should we spend $400 billion on the F-35? These are all valid policy questions. But none of them are remotely like the policy questions of "running a business".

This is also a big reason why privatizing the valid responsibilities of government is always a bad idea. If your business is educating children you will probably have a nice mission statement about education. But your function is to make money. The mission and function are at odds. As a society we agree on the necessity of an educated populace. And while we want to do that in an economically responsible way, the point is not to make money. The point is to make educated children.

This is also why we should spend billions on infrastructure. Having a great infrastructure keeps our country economically (and yes, militarily) strong. When we spend money on good roads, businesses do better, citizens do better, and we have the added benefit of pumping money into the economy in a way which helps the middle class. We build roads, airports, train stations, bus rapid transit, locks, and levees for the greater good...not to enrich a specific company or person.

To bring it back to Mr. Trump, declaring bankruptcy to restructure debt may, indeed, make him a good businessman. But his ability to enrich himself and his investors has little-to-no relevance to the ability to run the the Executive Branch of the United States of America. In fact, it argues against him.

The refrain is a common one, "Hire me as your [governor, president, senator] because I know business, and we need a businessman running [this state, this country, this congress]". Here in Michigan we see what an abject failure that has been with Rick Snyder. His government-as-business have decimated social programs. His policies are destroying our schools and our infrastructure (just ask the residents of Flint).

Strip away Trump's business successes and you are left with a narcissist with no real understanding of our constitution. You are left with demagoguery of the worst form, playing on our weaknesses of racism, xeonphobia, and islamophobia. I want a leader who encourages what makes us strongest as a nation, celebrating our diversity, and welcoming the world's tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free.

By the way, for my blog on immigration: https://speakaut.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-dog-and-immigration.html

Run, Bernie, Run!

Why should Bernie keep running? I can think of three good reasons. Perhaps you have others. He could still win the nomination. At this point it's a long shot. But stranger things have happened. The role of super delegates is a little wacky, and worthy of a post all by itself. Suffice it to say, the super delegates will not determine the outcome. If Bernie were to actually run the table in the latter half and overtake Hillary, be assured that there would be significant migration of super delegates. (Then why have them, you ask? Good question. Different post.) Bernie's presence keeps Hillary's message closer to the heart and soul of the democratic party A Bernie nomination is definitely a long shot. Even with Bernie victories, Hillary will keep picking up a share of delegates, and the math is looking bad for Bernie. There is lots of chatter for Bernie supporters to get in line with the nominee-apparent, Hillary. Stuff and nonsense. Even if it was beyond a long shot (and it may be in a few weeks) I'm happy to see the insurgent go all the way to the convention. I wish Howard Dean had done so in 2004. Howard dropped out as it became apparent that Kerry would be the nominee. He did so in the name of party unity. But it also meant that Kerry started triangulating early towards the general election. And his campaign started sounding downright republican. I was proud to be a Howard Dean delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2004. That meant I got to hear Obama's inspirational keynote address in person...the address which set him on the path to the presidency. Amidst that brilliant rhetoric, Kerry painted himself as a war hero. And he was a war hero. But more important, he came home from Vietnam and became an anti-war activist. The campaign downplayed that side of him. Kerry had true liberal credentials. He was the only senator up for reelection who voted against DOMA. But you didn't hear about that from the campaign. It is a road which Hillary could go down very easily. It would be a big mistake. Hillary's politics don't entirely align with mine. She is more hawkish than I am. Her past history with incarceration and the death penalty are definitely to the right of my views. She also has true liberal credentials. She has a long history of fighting for health care, women's rights, minority rights, children's health and safety, and more. If we are to win in November, we must win by staying true to our core values. In the words of Harry S Truman,
"Given the choice between a real republican and someone who acts like a republican, people will vote for the real republican all the time." Even as the math becomes more and more difficult, stay in there fighting for your guy as long as he is fighting the good fight. As you fight that good fight, please do so in the manner of your candidate. Fight on the issues with civility. Though Bernie's rhetoric has gotten tougher, he still treats his opponent with respect. Hillary is not evil. Bernie has never called her evil. You shouldn't either. The "Evil Hillary" trope buys in to 25 years of right wing Hillary-bashing. The latest is a kinda clever Lord of the Rings bit (I've seen two versions of it) which paint Bernie as Frodo and Hillary as Saruman. It's clever and amusing, but ultimately its a false analogy. (Though I might be able to buy into the idea of Trump as Sauron). If you want an exhaustive breakdown of the analogy, check this out at Blue Virginia Blog. We need progressives at every level of government, from alderman to senator Bernie's political revolution is not going to happen from the top down. If we can keep the progressive fire aflame, perhaps we can change the political narrative. Bernie's political revolution includes regulating Wall Street and overturning Citizens United. That won't happen without a friendly congress. If a future President Clinton nominates....let's say...Barack Obama for the Supreme Court (I can dream) you KNOW that the current Senate won't confirm him. If a future President Sanders calls for legislation to break up the big banks, this Congress will send that bill to a committee to die. Bernie is succeeding in ways no one imagined ten months ago. Typically, candidates who count on expanding the voter base as a means to victory are disappointed by their enthusiastic base, many of whom never bother to vote. In caucus states, Michigan, and a handful of other primaries these folks have defied tradition and actually gone out to vote. Let's hope that it is the beginning of a lifelong habit for these new voters. We know they'll come out and vote if Bernie is the nominee, but what if its Hillary? For the sake of a progressive congress, and state houses which can reverse outrageous gerrymandering, let's hope so. Bernie supporters, you are dreamers. We need dreamers. Keep the dream alive. And please, dream with your eyes wide open.

A Little Collective Wedding Memory

Happy Anniversary to my husband, Martin. I'll have to tell him that some other way, as he doesn't read my blog.

It is not just our wedding anniversary. Over 320 couples were married on this day, two years ago. , Judge Friedman opened a window of Marriage Equality in Michigan, thanks to the first big victory in the DeBoer v Snyder case. That window lasted a bit less than 24 hours. The DeBoer v Snyder case was combined with three others, went to the Supreme Court, and ultimately won Marriage Equality across the U.S.

There are lots of wedding pics being shared on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter today.

To many people, weddings are about big extravagant events planned for years.

The "planning" for ours (and I don't mean Martin and I...I use a very big collective "ours") goes back to Evan Wolfson's pioneering work on Freedom to Marry, and many years of activism, and many disappointments. It goes back to April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse fighting for their kids, and a community full of people supporting their fight. And it culminated in Judge Friedman issuing a judgement full of empathy for the humanity of our community and scathing to a government preventing us from recognizing our relationships.

These pictures have people in jeans and jackets, as we had to wait for the doors to open on a cool spring day. They are pictures from a conference room in a county building, as we all had to move quickly before another part of the judicial system would slam the door on us.

We were surrounded by friends...but rarely family. Sometimes it was because our families shun us. But even those of us who had supportive family could not get them here quickly enough, whether across the state, across the US, or even around the globe.

These pictures which are being posted are not traditional wedding pictures. There is no wedding photographer, only friends with cellphones. Our wedding flowers were brought to us by friends like Kristin Schrader who realized, "It's a wedding. People will need flowers", and handing them out to whoever needed them.

Instead of a big wedding reception with an open bar we had Kevin Sharp stand outside the county building with coffee, keeping people warm and awake (many of whom had been waiting in line since before sunrise). Kevin and (his now husband) Rusty did not have the appropriate papers available to get married that day, but shared the day anyway.

Our witnesses, official and otherwise, were a community full of people experiencing something they never thought they would have.

Our weddings on that day are not the stuff for Modern Bride Magazine. (Is there such a thing as Modern Groom Magazine?) But our weddings were the heart and soul of what weddings should always be all about. Love conquering all.

Hillary and Nancy

There are many folks who, like me, are going to vote for the democratic nominee for president. As for WHO that nominee should be...well...that's a long story. I believe both candidates have great attributes, and both have a few weaknesses they would have to contend with in a general election. I've been supporting Bernie since he entered the race. However, as the primary season moved to my state of Michigan, I wavered.

My Facebook wall was the home of an incredible, civil discourse on the merits of each candidate. I refused comments about why I should NOT vote for someone. I insisted on arguments to vote FOR one of the candidates. I encouraged people to share their passion.

And in the end, I voted for Hillary on Tuesday.

On Friday Hillary said something very stupid.

She praised Nancy Reagan's record on HIV/AIDS.

I've heard lots of explanations about this.

• The idea that she was conflating AIDS with Alzheimer's just doesn't parse. Her commentary was clearly about HIV/AIDS, and substituting Alzheimer's makes no sense.
• Apparently MSNBC had made a similar statement in their obit piece. They claimed that Nancy saw the light after her dear friend Rock Hudson died, and worked to get the administration to change its tune. Unfortunately this is just revisionist history, and hard to believe that Hillary would repeat it.
• She was just trying to be nice to a fellow former first lady on the occasion of Nancy's funeral. While I personally could never say anything nice about Nancy, I understand this. But just leave it at her advocacy for stem cell research, and wasn't that new White House china beautiful.

I was pretty angry about this.

• In 1981 Nancy Reagan's commentary on New York's Pride Parade was, "What do they have to be proud of? They should be ashamed."
• In 1984, concerning AIDS, she wondered why there was all this fuss over a self-inflicted venereal disease.
• Her "Just Say No" campaign flew in the face of everything we know...and knew...about addiction and public health. That alone probably cost thousands of lives.

No I have no love for Nancy. But I understand the need for diplomacy at a funeral. There's a lot that could have been said without causing so much anger and pain to those of us who were living the hell of caring for dying friends, watching them die horrible deaths, shunned by their families, their communities, their churches, their government, and sometimes even their doctors.

Hillary touched a very raw nerve.

I want to get past this, because she will probably be the democratic nominee. (Just stop Bernie Bros. I didn't say anything bad about Bernie. And if he proves me wrong, I'll be supporting him...again....see paragraph one). If she is the nominee, I have to feel good about that.

She apologized almost immediately. She apologized for misspeaking. That's about one step better than the I'm-sorry-you-misunderstood-me type of apology. And certainly better than no apology at all. Her statement was a short apology followed by a laundry list of all she has done for HIV/AIDS in the past, and all she will do in the future.

For me, it fell flat. Many people lauded her for apologizing. The message I kept hearing was "get over it" and "move on". This message was from Hillary supporters, most of whom did not live through the hell I lived through during the reign of Ron and Nancy. (Short sidebar here...My senior recital took place during that time. I commissioned a work by my friend David Colson which he titled "Ronnie's a Jerk, and so are you"). Hillary opened a wound and followed it with a self-serving apology which did nothing to acknowledge the pain her statement caused. You don't get over anger (or hurt...or grief) by being told to "get over it". The first step is acknowledging the pain.

Hillary put out a second apology on Saturday. This is how it starts:

Yesterday, at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, I said something inaccurate when speaking about the Reagans’ record on HIV and AIDS. Since then, I’ve heard from countless people who were devastated by the loss of friends and loved ones, and hurt and disappointed by what I said. As someone who has also lost friends and loved ones to AIDS, I understand why. I made a mistake, plain and simple.

I want to use this opportunity to talk not only about where we’ve come from, but where we must go in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

To be clear, the Reagans did not start a national conversation about HIV and AIDS. That distinction belongs to generations of brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, along with straight allies, who started not just a conversation but a movement that continues to this day.

It really is worth reading. It took her a day, but she got it right.

Apology number two was clearly more thoughtful. I'm sure it was run by all the top campaign staff. It may have been penned by someone else (Are Robby Mook's fingerprints on it?). But she did more than apologize. She acknowledged the pain she caused. And (please do read it) she acknowledges the real heroes of the era, including the GMHC and ACT UP.

Am I ready to "get over it"? Well...the whole thing remains a bit unsettling, so I can't say I'm over it. But I am ready to "move on". Hillary created a painful moment, but she has also begun a real healing process.

Kudos to you, Hillary.

Now we can get back to the important work of nominating someone to take on the republican candidate. Whoever is the republican nominee is part of the continuing problem with our public health response to AIDS. We need to restore AIDS education money. We need to make anti-retrovirals affordable for all who need them, both those infected, and those most at-risk for infection.

We have two candidates who have different approaches to that end. We can continue the dialogue about the best approach. But, as Bernie said in an early February debate, "On our worst days, I think it is fair to say, we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate".

Why Is Donald Trump So Popular...And So Dangerous?

Ask a complicated question, expect a complicated answer.

I'm going to take a break from examining the Bernie vs. Hillary dynamic to look at the other team.

When Trump entered the field last year the whole spectacle was taken pretty lightly. It was revealed that he had paid to have a crowd at his announcement. He is a showman and celebrity who appeared to be looking for attention. It was even a bit of a surprise that he was running as a right wing republican, as his public persona seemed centrist, or even a bit left of center. His lifestyle seemed completely at odds with the evangelicals who dominate the right wing.

I was afraid from the start, but not for many of the ugly reasons which have surfaced.

First, how the hell did an arrogant, elitist billionaire become so popular. Many people have proposed answers to explain his popularity, and I agree with many of them, even though they can contradict each other.

He is an authoritarian

Indeed, there is streak of people looking for authoritarian leadership. We live in a dangerous world and there is an appeal to someone who says with authority that he has the answers, even when they are ludicrous. One poll suggests that this is the single trait which crosses all of his support.

He is racist

Racism is very much alive in America. We see it in the most overt ways (murder of young black males) and the most institutional (people of color have a harder time getting job interviews, let alone jobs). The many ways of racism are not just another blog post, they are entire books. I recommend Ta-Nehisi Coates Between The World and Me. For all the racism in our country, it had become socially unacceptable in most places to be openly racist. This is a good thing, of course. However, Trump is giving these people a voice.

He is Xenophobic

One need to point no further than his two famous policy proposals: Building the big beautiful wall which Mexico will pay for, and banning muslims from entering the US.

He is Islamaphobic

See above, as well as his database of Muslims and mosques. In spite of all evidence to the contrary, many Americans still want to blame 9/11 and all other terrorist threats on the entire Islamic faith.

He is a Celebrity

This has to be mentioned. Many Americans regularly choose not to vote. However, Trump crosses over from the world of politics to the world of popular culture.

He rails against government

There is (rightly) a huge frustration with government on all levels. From an obstructionist do-nothing legislature to local governments whose revenue has dried up (starved by state and local governments) and unable to provide some of the most basic infrastructure.

He is a Demagogue

This word gets thrown around a lot. Its meaning is pretty simple. A demagogue tells the people whatever they want to hear. The worst part of this is that it signals a lack of principle. A demagogue tends to be someone who wants power at any cost.

If all of these seem rather ugly...well...I agree. In fact, this list is not only why he is so popular, but why he is so dangerous. He puts forward very few actual policy suggestions. Rather he speaks to peoples fears and anger. If those fears and anger were to actually be transformed into policy blacks, gays, transgendered, muslims, latins, and more would be marginalized.

Would they become policy? As Jimmy Carter noted, he is malleable. As long as there are checks and balances a demagogue is more concerned about holding and assimilating power than any particular policy. That can mean he could be anything from a ineffectual president, to a tyrant. I say, why take the chance?

There is one more thing about him that is profoundly concerning to me. And this concerned me from the moment of his announcement.

He is a businessman who thinks government is just another business.

We, in Michigan, have seen how well that works out. Here's what happens with almost every government function:

• Cuts take place in the name of "balancing the budget", because that's what businessmen do.
• After you starve an entity (city, schools, mental health, etc.) that entity fails.
• You declare the failure and proclaim that private enterprise can do the job better.
• Because you made the entity fail, it is a persuasive argument.

And before you know it you have charter schools, Flint water systems, crumbling roads, and a pathetic mental health system.

Government's mission is not to make a profit. Government's mission is to

• Provide necessary services and infrastructure. 
• Keep us safe (fire, police, and military).
• Regulate for the public safety and welfare.
• Protect the civil rights of all.

Businessmen make terrible leaders in government. The combination of Trump in the White House and a conservative majority in the House and Senate would become a nightmare of privatization.

Too Big To Fail

I want to talk to Bernie supporters. I am one of you. I think his primary message of income inequality is the most important issue of our time. So many other things flow from this:

• Yup...racism is a big problem that we have to confront on many levels, But when the assets of this country are flowing freely to all of its citizens through high employment and good wages many of the symptoms of racism disappear, and it is easier to confront some of the other institutional issues of racism.

• Confronting climate change requires a fundamental alteration in the way we view, use, and produce energy. The monied interests are still fundamentally behind oil.

You get the idea. Confronting this one enormous issue touches nearly every other important issue of our day.

So I like Bernie. I have incredibly little disposable income, but I send him a few bucks now and then. And I will probably be voting for him in Michigan in a month.

But I gotta tell you guys (largely guys)...you gotta get off your high horse. Hillary isn't evil. I won't even call Donald Trump evil. He may be incredibly bad for America, and a self-centered jerk who doesn't understand world politics. But I would still be loathe to use the word evil to describe him. And yet...and YET...many of you are calling Hillary evil.

So why are so many left wingers calling Hillary evil (or some variation)? Is it because she has been politically fluid? Y'know, even Bernie is changing his tune on gun control. If you look at Hillary's overall record you see a consistent progressive message. And please don't bring up that Barry Goldwater thing. (a) that was over 50 years ago. That's more than most of you guy's lifetime. You've changed since birth. So can she. And (b) Barry Goldwater wouldn't even exist in today's republican party, with his support of gay rights and distrust of evangelicals.

Is it because of her ties to Wall Street? I, too, wish this were not the case. It is one of the fundamental policy differences between the two. Bernie wants to break them up. Hillary wants to regulate them:

• While regulation won't accomplish the economic revolution Bernie is calling for, it's a damn sight better than the deregulation every Republican is asking for.

• Hillary's policy on this is not fundamentally different that Obama's, and I don't hear people calling him evil. Well...okay...I do...just not from the political left.

This post is not about why we should be nice to Hillary. There is enough reason for that coming from our candidate who is asking for a campaign about the issues. This is about YOUR ties to Wall Street.

What's in your wallet?

Among the many things I do is wait tables about 16 hours a week. I wait tables at a gay cafe in a progressive city. I wait on a lot of Bernie supporters (Waiters hear a lot from their tables). And at the end of their meal they whip out their Bank of America card.

You want a revolution, but can't give up your ties to Wall Street?

Or even worse, they whip out your Amazon Prime card. And, yes, I hear you brag about your free shipping. Not only is there a big Wall Street bank behind that card, you are also supporting the 21st century American sweatshop which is at the core of the revolution you are talking about. You want to talk about evil....If you were to walk into one retail shop a day for the rest of your life, you would still not match the number of local businesses amazon.com has been responsible for closing. Okay...I just made that up. But it sounds about right.

And don't be fooled by the cute dalmatian or panda on your credit card. That is a big Wall Street bank standing behind that card.

And don't tell me that you pay off your balance every month, so they aren't making money off of you. Even if you really are paying off your balance (and really...are you really?) There is still somewhere between 1-1/2 and 4-1/2 cents on every dollar going to that bank from the other side of the transaction. Add in the 12 cents per annum (or whatever) on the buyer's side and you are doing a great job of supporting them.

Revolutions happen when a lot of people take action. And while a vote for Bernie is great, as long as you keep supporting those big banks it doesn't matter whether we have a President Sanders, Clinton, or Trump.

My bank is the Bank of Ann Arbor. I have also banked at, and could recommend, the Ann Arbor State Bank, and University Bank. You want a revolution. Take your money out of Chase or the Bank of America. Put it in your local bank. I know the presidents of two of those banks, and they know me. I see them at swim lessons for their daughter and my nephew. I see them at the local market. Same with other officers and staff of those banks.

Even more important, the more capital they have in THEIR bank, the more they have to invest in our city. Believe me, Bank of Ann Arbor has no interest in funding an offshore oil well. They want to write home mortgages and support local businesses. It's like "buy local" on steroids.

And if everyone takes their money and business away from those big banks, then fundamental change will happen...whether we have a President Sanders, Clinton, or Trump.

I know...you won't get your Delta Miles or Disney Rewards. No one said revolution was easy.

Do I need to remind you of this scene from "It's A Wonderful Life"? A lot has changed in banking since then, but it is still fundamentally true that a local bank is going to do more for the local economy than a big bank.

So please guys, stop hating Hillary and start building this fundamental economic revolution. You'll make Bernie proud on both counts.

Surely We Should Be United Against The Common Enemy...

There is a big controversy running through Michigan's LGBT community. We are not legally protected from housing and job discrimination. The entire LGBT community (and our allies) agree that should change. The controversy is whether to try and affect this change through the ballot box or through the legislature.

There are very good arguments on both sides (I'll get to them shortly). Meanwhile, there is verbal warfare going on. And everyone claims they know what I want and/or what is good for me. So far, I haven't voted, and no one has asked me to fill out a survey.

Just about every pronouncement seems to piss off the "opposition" even more while aggrandizing the loyal followers. So I have a few things to say which will piss everyone off. (Am I channeling Dave Garcia?).

Stop acting like children

I am reminded of a great scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian":

Sadly, I am reminded of this video too often in our struggle. We seem to be better at fighting each other than we are at taking on the right wing nuts running our state.

We have on one side Dana Nessel and the Fair Michigan Initiative, which is leading the move to put LGBT non-discrimination on the 2016 ballot. Dana was part of the DeBoer-Rowse legal team. She won us a big victory. She is brushing off criticism of her decision to move forward, saying these are the same people who told her not to push her case forward...that it was not the right case nor the right time.

To Dana, I say this one is more expensive and a loss could have bigger consequences. Let's make sure there is a community consensus before pushing forward.

On another side we have Equality Michigan. I am thrilled that Equality Michigan has many new board members who aren't the same folks who have been running the organization for the past 10 years. I am also thrilled that they named Steph White as their new Executive Director. I've worked with Stephanie on a variety of campaigns over the years, and she is brilliant. I wish her the best in her new position.

To Equality Michigan, I say you have been an essentially meaningless organization since the days of Jeff Montgomery and Sean Kosofsky. Back in those days you were the go-to organization on all things legislative, as well as workplace and housing protection. But that was a long time ago. You're going to have to prove your leadership abilities to regain that position. And we do need someone to take leadership. But engaging in the mudslinging with Dana (and others) doesn't build confidence.

On yet another side we have our allies in the Democratic Party. They are adamant that the legislative push is the only way forward.

To the Democratic Party allies, I say "Really". You're so sure of the legislative process. That worked out real well last year. Thanks to that debacle there is not a single moderate Republican willing to step out and back amending Elliott-Larsen. That one cost us dearly. And "Really". You're going to try to sabotage Brian Stone's candidacy because he supports a ballot initiative? If he is elected and there is a legislative push he would be an important ally. Remember, we all want the same thing. Don't trample allies just because they believe another road is the better route.

And then there is Jack Lessenberry.

To Jack....I must first confess that I have never used the "f" word in my blog. It peppers my speech at appropriate times, but in general it is more provocative than helpful....to Jack I say "Fuck You". The ACLU has been one of the most important organizations in support of LGBT rights. They have expended more legal resources for our community than any organization. How dare you attack them on behalf of my community. You are so far out of line I don't even know where to begin. So I won't.

With straight allies like you, well, we're better off without.

There are plenty of other players out there, and they are pretty much all out of line in one way or another.

Stop Telling Me What I Think

How about you ask me what I think? Guess what? Ann Arbor's Jim Toy Community Center (JTCC) realized that what we need is communication. They felt that the way to a community consensus is conversation. Think about that. What an idea!

And now the leader of that move, Sandi Smith is under attack. Let's be clear. She is under attack because she has called for a community conversation.

Far from attacking her, we should be emulating her and putting together community conversations in Detroit, Ferndale, Royal Oak, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Traverse City, Marquette, and anywhere else we can put together a group of people willing to talk. 

So What Do I Think? What is the Right Way Forward

I'm still working this out for myself. Here are the things I am considering:

I understand the idea that you don't put civil rights up to a popular vote. The real place for such protection is through the courts. But the lack of something is hard to take to the courts, unlike Marriage Equality where there was an explicit ban on same-sex marriages. The legislative route has not always been kind. (See above and the disastrous attempt to amend Elliott-Larsen last year).

Earlier this year Houston had an initiative to strip LGBT protections from their local ordinance. Note that. The initiative was in response to a legislative move. The legislative route, even if successful, is still vulnerable to a popular vote.

A popular vote would be expensive. And it would inevitably be at the cost of support for our community centers, HIV/AIDS organizations, and more. We have to be willing to spend the big bucks on this campaign if that is the way we move forward.

The trans community is concerned about the attacks they would endure, both in the media and physically. These are real concerns. On the other hand, even in above-mentioned Elliott-Larsen amendment fight the trans community was being thrown under the bus...and many Dems were considering supporting a G & L amendment without the B & T calculating that "at least some protection is better than none". I completely disagree with that strategy, and fear that a legislative push can endanger the trans community, as well. And that endangerment is more insidious because it divides what should be a united community.

Community Consensus

And that is the crux of this. We need a United Community. I thought of titling this post, "How Many Allies Can I Alienate?". I really hope the answer is none. I hope the answer is that we can act like grownups. We need a community consensus. Until we have that everything else is hot air. Consensus, boys and girls, is accomplished by talking. Let's start.