Sara Haile-Mariam

Two new pieces on marriage equality.

My first field report for Campus Progress.

Then a follow up opinion piece on Huffpost.

To Summarize:

“No” is not a sufficient explanation for denying millions of New Yorkers a right that I am free to take for granted. “No” is not how this country intended for us to begin — let alone end — a debate on equality. “No” warrants the question why. When that explanation is based in not fact, but freedom, than we must ask why the same freedom that enables a State Senator to say “no” in Albany prohibits a same-sex couple from saying “I do” in Brooklyn.

Yesterday’s elections.

What is there to say? I think Dem losses resulted from a variety of factors. Weak candidates, fatigue, in some cases, a miscalculation of how to leverage the Obama brand. They ran as candidates, when given economic anxiety the emphasis should have been on communities, on engaging folks on the local level. I don’t think the wins and losses amount to much, what’s learned from them is more important.

What does hurt, is the passage of Proposition 1 in Maine, effectively putting an end to a brief, but profound, reign of tolerance where all were treated equally under the law.

Andrew Sullivan notes why the strategy was effective. It ain’t pretty.

“They have honed it to an art - their prime argument now is that although adults can handle gay equality, children cannot.”

From my view, what children really can’t handle is a society that perpetuates the notion that are differences are not only something to be feared but something to be legislated. Andrew’s right, this is how they won, and it’s the most offensive part of the gay marriage debate. The Right has co-opted a rationale that emphasizes “future generations” and “protecting our children” when those very same kids are the ones most tolerant about this issue. If you talk to kids in highschool and college, they will be the first to insist that who one loves shouldn’t matter.

Somehow, this undeniable dynamic, has been lost. Instead, youth and innocence are used as ammunition. I’m pissed, and hurt, but I’m also inspired. They can’t keep talking for us, they can’t keep using youth as a justification for ignorance.

We don’t need to be protected from gay marriage, young kids don’t need to be protected from gay marriage– they need to be taught that in this country, we hold some things to be self-evident. Without question. Happiness, liberty, life- the ability to simply pursue those things, requires protection. The kids will be alright when gay marriage passes. In the interim, I ask those who are opposed to think about the kind of example their setting, the message they’re sending, suggesting otherwise.

Jamal Simmons has a piece on Politico on an important historic figure who preceded Dr. King, Philip Randolph.

“Certainly, there is not one individual or singular action that led to Obama’s election. Instead, it was the cumulative effect of generations of Americans, black and white, to erase the barriers to the American dream for every citizen. We rightly recognize Martin Luther King Jr. and his contemporaries for the work they did in the 1950s and 60s, but we should not let the light from those stars blind us to the contributions of those like A. Philip Randolph who came before them.”

I agree with his analysis. We often refer to history in rather sweeping brush strokes and as a result glaze over the important contributions that helped pave the way for the often mentioned iconic and transformative moments. Another often overlooked development in the history of the Civil Rights movement is the evolution of nonviolent dissent. Yes, Dr. King was certainly the most vocal and consistent individual who advocated for nonviolent civil disobedience, but the first protests were staged as early as 1940 by the organization CORE (Congress on Racial Equality).

This in no way makes his actions less pertinent, they just put them into context. We would be wise to see social justice as something that is continually evolving while remembering that sometimes the effects of our actions won’t be evident for decades, centuries even, as evidenced by this piece. This is especially true now, as we seek to rectify another grievance; the lack of marriage equality. We can no longer stand for laws that perpetuate the myth that some are less equal than others. Our history shows us that this simple truth isn’t always immediately realized but it also gives us reason to hope, moments of justice that justify resolve in the face of adversity.

Last time I was this happy with the State of Iowa it was on a cold winter night over a year ago when Democrats, Republicans and Independents came together to insist that this time was different.

Today, I think back on that night and although the circumstances couldn’t be more different, I can’t help but feel like this is another watershed moment.

In a unanimous ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage today.

Andrew Sullivan has a sampling of reactions from across the spectrum.

Personally,I think that reevaluating the scope of “equality” is the task of my generation and so I’m obviously thrilled with this ruling. However, while today’s ruling is an optimistic indication of where I think we’re going- I’m not quite ready to celebrate yet, (remember New Hampshire). We’ve seen this already, we’ve done this before. Months after a California supreme court legalized gay marriage their decision was taken to the ballot box and overturned. So while I remain hopeful, I think it’s imperative that we as a people continue the discussion. I think we have to use this moment (as well as moments that make us cringe) as teachable ones, leveraging them to discuss the ramifications of legalizing gay marriage where we rationally make a legal argument that focuses on a timeless sentiment “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

The GOP is likely going to use this as a wedge issue in 2010 and 2012, things are going to get ugly before we make them right. Buckle up- this is going to be an extremely bumpy ride.