[Repost of a message which was clipped off in an earlier post.]
Austin City Limit
The Nation,  30 May 94
   Barely a year ago hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians thronged
Washington to celebrate a new measure of political power and social
recognition won after long struggle. The White House was in friendly hands,
gay people were openly bidding for important government jobs, the military
was about to accept "out" homosexuals and a sexually repressive culture was
cracking along several fronts. And then the "gay moment" passed.
   The rear-guard battles of the ensuing year have largely ended in retreat
or defeat. The old ban on gays in the military was replaced by a compromise
that in many cases made matters worse. The New York Times's Eric Schmitt, in
one of the very few in-depth reports on the actual workings of the new
policy, wrote recently, "most [gay servicemen and -women] said it had
polarized attitudes toward homosexuals and had shifted the burden of proof
to the service member if accused of engaging in homosexual acts."
   Perhaps the most devastating victory for the right came on May 7 in
Austin, Texas, where voters, by almost a two-thirds margin, repealed by
referendum an ordinance passed by the City Council last September that
extended health and other benefits to nonmarried spouses of city employees.
   The Austin vote was not a clear-cut case of homophobes against gays. In
fact, only twenty-nine of the ninety-eight employees who registered as
domestic partners were in same-sex couples, and organizers fighting the
referendum acknowledged that voters offered plenty of reasons for repeal.
Some gays and their allies resented the ordinance's coverage of heterosexual
couples, who of course could be legally married. Others claimed to be
concerned about the cost to taxpayers (a measly $104,000 a year).
   But in Texas and throughout the country the vote will unavoidably be read
as a "Conservative, Anti-Gay Victory," as The Washington Post bannered it.
It inevitably adds to the momentum of other antigay electoral efforts that
would not only restrict domestic partnership benefits but would also
proscribe state laws and local ordinances protecting gay people from
discrimination. Voters in several Oregon counties, as well as in the entire
state of Colorado, have already outlawed such protection. Similar referendum
fights are developing in nine other states.
   So far, gays have had to look to the courts rather than to the voters or
legislatures. Colorado's Supreme Court voided the referendum vote banning
antidiscrimination laws for gays, but the right is organizing anew to
invalidate the court's decision. In one of the few recent significant
successes gay people have had, Hawaii's highest court ruled that the ban on
same-sex marriages (in force in every state in the union) violates the state
Constitutian's equal protection guarantees. The legislature is trying to
nullify the ruling and state government has been given one more chance to
prove a "compelling interest" in allowing discrimination against gay
marriages.
   The state's arguments are ludicrous, e.g.: "same-sex couples will have
disproportionate incentives to move to and/or remain in Hawaii," costing
money and "distorting the job and housing markets"; and gay marriage "will
alter the State of Hawaii's desirability as a visitor destination." (In
fact, gay travel agencies are already planning to promote lucrative marriage
packages whereby couples can fly to the islands, get wed, luaued and leied,
and take leisurely honeymoon cruises back to the mainland.)
   Still, it's hard to believe that a popular majority or its
representatives will let the court prevail in any but the most liberal
communities. Austin was thought to qualify as a gay-friendly oasis in the
homophobic Texas wasteland, but even there the panoply of progressive forces
did not go to bat on the unmarried-partners issue. The Christian right, on
the other hand, conducted a strategically sophisticated campaign. It
understands that the gay issue is now the key to raising money, attracting
troops and amassing political power, which is then available for campaigns
that have nothing to do with sexual preference. The proponents of the Austin
referendum successfully "reached out" to blaeks and Latinos, who voted for
repeal in high numbers. Those oddest of bedfellows of the right will now be
accessible in future elections and as constituents in regressive coalitions
on issues from health reform to taxes.
   Jack Chambers, an Austin talk show jock and all-around right-winger, tied
it all up in USA Today: "It is not just social and moral liberals, but
economic liberals as well who are pushing for domestic-partner benefits.
Socialists eventually want the government to provide health insurance to
everyone, paid for with our tax dollars. . . . Just read the Communist
Manifesto. Authors Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels predicted that 'the
bourgeois (middle class) family will vanish as a matter of course.' We can
help prevent this dire prediction from coming true in America by opposing
domestic-partner benefits." Don't laugh; organize!           ANDREW KOPKIND