The Tennessee Equality Project has taken a public position on the English Only Amendment currently being voted on in Nashville. I agree with their position, but not with their taking it. What follows is a reprint of the comment of I left on Grand-division.blogspot.com.
“Why is this an issue that TEP is involved in? It is not a gay issue – an issue relevant to the lives of homosexuals because they are homosexual. The quote attributed to you in Out & About cited three reasons this is relevant. None of them explained why this is a gay issue. First, you said it could disrupt services to non-English speaking gays. By that logic, any issue is a gay issue – taxes, the environment, energy, etc. Everything can affect everyone, but not because they are gay. Second, you cited the need to send a signal that Nashville is a welcoming city. It might signal that Nashville is welcoming to non-English speakers, but it says nothing to gays in general. Nashville has already spoken to gays through a 70% vote in support of the marriage amendment. Finally, and most disturbingly, you pointed to a need to make allies. Allies are a good thing. But, making allies at the cost of diluting your own mission is foolhardy. To make allies through weighing in on non-gay issues requires TEP to choose sides in fights not relevant to it. And that leads to additional enemies. TEP is in danger of becomi”ng just another pressure group. If TEP continues this kind of mission creep, it will receive no further support from me.
“For the record, the English Only amendment is ridiculous. I will vote against it. But, it has nothing to do with me being gay.”
Update: Chris Sanders, of TEP, has responded to my comment. In fairness, I reprint it below. You can decide for yourself whether he responded to my objections.
Michael,
I’m glad you’re voting against it. It is a related issue, especially if you’re gay and English is not your first language. Furthermore, the tone of welcome that our city sets does affect us. If this measure passes or passes by a wide margin, our rights could be next in Nashville. As you pointed out, it has already happened statewide. Third, one of the lessons learned from Prop 8 is that white GLBTs didn’t reach out enough to minority communities. We’re building some bridges that will help us with allies in government and in the community that we’ll need for the nondiscrimination ordinance. It actually is functioning as a movement building experience rather than diluting us. If you look at the number of members of the community who were at the polls yesterday and the number who are involved in the Facebook groups on this issue, you’ll see it has touched a nerve because we know what it’s like to be at the wrong end of a ballot initiative.
January 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I have no dog in the fight over Nashville’s English-only law, but I can see why a gay group would oppose it.
By it’s very nature, the point of the law is divisive. It’s designed to divide the population at large into us vs them. Cultivating divisive attitudes is something that gay groups absolutely must be opposed to. If we can stand by a silently let some other group be excluded from our society, what right do we have to complain if others do the same when it’s us being excluded.
January 10, 2009 at 10:41 am
Gay groups will lose focus and potency if they morph into general anti-discrimination groups. Sticking up for the disabled, the elderly, the transgendered and the non-English speakers are important. But, they are not the mission of gay groups. The most effective lobbying/pressure/special interest groups are those that focus on a single issue or groups of closely related issues important to their specific constituency due to a shared characteristic. Lots of issues are important. That’s why we have lots of different groups.
Besides, gays have long stood with blacks. Where did that get us?
January 10, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Gay groups will lose focus and potency if they morph into general anti-discrimination groups.
I 100% agree with you (see my comments over at Tiny Cat Pants where I’m being crucified as a trans hating asshole for daring to suggest that GLBT oversteps by a letter), but being publicly opposed to all forms of discrimination is hardly losing focus. It’s the mission of gay advocacy groups to support policy positions that advance equality for gay people. That doesn’t mean that they have to put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and pretend no other problems exist in the world.
If I’m going to the store and pass a burning house, it may not be within my realm of responsibility or reason for being to put it out, but I don’t see where it hurts to call the firehouse.
February 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm
michaelnotmike.wordpress.com – great domain name for blog like this)))
————————
my blog: http://richarddqz3.lised.ru/