Judul : Goodridge V. Department Of Public Health
link : Goodridge V. Department Of Public Health
Goodridge V. Department Of Public Health
jon olson: my name is jonolson and it is my honor to introduce marcsolomon, national campaign director for freedom to marry,to speak about his new book "winning marriage." last april i married my husbandthanks to marc and his work,
Goodridge V. Department Of Public Health, and freedom to marry,and a host of activists from scores of organizations. it was a big deal for me andmy husband, and our families and friends.
but it wasn't politicaland subversive, the way gay marriage usedto be just 10 years ago. i kept hoping for anopportunity to be outraged, but everyone from medfordcity hall to crate and barrel was just helpful and pleasant. in massachusetts gay marriageis just marriage now, which is just as it should be. marc has received manyhonors for his work on marriage equality,and freedom to marry
keeps winning courtbattles, state by state, across the country. amid all that acclaim, my littlevoice doesn't amount to much, but thank you. your work is making theworld a better place, and has made my life better. welcome, marc solomon. [applause] marc solomon: well,thank you very much.
it is great to be here. it's great to be herefor a few reasons. number one, google has beenjust an incredible friend to this cause overthe last decade while we've beenbattling it out. i remember being in californiaduring the last couple weeks of the no on 8 campaign--the really devastating campaign that our side lost-- and nocompany was more represented with respect to loaned staffand support than google.
and after amicus briefgoogle is always there. so great thanks,both to the company and to the amazing employeeswho put so much enthusiasm into this cause, and it's makingthe country a better place. it's also great being herein cambridge, which is really the cradle of this movement. i'm probably one of thefew people who sort of gets choked up when i walkpast cambridge city hall, because that's whereit all started.
that's where this battle-- orthat's at least where marriages first started, and wherewe realized the first winds from this long, long battle. i want to thank jonathanfor welcoming me to google and putting this event together. so i want to talk a littlebit about where we are today, and how we've gotten here. my book is really--"winning marriage"-- is really about howwe've gotten here.
but where we are today isreally quite exceptional. we're not duking it out incambridge, massachusetts. today, the center of thebattle is birmingham, alabama. so we clearly have moved a longway over the past 11 years. we have 37 states,really 37 and 1/2 states, where same-sex couples canmarry, up from 11 years ago when we had none. there was just apoll released by cnn that showed that we have 63percent support nationwide
for marriage equality. including 57 percent in thesouth, and then from there. and new england is inthe 70+ percent range. we've now won 61 lawsuitsin the past year and a half, or 61 out of about 66, 67. so we're just on atremendous winning streak, and we're headed to the ussupreme court once again. more cases isheading up there that would end all the rest of thesebans, nationwide, on marriage.
just the other day, justiceruth bader ginsburg-- now known as notorious rbg-- who'sbecoming cooler as she ages, said, at georgewashington university, "there hasn't beenany major change in which there wasn't agroundswell among the people before the supreme courtput its stamp of approval on the inclusion and theequality concept of people who are left out." and really that'swhere we believe
we are today, that we havea critical mass of states, 37 states-- which is more than70 percent of the country-- living in a state wheregay couples can marry. 63 percent support,solid majority support, in every part of the country. and we think america is readyfor national resolution, and for the supreme court toend the rest of these bans on marriage, and makea ruling nationwide. but, of course asyou all know here,
it hasn't always been that way. i first got involvedin this fight in 2001 when i was a graduatestudent down the street a little bit at harvard. and that was right atthe time that glad, gay and lesbianadvocates and defenders, put together a lawsuit. seven same-sex couples wentto their town clerk's offices throughout the stateof massachusetts.
they applied for amarriage license. they were denied the license,and then glad, on their behalf, went to the massachusettscourts to sue. and i will never, everforget november 18, 2003 when i remember i was sittingat my computer at the kennedy school at harvard at8:00 in the morning, and we'd been waiting day afterday after day for a ruling, for a decision tofinally come down. and the supreme judicialcourt puts on their website
at 8:00 am which decisionsare coming down at 10:00 am that day. and finally, thatday, november 18th, it came up goodridge versus thedepartment of public health. and i remember. so then we all just-- iwas an active volunteer at that point in thisvery grassroots group called the massachusettsfreedom to marry coalition where we would go to prides,and serve wedding cake,
and do all sorts of publiceducation, speakers, bureaus-- real grassrootsorganizing and activism. and i was called at 9:00am thatmorning by new england cable news, and they asked me if iwould be willing to be on live as the decision came in tooffer my sort of thoughts, reflections on the decision. and the firstthing i remember is that i was wearinga really ugly shirt, and i was like, oh mygod, this is in an hour.
i don't have time togo home and change. and i didn't. and i thought everybody hadforgotten about the shirt until somebody mentionedit to me a few months ago. i was like, i guess not. but that's not what's important. i remember getting into a taxiin harvard square at about 9:30 and heading over to newtonwhere necn is based. and i was on the phonewith the folks at glad,
and they had mary bonautothe superstar attorney who had argued the case inmassachusetts on speaker phone. she was down at thecourthouse, and she was leafing through the opinion,and she said it's a full win. and i was immediatelygetting out of my taxi, i was wired up, whiskedinto the studio, and was sitting withseveral of the anchors. and they'd broken into broadcast this live because it was such huge news.
and what i remembermost from that day was just the unbelievablypowerful response from our opponents. and it's important to rememberwho our opponents were back then. i mean, certainly it wasthe catholic hierarchy, and the vatican issueda strong statement saying this wouldnever go into effect. george w. bush was oneof the first people
who issued a statement. he was gearing upfor his reelection. he said that thisdecision is wrong. it cannot happen. these rogue judges inmassachusetts can't do this. our then governor,who we have now shared with the rest ofthe country, mitt romney, said something very similar. this will never go intoeffect in my state.
and certainly thereligious right weighed in. but i think what's moreimportant for all of us to remember isthat it wasn't just who we think of as the usualsuspects who weighed in in opposition. it was mainstream democratsacross the country and in massachusetts. to give you a stark example,john kerry, our us senator, came out stronglyagainst the decision,
and a couple monthslater supported a constitutionalamendment to take it away. so it was not just republicans. it wasn't just conservatives. it wasn't just thecatholic church. it was the whole politicalsystem that was shaking. the democrats were terrifiedand wouldn't support it. republicans thought theycould use this as a weapon, or some of them at least.
i remember in that twohours on new england cable news, the only person whosaid something 100 percent positive who was anational political figure was barney frank. and i realized what a huge,long way we have to go. and i'd always been apolitical operative, and you know necessity isthe mother of invention. and we started pullingtogether a campaign that we called mass equality,and i'm sure some of you
here were involved, in one wayor another, in mass equality. but it was a campaignto protect the decision. and what i talk about in mybook, "winning marriage"-- which you can see over on thattable or everybody else can find, i'm sure, on amazonor some other great site-- is really how we've won. and i take you intothe statehouses around the country--including the state house here in massachusetts wherei spend about 1/3
of the book talking aboutthe battle in massachusetts-- into governors' mansions, intocourts, into the white house. and, more importantly,into our campaign war rooms where we built campaignsto grow and seize power, take on our opposition,make our case for why marriage mattersto same-sex couples, and make the case to straightpeople that this is good. this is part of the evolutionof the american dream. it's simply adding anothergroup into that struggle.
and when i think aboutwhy we've done so well, i'd say that there arereally two elements to it. and two elements that ourcampaign, our marriage equality campaigns, havedone really well. the first is thatwe've told our stories. and i'm sure everybody'sheard that a lot. it's a building on whatharvey milk's admonition of coming out and sharingyour stories has been. but we have really had totake the american people
on a journey to explainto them who gay people are and why marriageis important to us. marriage is a veryimportant institution to the american people. and whether or not they practicewhat they preach with respect to marriage, and evenif they don't live up to people's view of marriage,it's still something that people holdas very important. and what they wanted to knowwas that same-sex couples
were going to treatmarriage with respect, and not try to undermineit or uproot it. and it might sound crazytoday, but that really has been at the heart ofthis battle, is to show why gay people want to marry. why marriage is important to us. and to do it in a verylocal kind of way. just to go back, because ifound this speech so profound-- or her talk so profound-- ruthginsburg, justice ginsburg,
the other day said, when shewas asked why she thinks things have changed so much,she said, "people who once hid what they werehave announced to the world, this is what i am. and we look tosee what they are, and they turned out to beour next door neighbor, of whom we're very fond. it turned out to be our child'sbest friend, or perhaps even our child.
i think that accounts forthe very swift change." and i think there's a lot oftruth in what she's saying, but what's important isthat gets at a piece of it. but the hard work behindtelling our stories is what i think we'vedone so effectively. it's really challenging,really difficult, to share the story of whoyou are with family members when you're afraidyou might be rejected. or with neighborswhen you don't know
how they're going torespond and you still have to live next door to them. with your legislatorwhen the last thing most people want to do is tosit down and talk about anything personal with their legislator. particularly not in thecambridges and bostons, but out in rural massachusettsand in rural parts of any state, andworking-class communities. and so i wanted to sharea story of one couple
from massachusettswho did this work so profoundly andeffectively, but who are the last couple you wouldexpect to do this kind of work. so, and i'm going to reada little bit from the book and follow theirstory through it. in the rural town of charltonin southern worcester county, deb grzyb and sharonmurphy were pondering what to do about the massequality organizer who was asking them to meet withtheir senator, steve brewer.
charlton was only 53miles from boston, but culturally it couldn'thave been more different. it was the country. pickup trucks with gun rackscruising over the narrow roads that wound through the woodedterrain, and american flags everywhere, includingon deb and sharon's small butbeautifully-adorned home. the two were the mostunlikely activists. they'd just celebrated their25th anniversary together.
but until they'dmarried the year before, they'd told next to no one thatthey were lesbian or a couple. in fact, a few days afterthey applied for their wedding license, they each racedaround the state coming out to family members--including sharon to her mom and siblings--because they learned the local paper was going toprint the names of all those who had applied. they were gladthere were activists
who fought for equalityfor gay people, but that simplywasn't who they were. the mass equalityorganizer was persistent, explaining how criticalit was for legislators to hear from married coupleswho were their own constituents. their rural districtwas one where you had next to no advocates, sothey were especially critical. they finally relentedand agreed to set up a meeting with their senatorwhen he was in their community.
so now i'm going to fast-forwardto a meeting with their state representative, a conservativedemocrat named paul kujawski, whose vote was crucial. so this was at a meetingthat their pastor set up, and so their representative,kujawski, said, as the meeting reachedthe two-hour mark-- paul kujawski became curiousto know about the lesbian couple in the room. he'd been told there was onemarried couple in the group.
well, who was the gaycouple here, he asked. sharon and deb each said, me. pointing, kujawski said, oh, ithought you two were together. deb was sitting nextto a straight woman, not next to sharon. so are you married,kujawski asked. yes we are, sharon said. but when did you get married? july 12, 2004, she responded.
where did you get married? oh, we got married in theheadlands in rockport. kujawski was doing hisbest to engage them, but they were reticent. pastor john, the clergyman whoput this together, gave sharon a gentle pat on her arm andsaid, tell him your story. sharon proceeded to talkfor 10 minutes about she and deb, how she and deb met27 years before in boston. they knew they were in love,and moved in together in dudley
soon after. growing up as a child,she said, you always think that somedayyou'll get married. and then when you realize whoyou are and the way the world is, you realize that,well, that might never be an option for me. she talked about how sheand deb lived quietly first in dudley, and then up theroad eight miles in charlton, and created a life together,but that something was missing.
she told kujawski abouttheir wedding day, about how they took theirvows overlooking the atlantic ocean in rockport, and how muchthat day and their marriage mattered to them. for the first time, they werelegally related to one another. all we want is whateveryone else has, she said. we don't want anything more,but we don't want anything less, either. everyone was listeningwith rapt attention,
and deb had tearsstreaming down her face. paul kujawski just sat therelistening, staring, appearing a bit dumbfounded. this was a lot different fromwhat he'd expected to hear. the people he knew of whowere gay seemed like loners. he'd never seenthem with anybody, and he'd never thoughtof it as a way of life. kujawski was captivated bythe experience of two women from backgrounds like his own.
deb had grown upin a polish family in dudley, the neighboring cityto his hometown of webster. he was impressed bysharon's strength, and was sure of theirlove for one another after 27 years together. all of a sudden, what had seemedlike a black and white decision on the marriage questionturned stark gray. his heart felt heavy. wow, why didn't you saythat sooner, kujawski asked.
one of the last toleave the meeting, kujawski told sharonand deb that he'd like to speak to themagain at some point. as he left the homeand walked to his car, his friend mark, whohad hosted the meeting, thought it looked as ifthe weight of the world was on the shoulders. deb and sharon sent kujawski afollow-up letter the next day to thank him.
they said they'dbe happy to have more conversations with him. so over the course ofthe next few months, and this was in 2007when we were trying to get our crucialvote in massachusetts-- we needed 3/4 of the legislatureto vote our way-- we had about 20 targets we were workingon to get over that mark, they ended upmeeting with kujawski at least a couple more times.
and mass equality, we workedon him pretty relentlessly using every lever that we could. so this is the day of the vote. the final vote in massachusetts. early that morning,kujawski saw himself on the front pageof the boston globe, to which he'd given an interviewabout his own thought process. a legislator finds himselftugged in two directions, it was called.
it talks about his meetingswith his priests, the governor, and the speaker of the house. it said that kujawskiappeared to be headed towards achange of heart, and mentioned sharon and deb,who endured so many struggles and are now so happy together. it quoted kujawski as saying,"am i going to take that away?" heading north and theneast for the 56-mile drive, kujawski was resolute thathe was doing the right thing.
if i were gay, he thought, howwould i want to be treated? and how could ivote to treat anyone else differently from that? it was the real-lifestories that he'd heard, especially that of sharon anddeb, that made him understand. he figured no onehad approached him in the past because of hisreputation as a conservative, but no matter. now he got it.
and then this isright after the votes. deb and sharon sawkujawski in the statehouse. deb and sharon sawkujawski walking down the corridor towards themwith a giant grin on his face. sharon hugged and kissedhim, and, through the tears, thanked him for everything. kujo, which was his nickname,gave deb a giant bear hug. the tears were flowing,and they were all so happy. you made the differencefor me, kujawski told them.
after more tearsand embraces, they got an onlooker to snap a fewpictures of them all together. so that's the powerof the personal story, and we, as a campaign, havedone that with legislator after legislatorin massachusetts. and then in every partof the country that's been at the heart ofexplaining this cause to the american peopleand to our lawmakers-- is really opening upand sharing the crux
of our personal stories,and explaining why marriage is important to us. and as people saw that,as marriages began here in massachusetts andthen around the country, people really startedto understand. gay people want to marry for thesame reasons anyone else does. it's not a bad thing. it's actually a finething and a good thing, and let's let it happen.
but it took somereally hard work and some reallychallenging conversations, people stepping outof their comfort zone, in order to make that case. so if that's, in someways, the softer side of how we've evolvedthe country on marriage, the harder side isthat we've put together some really smart campaignshere in massachusetts and around the country.
since i am here northof the charles river, one of the stories italk about in the book is the story of carl sciortino,who some of you may know, who was a state representativein massachusetts. but just to take a step back,the one truism about politics is that, for electedofficials, the thing that's most important toan elected official is continuing to bean elected official. and if they think that avote is going to cost them
their career, and if you'rebanking on them taking a vote that they think is goingto cost them their career in order to win, you'renot going to win. that's is just theway things are. and, initially herein massachusetts, people thought thata vote for marriage would cost them their career. and that's been thecase, not just here, but all over the country.
and we had to turnthat on its head, but we had to do it firsthere in massachusetts. and what that meant is thatevery person who voted our way, we had to work hard toreelect to the legislature. and in legislaturesaround the country, there's some good folks,there's some mediocre folks, there's some corruptfolks, there's some people with personal problems. you get the fullgamut of humanoids
in these state legislatures. but it didn't matter. if they voted our waywe had to do everything we could to get them reelected. and the biggest thingthat we could do, the thing that could reallyturn things on its head, would be to defeat a couple oflawmakers who voted against us. then you would really startgetting people's attention. that not only is thisa safe political cause,
but it's dangerousto vote against us. and that was the story of carlsciortino, who some of you may know. you might haveseen his ad when he was running forcongress recently with this tea party father. that was a reallyterrific political ad. but he was a25-year-old graduate of tufts university, headedup the lgbt group at tufts,
and met with his statelawmaker, who was really terrible on marriage. he kept saying you people,you people, you people. and carl was so annoyedand really angry that he said, look,we've got to find someone to run against this guy. and he went out and talkedto-- and his legislature was a democrat frommedford somerville-- he went out and talked toother elected officials,
said hey-- and otheractivists-- and said, hey, would you run against this guy? nobody would do it, andhe's like, screw it. i'll do it myself. and i've got to behonest, when i first met with carl-- who is nowone of my closest friends-- when i first met with him andi was like, this is great. good luck. 25 gay guy from tufts.
go knock on doors and see. it wasn't until i reallylooked at his campaign plan, and met with thiscampaign consultants, and saw the polling, and sawhow vulnerable his opponent was that i was like,this could really-- if we all do this smartly--this could really happen. and, in the end, carl did agreat job in that election. and he defeated the16-year incumbent who was one of the-- he was amember of leadership, important
to the house speaker, who wasthen virulently against us-- he defeated him by about 90 votes. and i remember a weekafter that election a friend of mine who was alobbyist in the state house called me and said i wasjust in the restroom, and i overheard these twoconservative lawmakers talking to one another. and they said, hey, did youhear what the gays did to vinny? that was the guythat carl defeated.
and when i heard thatstory, i was like, wow, we really are getting somewhere. we're starting toshow our power. and so we've put togethera smart-- we did it here. we reelected, in massachusetts,195 out of 195 incumbents who voted our way. we didn't lose anyrace in 2004 and 2006. that was in spite of thefact that mitt romney tried his hardest toelect more republicans
to the legislature, thevast majority of whom-- back then-- were against us. we spent well overa million dollars. we did millions ofpieces of direct mail. we polled in dozensand dozens of races. and that's been one ofthe tenets of our work around the country, is puttingtogether smart campaigns. and knowing thatwe have to operate both in the politicalsystem and in the political
climates in which we are. so there's some really sleazystate capitals out there. i had the good fortuneof spending several weeks in albany, new york, which isjust really a terrible place. not the city so much,but the politics are just really grim there. and they call it atransactional state capitol, and you don't even want toknow what that really means. but we put togethera sharp campaign
and partnered upwith governor cuomo, who was a powerful advocate. we, as a community, had beeninvolved in the elections there. and we pulled that oneout in spite of the fact that both republicanleadership in the state senate and democratic leadershipwe're trying to, for various reasons, tryingto torpedo the marriage bill. springfield, illinoiswas the same way.
also an incrediblysleazy state capitol. except there are pictures andphotos and statues of abraham lincoln all over, lookingover your shoulder as these lawmakers are tryingto do some less than above-board things. and after 2008 incalifornia when we have that devastatingloss of proposition 8, which truly was a horrible,awful thing that was-- and it was a real bodyblow to our movement
and to our community. for me, it was such a bodyblow that i picked up, i came back to massachusetts,left mass equality, moved to california to puttogether a ballot campaign to win marriage back. it eventually got wonback through the courts, and i left and joinedfreedom to marry. but i knew it was soprofoundly devastating. and that we, thespirit of our community
and the spirit of thisbattle for marriage, wouldn't come back untilwe'd won marriage back in california. but what we did is wedidn't just sit there. we spent the next fewyears figuring out how to win at the ballot. and in 2012 we didfinally win at the ballot after 33 losses in a row. we won at the ballot infour states, four out
of four, in november of 2012,in washington, and minnesota, and maryland, and maine. and we did it byfiguring out better how to talk aboutmarriage, and really how to run smart,strategic campaigns. so running smartcampaigns has also been at the heart of this fight. and even and through gettingpresident obama to evolve on marriage, andwe ran a campaign
to put a freedom to marry plankin the democratic platform in 2012-- which gave alot of the obama folks and a lot of democratsa lot of heartburn. but we pushed, and he did theright thing, and was then-- he and the party were incrediblyproud of what that meant, and what that did forhim and his legacy and for his ability toreach out to younger voters. so if the two keys to this,and i'm only touching on them, but if the two keys to winningwere telling our stories
and explaining tothe american people why marriage wasso important to us, and explaining theintegrity-- and showing the integrity-- ofour relationships, and then running hard,tough, smart campaigns-- i think a little bitabout what inspired me to write this book inthe middle of this fight. when i startedwriting, we really were in the middleof this fight.
we're hopefully gettingcloser to the end now, but there arereally two reasons. and the first reason i decidedto write "winning marriage" is because the cause of civilrights is a very lofty cause. and it is profound, andlofty, and high minded, but what i reallywanted to do was show the work of civil rights. and the work of civil rightsis not lofty work in the main. it is going out andknocking on doors.
not in cambridge, but goingout to far out communities in middlesex county and out toworcester and rural worcester county. and out away from new york cityinto the suburban-- and not just suburban communities-- butinto smaller cities and towns. and in california,it's organizing in the central valley, infresno and bakersfield, and orange county. it's having tough conversationsin parts of the community,
in parts of the geographythat don't feel as safe and that aren't as supportive. that's the workof this movement. when i think about all thecanvassers and organizers i've had working for menow in the last 11 years, i've had hundreds andhundreds of organizers, who are just amazing, workand take this work on. and i bet there have beenat least 10 dog bites. and i know that there havebeen many more people who
have been chased downthe streets by homophobes in different communities. and that's the hardwork of civil rights. it's giving to apolitical candidate who your state-wide lgbtgroup says is important because they voted your way. even if you don't knowwho that person really is. or going out and knockingon doors for that candidate. and it is having thosetough conversations
that you feel like,oh my god, i finally need to have thisconversation with this family member or this neighbor, orneed to have a little house party in my neighborhoodto explain why this is important to me and my partnerwhen, for so many years, we've been living with our headsdown because-- let's face it-- we don't want to create waves. we don't want peopleto come after us. we don't want to be attacked.
that's been theheart of this work. and it continues. that's the work that's happeningtoday in texas, and in alabama, and throughout the south. so i did want to show, really,the nuts and bolts of what these campaigns are aboutand the hard, hard work that has gone into them. and also the thing that's reallyexciting about our success is that i-- and the other reasoni wanted to write this book--
is i wanted to providesomething of a road map for other social movements. i mean, there are so manycauses in our country that are reallystagnating right now. and our cause, the marriagecause, has done quite well. and i don't pretend to haveall the answers for all causes in the lease, but i do thinkthat over the last decade of trial and error and losingand losing and then winning, and figuring things out,i think we have learned
some important thingsthat we can share with other social movements. whether it's economicinequality, or gun violence prevention, or global warming. and one of the reallyexciting things these days is that i am asked tospeak to other social movements and other groups who are leadingsocial movements about how we've done and how themarriage movement has done it, and what we can teach.
so that really feels greatto be able to do that. and i guess i want to concludewith a little bit about where we are in this fight right now. so i said we are, literallyand metaphorically, we're on the steps of theus supreme court. and we are close, wehope, to final resolution. but i want to cautionall of us that one of things i hearnow, so often, is that this cause is inevitable.
it's done. it's over. and when i think backto when i first started, when i first wasgoing to those prides, and serving wedding cake, andmaking the case for marriage-- first to lgbt people,and then to progressives, and then further out,reaching out to republicans-- people were saying,this is crazy. this is impossible.
i would go to club cafe andmeet up with my friends there, and they'd be like,what are you doing? working on gay marriage? this is never going to happen. you're just pissing offthe catholic church. and so the pitchwas, it's impossible. and i was thinking abouthow much commonality there is between theimpossible and inevitable. and what really bringsthose two things together,
or what's really thesame about those two, is they both allowyou to sit around. if something's impossible,why would do anything it's just impossible. and if it'sinevitable, same thing. it's going to happen anyway. why would i get upand do something? and i guess, number one,the work of social movements and the work of causes thatare big and worth fighting
for is the work of takingsomething that feels, to so many people, impossible,and making progress every single day. building momentumevery single day, until the point where we aretoday where so many people are saying now it's inevitable. but what i'd say, i wouldalso say it's not inevitable. i mean, very littleis inevitable. it's not like we have a nineto nothing majority on the us
supreme court. and our job overthe next few months, and what we're workingon, literally, right now, is making thestrongest presentation we can to the us supremecourt that america is ready fornational resolution, and it's time to finish the job. and i am one whowould-- i end up using lots of sports analogies.
we should never spike theball on the 10-yard line. we've got to leaveit all on the field. we just have to keep goinghard until the court rules. and if they ruleour way then we can have lots and lotsof big parties and celebrate that itactually is inevitable because it's done. but until it's done,it's not yet done. and we do have 70percent of the country
where gay people canmarry, but i was just out in columbus, ohio last week. and ohio's a state wherethere is not yet the freedom to marry. and they certainlydon't think it's done. and we have organizers on theground in texas and in alabama. and in texas they certainlydon't think it's done. so there's stillwork to be done. the cause isn't over yet.
we need to fightthrough the finish line. so i guess i would and there. and, again, i want to thankour friends at google. when i think about howpoliticians are often about a decade behindwhere the public is, corporations have been reallyhelping guide this fight. and it's companieslike google that have been showing politiciansand others that not only is it safe to be in favor ofthe freedom to marry,
but it's actually good business. so thanks to all of you. thanks for coming. and i look forward to chatting,answering any questions, and signing books,and hanging out. male speaker: i have a question. from your experience--one of the things that worries me about america todayis the enormous influence of money in politics, thevast corruption of our system,
is there anything tobe done about that? how do we get moneyout of politics? marc solomon: that'sa good question. so i'd say there'ssort of two answers. i mean, on the first--right now, as you know and as you stated,there are huge amounts of money in politics. and so, from my vantagepoint, we have to, in the marriagemovement, we've certainly
had to play by therules that we have. and so we haveused as much money as we can get our handson to make the case and to win elections. but now with these justridiculous amounts of money, when you read somethinglike the koch brothers are going to spend $900 millionin this next presidential election cycle, it'sjust outrageous. i think that it's very, verydifficult because the court has
ruled that money is speech. and, from my vantagepoint, it's not speech. money is money. and money is influence. it's not simply speech. so i guess there area couple answers. one is work to electa president who will appoint supreme courtjustices who don't believe that money is speech.
and, second, there areefforts to start building towards a constitutionalamendment. that's going to bea long, long road. so that's goingto be a tough one. but there are some goodpeople working on this cause. and so i don't havea-- there's certainly no simple answer to that one. but those are a couple. do you have a second question?
you don't have to. male speaker: withrespect to climate change, which is something thatworries me very much-- marc solomon: yeah. male speaker: i wasthinking about how to apply your lessons inthe space of climate change, but the personal storiesare a lot harder to come by. i don't get to marrya polar bear, so what-- can you paint alittle more of a picture
about how yourtechniques pertain to a more abstract issuelike climate change? marc solomon: yeah,i mean, i think the more we can make itlocal, any cause local, the better off we are. on lgbt rights andon marriage equality, when we first startedworking on it, people were talking about--when we'd do focus groups and we'd watch people andthey'd talk about those people
out there-- those people insan francisco, those people in new york-- not peopleright here at home. so i haven't spent alot of time focused on how to make thecase on climate change, but i think making itas local as possible and having people talkabout local impact, so how's it going toaffect boston, how's it going to affect ourchildren living here in boston, is really important.
that's the-- i think it's,from my vantage point, it's got to be about peopleas opposed to polar bears, even though they're cute. i think to the extent we cantalk about how it is affecting people, and how it'saffecting our kids, i think that's the way to do it. those are just acouple thoughts. and i would love to sit downand plot with some of my friends who are working on this issue.
but those are a couple thoughts. thank you.
Demikianlah Artikel Goodridge V. Department Of Public Health
Anda sekarang membaca artikel Goodridge V. Department Of Public Health dengan alamat link https://yanderatjen.blogspot.com/2017/05/goodridge-v-department-of-public-health.html
0 Response to "Goodridge V. Department Of Public Health"
Posting Komentar