<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Law and Marriage: a Case Study</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sheilakennedy.net/2010/02/law-and-marriage-a-case-study/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sheilakennedy.net/2010/02/law-and-marriage-a-case-study/</link>
	<description>Thinking about Liberty</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 15:18:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sandy Bickel</title>
		<link>http://sheilakennedy.net/2010/02/law-and-marriage-a-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-881</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandy Bickel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:08:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sheilakennedy.net/?p=996#comment-881</guid>
		<description>As an up-close observer of the process, credit has to go to both Speaker Bauer and Mark St. John.  Mark is tireless in his efforts for equality and Speaker Bauer is courageous enough to stand up and take the bullets for his caucus, as well as some open-minded Republicans who don&#039;t want the amendment to see the light of day, but are unwilling to stand up to the base of the party.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As an up-close observer of the process, credit has to go to both Speaker Bauer and Mark St. John.  Mark is tireless in his efforts for equality and Speaker Bauer is courageous enough to stand up and take the bullets for his caucus, as well as some open-minded Republicans who don&#8217;t want the amendment to see the light of day, but are unwilling to stand up to the base of the party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerame</title>
		<link>http://sheilakennedy.net/2010/02/law-and-marriage-a-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-863</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerame</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sheilakennedy.net/?p=996#comment-863</guid>
		<description>Sheila, dragging Bil into this is just a cheap shot to attempt to discredit my comment. I am not angry at IE - I&#039;m angry at your friend, Mark St. John. There are good people at IE and they&#039;ve been misled and misdirected by Mark. Your constant cheerleading is rather transparent and doesn&#039;t help your credibility in this matter in the least.

You&#039;re so dismissive of any criticism of IE, but the truth is that they have some serious issues that don&#039;t get addressed. You listen to only one side of the story because you are friends with Mark. You have always taken his side regardless if he&#039;s right or wrong - that makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You really don&#039;t know the whole story and you don&#039;t take the time or effort to find out, but you go about blasting everyone who&#039;s a critic. The criticism exists for a reason. I served on that board for 3 years - I think I have every right and reason to say what I say about IE&#039;s policies, mistakes and failures.

Again, I&#039;d encourage you to find a source other than Mark for your news and info on LGBT issues. You could, as a straight ally, do a lot of good for LGBT equality if you weren&#039;t just cheerleading for IE and dismissing their critics without thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sheila, dragging Bil into this is just a cheap shot to attempt to discredit my comment. I am not angry at IE &#8211; I&#8217;m angry at your friend, Mark St. John. There are good people at IE and they&#8217;ve been misled and misdirected by Mark. Your constant cheerleading is rather transparent and doesn&#8217;t help your credibility in this matter in the least.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re so dismissive of any criticism of IE, but the truth is that they have some serious issues that don&#8217;t get addressed. You listen to only one side of the story because you are friends with Mark. You have always taken his side regardless if he&#8217;s right or wrong &#8211; that makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.</p>
<p>You really don&#8217;t know the whole story and you don&#8217;t take the time or effort to find out, but you go about blasting everyone who&#8217;s a critic. The criticism exists for a reason. I served on that board for 3 years &#8211; I think I have every right and reason to say what I say about IE&#8217;s policies, mistakes and failures.</p>
<p>Again, I&#8217;d encourage you to find a source other than Mark for your news and info on LGBT issues. You could, as a straight ally, do a lot of good for LGBT equality if you weren&#8217;t just cheerleading for IE and dismissing their critics without thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shekenne</title>
		<link>http://sheilakennedy.net/2010/02/law-and-marriage-a-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-862</link>
		<dc:creator>shekenne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sheilakennedy.net/?p=996#comment-862</guid>
		<description>Jerame, I understand that you and Bil remain angry at Indiana Equality. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. While Pat Bauer deserves credit for understanding the implications, I think your dismissal and mischaracterization of IE is unwarranted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jerame, I understand that you and Bil remain angry at Indiana Equality. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. While Pat Bauer deserves credit for understanding the implications, I think your dismissal and mischaracterization of IE is unwarranted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerame</title>
		<link>http://sheilakennedy.net/2010/02/law-and-marriage-a-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-861</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerame</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:17:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sheilakennedy.net/?p=996#comment-861</guid>
		<description>Yeah, the strategy has &quot;worked&quot; but barely. Ultimately, it&#039;s a failed strategy because it pits IE against the rest of the LGBT community in the state and the nation. IE is one of the few, if not the only, statewide LGBT organization that doesn&#039;t support full marriage equality. Most people don&#039;t realize this - they assume that IE is pro-marriage. At some point, this will bite IE in the backside.

Kicking the can down the road has also set us back in moving our agenda forward in any real way. Your history of IE is a little off - they were originally formed exclusively to advocate for a statewide employment, housing and public accommodations non-discrimination law. So far, they haven&#039;t even gotten that bill introduced, let alone enacted.

Up until about 3 years ago, IE&#039;s website promised that bill would have already been introduced in the legislature. Because of this &quot;middle of the road&quot; policy, IE has a hard time advocating for pro-LGBT legislation.

The tactics you describe (pointing out the effect on non-LGBT people, gathering support from the pro-equality businesses, heartfelt testimony) are all great and should be part of any strategy in defeating a marriage amendment...But that doesn&#039;t mean that the overall strategy is sound or will continue to be viable.

You also failed to point out the political realities of putting this amendment on the ballot. Democrat speaker of the House Pat Bauer is a shrewd and brilliant politician. He knows that if this amendment makes it to the ballot, the Democrats will have a bad year statewide.

THAT, more than anything else, is what&#039;s keeping this amendment from seeing light of day. Yes, the tactics of IE give Bauer the cover he needs to stand strong in that position, but don&#039;t fool yourself or your readers into believing that IE is the real reason this amendment has died.

Pat Bauer deserves the lion&#039;s share of the credit and you do him and the movement for LGBT equality a disservice by implying anything different.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, the strategy has &#8220;worked&#8221; but barely. Ultimately, it&#8217;s a failed strategy because it pits IE against the rest of the LGBT community in the state and the nation. IE is one of the few, if not the only, statewide LGBT organization that doesn&#8217;t support full marriage equality. Most people don&#8217;t realize this &#8211; they assume that IE is pro-marriage. At some point, this will bite IE in the backside.</p>
<p>Kicking the can down the road has also set us back in moving our agenda forward in any real way. Your history of IE is a little off &#8211; they were originally formed exclusively to advocate for a statewide employment, housing and public accommodations non-discrimination law. So far, they haven&#8217;t even gotten that bill introduced, let alone enacted.</p>
<p>Up until about 3 years ago, IE&#8217;s website promised that bill would have already been introduced in the legislature. Because of this &#8220;middle of the road&#8221; policy, IE has a hard time advocating for pro-LGBT legislation.</p>
<p>The tactics you describe (pointing out the effect on non-LGBT people, gathering support from the pro-equality businesses, heartfelt testimony) are all great and should be part of any strategy in defeating a marriage amendment&#8230;But that doesn&#8217;t mean that the overall strategy is sound or will continue to be viable.</p>
<p>You also failed to point out the political realities of putting this amendment on the ballot. Democrat speaker of the House Pat Bauer is a shrewd and brilliant politician. He knows that if this amendment makes it to the ballot, the Democrats will have a bad year statewide.</p>
<p>THAT, more than anything else, is what&#8217;s keeping this amendment from seeing light of day. Yes, the tactics of IE give Bauer the cover he needs to stand strong in that position, but don&#8217;t fool yourself or your readers into believing that IE is the real reason this amendment has died.</p>
<p>Pat Bauer deserves the lion&#8217;s share of the credit and you do him and the movement for LGBT equality a disservice by implying anything different.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

