LAFF's Rich Raddon tendered his resignation last night...
And FIND did not accept it.
So this morning - right now, actually - the LAFF board is meeting about how to move forward.
In many ways, I am encouraged by this becoming a decision to be made by a group and not by one person, whether the person under fire or the top of FIND, Dawn Hudson. It is an opportunity to debate these issues in some detail and, surely, with great passion.
This is, no doubt, a tricky slope. Can a person who works in a community with a strong history of supporting gay (and other minority) rights survive while differing from the group politically? Isn't that at the core of freedom of ideas?
On the other hand, isn't one reasonable price to pay for the expression of one's freedom to get a response from the other side?
Did Mr. Raddon show cowardice in trying to exit FIND rather than fighting for what he believes?
One group will debate that this morning... and an answer may or may not be forthcoming. But in choosing not to accept Raddon's resignation, Dawn and those she consulted took a leadership role. Rich Raddon will not be simply swept under the rug.
If the FIND board believes in transparency that they should make their positions known... not in single-voiced unity, but in some way that suggests the range of opinions on this issue. I know it would be an onerous burden on many of the board members who don't want the exposure of expressing their politics in public. But that is where the win is, in my opinion. Until we can have these debates in public, without the lies of a political campaign, and then come together as groups united for other purposes as well... well, until then, it's National Guardsmen walking little black kids to school. And whatever your minority, it would be nice to think we are past that.
it will be discussed and
Moving on...
In last night's post about Raddon's contribution to "Yes On 8," the comments seemed to line up on either side of a few issues...
1. Prop 8 was either "the protection of marriage" and not intended to remove any constitutional rights OR a statewide referendum to remove civil rights from a targetted group.
2..Guys like Raddon are either being abused for expressing their political rights or they are reaping the fruits of backstabbing key constituencies in their workplaces.
3. Either you hang onto the "people's will" idea of the vote and other votes like it nationally or you see it as a fundamental constitutional issue that isn't really up for debate.
I wonder... Has 40 years of black civil rights made America color blind? (And before you shout, “Obama,” look at how close an election where the republicans logically should have lost 45 states was.) And if it were up for a vote, would blacks have gotten such rights?
Seeing Milk again last night, I was struck again by how smart a guidebook to this whole entanglement Harvey Milk's story is. He saw what the vulnerabilities of "the straight world" were and he also refused to bend to the cautious efforts of the most financially powerful members of the SF gay community of the time. He came before, "I'm here, I'm ***, get used to it!," but in his ways, he said it loud and proud every day.
It is treacherous territory when you swing, as a movement, from fighting to get something to being enraged when you have something taken away. Moving forward is more easily swallowed and a lot less threatening than the anger that can explode when you respond to being forced to take a step backwards... and whether you think gay marriage is important or not, and whether you think gay America needs further legal protection or not, one must admit that Prop 8 was a step backwards for gay America.
Read the complete post at http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/11/down_goes_raddo.html