Digesting the bitter Prop 8 news, I'm disappointed and sad to have lost gay marriage in California. The adoption of a constitutional ban there has set back the cause by years. What's more frustrating, though, is what I'm hearing from people on our side. "This just shows why civil rights shouldn't be put up for a vote." Or: "We lost this one, but there are other courts to try." To me this translates as: "We're determined not to learn from defeat."
Not just one defeat. On gay marriage, we're now zero for 30 on state constitutional bans. Think about that. Has any other political movement in the history of the United States compiled such an unblemished record of total electoral annihilation? An introspective movement should be doing some fundamental rethinking at this point.
My suggestion: Rethink, first, the wisdom of mindlessly pushing lawsuits through the courts without adequately preparing the public. The result is gay marriage in two states-one of which, Connecticut, would soon have had it anyway-at the cost of a backlash which has made the climb much steeper in dozens of other states, and which, in some states, has banned even civil unions. The California debacle is particularly stinging. We already had civil unions there, and we were only one Democratic governor away from seeing those converted legislatively, hence less controversially, to marriages. First rule of politics: if you're winning anyway, don't kick it away.
Rethink, second, the strategy of telling the public that we're entitled to marriage by right and that anyone who disagrees is a discriminator or, by implication, a bigot. Some portion of the public, let's call it a third, agrees with that proposition, but a third isn't enough. As Dale Carpenter points out, another, let's say, third loaths homosexuality, but they're not winnable. The key is the middle group, people who oppose anti-gay discrimination but see gender as part of the definition of marriage, not as a discriminatory detail. We're going to have to persuade these people that gay marriage is a good idea. We're going to have to talk about gay marriage instead of changing the subject to discrimination. Bludgeoning them with civil-rights rhetoric isn't going to work. Not if it failed in the country's bluest state in a bright-blue year.
The gay marriage issue is not going to be decided over the heads of the American people, and no amount of comparing it to Brown vs. Board of Education or any other dubiously relevant precedent will change that. Too many gay heads are too strategically locked into a litigation-based mindset that has become counterproductive. Too many people forget that Martin Luther King was a persuader, not a litigator, and that the real breakthroughs came through Congress, not courts.
Addendum: A useful emendation here. In a perverse way, it cheers me up a bit to know that, pre-Prop 8, California was not as close to SSM as I thought.
More: A silver lining in Arizona, courtesy of commenter Throbert...
72 Comments for “Try a Little Learning”
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
While I am disappointed by these results, I’m hardly surprised. Simply put, when is the gay establishment going to accept the unpleasant reality that this country simply is not ready for full-on gay marriage, and that 1) this is going to take a long time to change, and 2) we’re going to have to take this in steps, with pushing for the far-less-controversial (and far more acceptable to the public) domestic partnership FIRST. I know many aren’t going to like this (I’m not crazy about it myself), but it’s time we faced reality.
posted by BobN on
“we were only one Democratic governor away”
Speaking of re-thinking…
posted by Jay on
Casting gay marriage as a civil rights issue is only going to be effective for people who are prone to seeing it that way (which, apparently, doesn’t include the vast majority of African Americans). While legislation and judicial rulings can help to set the tone for social acceptability, the only way sexual minorities will gain full rights and participation in society is by demonstrating why we deserve it. This means being open about who we are, interacting substantively and positively with large segments of our communities (i.e., not self-segregating) and behaving in a manner which the majority of people will find acceptable (an unpopular concept among those who want acceptance but refuse to recognize that society and culture are created through give-and-take, accommodation, and respectful education).
posted by Chris on
Although it is disappointing, I don’t think losing on Prop 8 in any way indicates that we shouldn’t be bringing strategically chosen court challenges when we can win them. Prop 8 has not cost us anything politically in Cal. — we still have civil unions — and even if marriage had been enacted by the legislature in California, Prop 8 still would probably have passed and would have taken it away. People who think we should give up on court challenges need to explain why Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia are different from what we’re trying to do now. If we sat back and waited for a majority to change their minds about school segregation or interracial marriage, we might very well still be waiting.
Here’s something else to keep in mind: anyone can file a lawsuit, and many of these cases do not originate with the organized LGBT movement. If we can’t prevent lawsuits, shouldn’t we at least have good lawyers out there trying to coordinate some type of disciplined strategy?
posted by Attmay on
Breeders don’t deserve marriage but they have it.
posted by Asphenaz on
Here’s a thought–stop me if you’ve heard this–let’s shut down all the Pride parades and Rainbow rallies and Stonewall protests. Let’s rebrand ourselves–instead of being the standard bearers for promiscuity, STDS, multiple partners, gender blurring, and meth addiction, let’s see if we can find a more positive set of qualities. What if we really, really worked on, say, lifelong monogamy as the first thing people think of when they hear the word gay?
In fact, let’s jettison the word gay. It carries too much political and cultural baggage. Let’s use something like “men attracted to men.” Let’s emphasize our gender security and our masculine identification.
Let’s strive to be better than straights. Let’s take our civil unions and make them synonymous with lifelong monogamy and stability. Let’s see if we can be so nurturing and traditional that people will be begging us to adopt their children.
Or we can just blame everyone else for our problems rather than do some self-examination and changing.
posted by Scott Shackford on
This argument presumes that the gay community at large acts and makes decisions together, which we all know is not true. We don’t have the power to keep a gay couple from filing suit for marriage recognition. It is most certainly not within our power to stop parades. Because “gay” isn’t a political party (hence the existence of this forum), we’re always going to have to deal with these elements of the community that are out of our control. We have to be able to react to both sides here, or else we’re just going to end up stuck in the middle with a giant headache. Which, frankly, is where some of us probably are.
A very interesting thing happened to me yesterday — I got sympathetic comments from folks who admitted they are against gay marriage and likely voted for Prop. 8. I didn’t get angry with them or even lecture them at all. I thanked them for their kind words. I’ve been open enough and calm enough in my arguments that I’m starting to see actual engagement that goes beyond the talking points folks people are handed. And it’s like Jonathan said, I don’t call people bigots for voting against it, though I am firm that I believe gay marriage is a civil right.
posted by dalea on
Looking at this, we did carry White and Asian voters. And came very close with Hispanics. Which given the absolute incompetance of the No on 8 campaign amazes me. For years I have been reading the IGF critique of our national groups. I was somewhat skeptical of that, but now having experienced them first hand, you are right. This campaign was a grade A number one clusterfuck.
Volunteered for the effort. At one Art Fair, the organizers were late. There were volunteers milling about but we did not know each other so couldn’t do anything. Once we started, we were restricted to asking people to work phone banks on week nites and asking for money. People were begging us for literature they could pass out to friends and family. The organizers told us that the campaign had choosen to be a group that did not pass out literature, some sort of style issue. Then we asked for Spanish and Asian language literature or scripts. Everything was in English, in a state that is 35% Hispanic and 12% Asian.
People wanted yard signs. To get this they would have to drive 14 miles thru very heavy traffic, pay to park, and buy them at the office which was not open much.
On election day, the campaign did not bother to call many of the people who volunteered. They just left people to do what they could without any resources.
Door to door campaigning was forbidden. Any outreach beyond a narrow range of venues was forbidden. We were restricted to tables outside Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods. Not Vons, Ralphs, Target or more ordinary places.
Three of us wanted to set up in front of a local Target. We were discouraged from doing so. And realized we would need to make our own Spanish language literature. This was the most poorly put together effort I have ever seen.
posted by Ashpenaz on
How about this? Stop Protesting! Or, at least, stop protesting by marching in the streets. I watched the protests today and thought, Wow, this will cement the views of anyone who was marginally against gay marriage to being completely against it. Stop having parades! Stop having rallies! Stop wearing purple and rainbows! That’s why we’re in this mess!
As one gay put it, “Living well is the best revenge.” Living well is also the best form of protest. Let’s spend some time working on lifelong monogamous relationships and sobriety before the next election. Why is that so hard to understand? Why does the gay community always choose being dramatic over being effective?
posted by Bryan on
“…we were only one Democratic governor away from seeing those converted legislatively, hence less controversially, to marriages…”
Unfortunately not true. Governor Schwarzenegger did veto gay marriage twice whereas it is conceivable Gray Davis wouldn’t have–sans recall. However, even if a democrat governor had signed a gay marriage bill, bigot opponents would undoubtedly challenged the law through an initiative referendum, a rarely-used but perfectly viable option in the California constitution whereby voters can strike down laws enacted by the legislature. Most likely, voters would have repealed a gay marriage bill by the same margin that they approved prop 8. Keep in mind also that Bigotry Inc. had started the long and costly process of qualifying a constitutional initiative ban on gay marriage BEFORE the California Supreme Court legalized it, so if the Court had not acted, prop 8 would very likely STILL have been on the November ballot and would have likely passed anyway.
I do agree that gay marriage supporters need to get a different “marketing strategy”. Maybe actually showing real gay people in commercials would have helped remind voters these are actual families–one might have thought we were voting on unicorn marriage considering the total and complete absence of actual gay people in the prop 8 commercials from both sides.
posted by Doug on
MLK may have been a persuader but his marches and persuasion were accompanied by some of the most violent riots I have ever seen. Also lets not forget that a lot of gay and lesbians are not ‘out’ and our african american brothers and sisters were not able to hide their color as we can hide our orientation so they had nothing to lose by marching in the streets.
posted by Attmay on
California needs to repeal the ballot initiative. Our rights are non-negotiable.
posted by Tommy on
Rauch,
Try a little understanding. You have either a well-organized, atypical mind or you wilfully live in an imaginary fantasy world if you didn’t feel at least the momentary desire to burn down a temple full of smug-faced Mormons, or at least spit in a self-righteous black preacher’s face.
The human conscious mind becomes highly invested in abstract ideas, readily categorizes and oversimplifies the social world, and quickly identifies enemies and plans resistance strategies. I know you’re mad. And whether you confess to wanting to plant bombs under the altars of straight weddings or not, I know thoughts of senseless retribution have drifted through your mind.
For the sake of a rigorous intellectual exercise, you are turning your sights on your allies, wondering how their attitudes and actions might have brought this about. Indeed, the conduct of some no on 8 activists was deplorable. Indeed, the courts are a pointless and artificial strategy for enforcing social tolerance. Indeed, if this were about cool-headed strategy, our allies would have calmed down and let the inevitable arrive.
I don’t think you grasp that this isn’t an army. There is no we. “We” haven’t decided on a sound strategy and moved forward, nor will we, nor should we even try. I also don’t think you grasp that this crap is bigger than all of us. This is about the cosmos. This is about the bio-psycho-social formation of human beings, the clash of populations. People’s behavior is pre-determined. No wise-acre with a clever idea is going to stop these processes unfolding. This is a Greek tragedy, and I reserve the right, at least for a few days, to senselessly rant and rave against the Gods. For me, this takes the form of blaming Mormons and blacks, and experiencing increased contempt for religion in general and the attitudes of aesthetic selfishness (people find it distasteful, therefore vote against it without regard for real rational consideration) that Corvino explains to us.
As this election result indicates, no systematic method exists for changing how large numbers of people think and behave, at least if you’re staying inside the bounds of conventional ethics.
posted by Jarrett on
Yes, this is the heart of it, that middle third. They won’t trust you as a guide if you tell them they’ve already failed ethically. Neither would we.
I’m curious if anyone at IGF or elsewhere would be interested in the following challenge:
In the context of the passage of California’s Proposition 8, banning gay marriage and potentially unmarrying thousands of couples, look at Obama’s speech on race, and construct a similar speech appropriate to the topic of marriage equality — something that a California leader or potential leader could give that would appeal to people on both sides of the issue and motivate them to be kind and forgiving toward one another.
I am having trouble imaging this speech, because I am too much on one side of the issue. It may be that no gay person can write this speech, but that a caring straight person can. Who knows? Surprise us.
Jarrett Walker
http://urbanist.typepad.com
posted by Ashpenaz on
It’s really getting annoying having my point ignored thread after thread after thread. I realize you all think I’m stupid, but just for a moment, reflect: is it possible that the tactics that the gay community has used for the past 40 years are wrong and self-defeating? What would it take for you to realize that maybe, just maybe, the gay community needs to rethink its public behavior?
I’m the one, and maybe the only one on this board, who wants a traditional marriage–that is, a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship with another man. It is incredibly frustrating to see that goal blocked by those who don’t really want that. I think that most of those people are marching in the streets trying to find their next hookup. I’m sorry, I realize that’s offensive, and I obviously have never met any REAL gay people or I wouldn’t think that, but I do, and so do most of the voters in California.
I really want to get married some day. Please, please stop making it so difficult for me.
posted by Jay on
@Ashpenaz: w00t 😐
Isn’t that the whole point of gays marrying? Lifelong commitment? Every movement in history has been comprised of many stages, many approaches, sometimes working against one another, clashing with each other. Movements evolve over time, and require revitalization, rethinking and recasting. The increasing mainstreaming of sexual minorities parallels that of blacks in America, and the evolution of our struggle for full civil rights and social acceptance, including civil disobedience, protests, legal challenges and social education are all part of that.
Blacks were legally equal…um…quite some time ago. It took *social change*, cultural change, to finally bring us to the point we are at today. And yes, part of that change was brought about by (though I hate to say it) blacks who act an awful lot like whites. It’s human to fear and be made uncomfortable by what we don’t understand. The challenge before us is not one of subsuming ourselves in a dominant culture and conforming to their stereotypes of behavior, but of coming to terms with ourselves, our place in the larger cultural context, and demonstrating to that larger context that we are not a threat, but an integrable aspect of human society.
In short, those who want to integrate themselves fully in the larger culture should be able to do so, while those who don’t should not be forced to. The key to achieving this is to understand and spread understanding. What many people see as gay culture (or the “gay lifestyle”) is largely a vestige of cultural isolationism and rejection (cf. hip-hop culture), along with an attempt to find comfort in a self-defined, welcoming cultural space (or the mindlessness of sexual obsession). This cultural separation will ultimately fade away as gays and non-gays ultimately converge into “people”. [Cue swelling music]
posted by Ashpenaz on
I don’t know all my emoticons, so I’ll assume your symbol means, “Thanks for your intelligent, perceptive comments!”
I would bet that if you took a poll of gays who–
a. were in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship
b. were waiting to have sex until they were in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship
c. believed that a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship is the ideal but haven’t lived up to that ideal
and asked this group: Do think that Pride rallies and protest marches will help us gain the right to marry?
I bet the answer would be–Not So Much, NO. See, the people who really want to get married have a completely different experience of the gay community than those who have no interest in getting married but like to hold rallies and protests. We who want marriage know that those we have to convince, say, Mormons, are more likely to be impressed by fidelity and stability than drag queens in Amy Winehouse wigs throwing condoms from a penis float. We who want marriage know that Pride rallies and protest marches reinforce negative stereotypes.
But everyone wants to ignore me on that. Just pretend I’m not here. I don’t want to disturb your counterproductive discussion of self-defeating tactics which don’t allow input from gays who actually want marriage.
posted by Jim DLH on
“On gay marriage, we’re now zero for 30 on state constitutional bans.”
True, but how many of those bans were put forth by the pro-gay side, on the pro-gay timetable? I think none were.
As Bryan commented, the anti-gay side was raising millions of dollars to gather signatures and put Prop 8 on the ballot *months* before the California Supreme Court ruled on the marriage cases. And the anti-gay side tried to put two different anti-marriage measures on the 2006 ballot, but failed due to lack of funds and support.
Jonathon, the leadership of the pro-gay side doesn’t get to choose not to fight anti-gay ballot measures. The marriage equality movement in California did do a tremendous amount of grass-roots opinion moving from 1999 to 2008. It did persuade the legislature to pass a succession of domestic partnership, “civil union”, and then marriage equality bills. It built a religious coalition in support of marriage equality. Which of these was a mistake?
The marriage equality ruling and five months of happy weddings of same-sex couples did change some minds. Are you arguing that it would have been better to fight Proposition 8 with no Supreme Court victory, and none of the personal stories those weddings generated? Because calling off Prop 8 was never an option for the pro-gay leadership.
posted by Tommy on
Ashpenaz, I think people don’t take you seriously because, even though you hold several ideas typical of gay conservatives (who are well represented on this forum), you have a very negative and condemnatory way of discussing them. Many gay people put up with enough condemnation and negative remarks, and probably won’t agree with political statements that are made in the same tone as lots of harsh anti-gay statements.
If I have one piece of advice for you, it is to consult the serenity prayer. Ask for the wisdom to know the difference between things you can and cannot change. If I were you, I would say “I wish I could be a part of a gay activist community that promoted itself by emphasizing that gays are just like ordinary people instead of a community that is too radical.” Not “I hate gay activists because I believe they are ruining my life.”
posted by DaveO on
Get the gay rights groups to learn a lesson from Barack Obama:
Drop the “redistributive change” language, switch it to “changes of heart” and there’s a lesson for the whole gay marriage movement strategery.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, people here have different perspectives and ideas about how to continue to advance same sex marriage and other gay rights. I’m sure some are more productive than others. Part of the problem is that we sometimes look at the same thing quite differently. For example, as disappointing as the success on the bigoted anti-gay initiatives were, and the fact that there are 30 states that have amendments banning same sex marriage, we are making decent progress. Keep in mind that from the beginning of the nation to about ten years ago, there were no state amendments banning same sex marriage. This wasn’t because of the “glory days” of the 19th Century, the lack of pride parades, or there was no Stonewall for most of the period. It was because there simply was NO same sex marriage. Period. Now that gay persons have the temerity to want, ask for, and demand the same rights and privileges of everyone else, the bigots come out, saying they got what they want, and sh&t on everyone else. Again, there were no pride parades, Stonewall, etc. in the 19th Century. Yet Walt Whitman, et al, could not get married or have a civil union recognized like all other marriages were.
There’s going to be more ups and downs. Since there is no gay monolith, there is not going to be a united strategy. That seemed to be one reason why Prop. 8 passed. We’ve seen on this board people with varying opinions on what the strategy. Heck, there is a significant percentage of gay persons who are against same sex marriage. Sure, we can talk about responsibility from the various factions in the gay community. But at some point, we are all responsible for our own lives. We’ve got to play the cards we’ve been dealt. You’ve made clear what you want and expect from gay persons. Now go out and make friends with those with similar expectations, find the special one, take a trip to Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Canada and get married. All the pride parades, Stonewall, and drag queens in the world have no power in preventing from attaining these goals, unless you choose to let it.
posted by Jay on
@Ashpenaz: 😉
I would bet that if you took a poll of STRAIGHT MEN who–
a. were in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship
b. were waiting to have sex until they were in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship
c. believed that a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship is the ideal but haven’t lived up to that ideal
That that poll would have a relatively small sample size. Part of the beauty, dysfunction, and challenge of being gay men is that we are, ultimately, men. And divorced of societal expectations of fidelity and exquisite, ball-aching patience (pardon the manly language), it shouldn’t surprise anyone that most gay men tend toward the profligate, much like college frat boys, who are freed from parental restraint and not at the moment in deep romantic love. The sexual libertines in our ranks tell us of “free love”, while the conservative mainstream (i.e., painfully straight folks) tell us we should be permanently abstinent or live dysfunctional pretend-hetero lives.
I think the best thing that those of us who believe in the validity and beauty of masculine love can do is to be ourselves, be seen (by both sides), and be true to ourselves and our own ideals. In other words, be role models for whoever will see us as such, and archetypes for the rest. But at the same time, I think it’s a mistake to say “If only those freaks would behave themselves, then people will treat me as normal.” Only by expanding the definition of normality and decency to fully include sexual minorities (though, admittedly, there are those who make that rather more difficult than one would hope) can we evolve society–and ourselves–to that sweet spot of acceptance and reciprocal understanding which most reasonable people would view as a tolerant, heterogenous, free society.
So, like Pat said, be yourself, and let people see that you are not the stereotype they are accustomed to.
posted by Ashpenaz on
There were, in fact, same-sex marriages. The church had rites to celebrate same-sex couples. There was the German Bludbrudershaft. Whitman developed the idea of “adhesion.” There were “Boston marriages.” But I guess you missed studying all those kinds of same-sex unions during Gay History Month. I don’t think any gays in the 19th century ever asked for the kind of legal recognition we’re asking for, not because they were oppressed, but because they didn’t need it. The various forms of socially acceptable unions provided them with the security they needed. If it wasn’t broke, there was no need to fix it. Our 20th century desire to fix what wasn’t broken has led to all this mess we’re in now.
I agree–most 20th century gay men are profligate. So why are you out there creating disturbances for a marriage you don’t even want? Why can’t you let those of us who want traditional marriage determine the tactics that would best get us there? I don’t want to expand the definition of decency–I want the ideal for all sexual relationships, gay and straight, to be lifelong, sexual exclusivity. If you want to overthrow the traditional understanding of marriage, then you are doing exactly what the voters are accusing you of doing. I don’t want to overthrow tradition–I want gay relationships to become part of that tradition.
I’m really tired of gays “defending” my right to marry when they don’t believe in marriage. If you really wanted to help me–and I’m sure I speak for the of gays who actually want lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships–you would shut up and go home and let us “normies” do what we need to do. Stop marching in the street on behalf of those of us who want to get married. Please. Now. We’ll let you know when we want your help.
posted by JRauch on
Here’s a useful emendation sent by a friend:
“We were not, in fact, one Democratic governor away from having SSM in California. The California court made it clear in its May decision that Prop 22 (passed as a state statute in 2000) applied both to in-state and out-of-state marriages (some people on our side had argued that Prop 22 banned only recognition of out-of-state SSMs). As an initiative-adopted statute, under California law it could not be repealed by the state legislature without another vote of the people. Thus, at best, we were one Democratic governor *and* an initiative vote away from SSM in the state. Alternatively, the initiative could have been put on the ballot by rounding up the minimum number of petition signatures. Either way, the usual legislative route was shut off by the passage of Prop 22.”
posted by Craig2 on
So, how do you feel about the success of Washington’s Initiative 1000, backed by a state LGBT group?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen physician assisted suicide debated on this site…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by BobN on
Had the cowardly Arnold signed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage, there would have been an immediate court case. It’s possible that the anti-gay petition drive would have been more difficult, but it would have happened, too.
For a bunch of “conservatives” and “independents”, you guys don’t seem to know much about how rapid the California GOP has become about gay rights (I don’t mean the rank and file, I mean the party structure). They’ve gone completely tribal on this issue.
posted by BobN on
Ashpenaz, I ignore most of your complaints about gay pride parades and demonstrations because they appear to be based on news reports you watch on Fox. I doubt you’ve ever been to a pride parade.
As for your suggestion about returning to the good ol’ days of “confirmed bachelors and dear friends”, you should have met my neighbors. Two men, both in their 80s, together for almost 50 years. Back in the day, they were quiet, living together, not “in anyone’s face” about who they were. Both of them were beaten at least twice, together, by neighbors and run out of town. Each was also beaten separately more than once.
You need to stop fantasizing about how gay life was back then and face the fact that we are despised by many “good people” and we haven’t gotten what we have from being quiet and asking, “pretty please?”.
Oh, and my neighbors? Deceased now, but they loved the pride parades! In the last few years, they always rode the Gay Elders cable-car on wheels.
posted by BobN on
“rabid”, not “rapid”
sigh
posted by Jay on
@Ashpenaz: I can see why people ignore you now: you’re a moron.
If you re-read my statements above, you will find that I phrase things very carefully. I try to speak in terms of universal ideas, rather than personal opinions, because I recognize that each person is unique and has the option, the right, and the responsibility of making up their own mind about the choices they make for themselves, always understanding that, as we live in a society of peers, our choices always have *some* impact on those around us.
“Our 20th century desire to fix what wasn’t broken has led to all this mess we’re in now.”
And blacks had everything they needed, right there in the ghetto.
You seem to have overlooked my point that “most 20th century MEN are profligate.” Or haven’t you been paying attention to the last 1/2 century or so? Are you perhaps still envisioning the world of Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best?
“I don’t want to expand the definition of decency–I want the ideal for all sexual relationships, gay and straight, to be lifelong, sexual exclusivity.”
A) You seem to be conflating sexual fidelity with marriage, which are entirely different things (as many straight folks can attest to). B) How you can square that statement with the idea that straight society as it is will accept your lifelong committed relationship with another man (and call it marriage, no less) is beyond comprehension. You want a society which simultaneously abhors your sexual deviance but accepts you for being faithful in your deviance?
“I don’t want to overthrow tradition–I want gay relationships to become part of that tradition.”
I think you are scared to actually say these things to the people you are talking about, so you say them here (to people who actually agree with your basic thrust) then pretend that you are actually debating “the enemy”. That’s strange, and a little sad. Google “lgbt hate marriage” and get at ’em.
Good night, sir.
posted by Throbert McGee on
On gay marriage, we’re now zero for 30 on state constitutional bans
Actually, I was just talking to my parents, who retired out to Arizona, about the passage of Prop 102 in that state. I think it’s significant that social conservatives in AZ tried in 2006 to pass an amendment that would’ve banned not only SSM, but also Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships and anything else “substantially equivalent” to marriage. They failed in 2006, and the measure that just passed in Arizona on Tuesday had been pared down so that it simply defined “marriage” as “one man, one woman” — while leaving room for legislative compromises such as CU or DP laws.
I’d call that a gain, not a loss — because AZ voters made it clear that giving same-sex couples nothing, as the social conservatives wanted in 2006, was unacceptable in Arizona.
posted by bls on
Ashpenaz: people ignore your posts because they are all so tiresomely self-righteous. Everything, according to you, is somebody else’s fault, and if only other people would act differently your life would be perfect and all heterosexuals would love and adore you and give you (and possibly you alone) the right to marry. You’re the only decent person in the world, and how unfair it all is that everything isn’t going perfectly for you on that account.
Well, sorry: that’s just plain adolescent – which is wh, I assume, people ignore you at this point. Who needs or wants to argue with a 12-year-old?
Here’s a little tidbit for you: life isn’t fair. And if all you’ve got to complain about is your imaginary future wedding – I presume from your posts that you’re not actually involved with anybody at this point – then you’re pretty lucky. When I was 12, you couldn’t even say the word gay without being shunned or beaten or worse.
When you stop pretending that heterosexuals in Podunk dislike gay people because of Pride Parades (as if they’d actually ever seen or been to one), perhaps people would take you seriously. And while you’re at it, start recognizing that there are gay women in the world, why not?
Look to your own issues and stop pointing fingers at everybody else for a change.
posted by dalea on
Ashpenaz, you keep carrying on with the same kvetch in each post of yours. Which also involves trashing a certain segment of gay people. The images from SF have been broadcast for decades, year in and year out. During this period we have made enormous strides. Your point is disproved; the images etc have not held us back.
You also ignore that most of the wilder events involve young men. There was a whole lot of stuff I did in my 20’s that I don’t do now in my 60’s. You complain that young gay men do things very comparable to what young straight people do. The entire approach is to describe an ideal state, and then reproach the world for not being ideal.
posted by Greg Q on
Chris,
People who think we should give up on court challenges need to explain why Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia are different from what we’re trying to do now.
Ever heard of the 14th Amendment? It was passed to ban racial discrimination by the States. So people could look at the Amendment, and agree that the Court wasn’t overstepping it’s boundaries, regardless of whether or not they liked the decision.
We have never passed a similar Amendment for gays. Since we haven’t, courts making similar rulings are clearly overstepping their boundaries. Thus you get backlash.
If you want SSM, try talking with people who disagree with you, and try convincing them that SSM is a good idea. IOW, tell us why it’s good for society, not just good for you.
Because if you can’t think of reasons why it’s good for society, I can’t think of any reason why we should adopt it.
posted by bls on
Here’s something else for you to digest, Ashpenaz.
I’m an Episcopalian. We’ve been having a knock-down, drag-out fight over homosexuality for at least 10 years, and it’s gotten very intense since the “gay bishop” was elected 5 years ago.
Who’s leading this fight? The Nigerian Primate, who’s been busy trying to influence the legislature in that country to pass laws imprisoning gay people (or anybody else) for even speaking about the topic. He’s been quoted as saying that “even among animals we don’t hear of such things.”
Homosexual acts are illegal in Nigeria as well as in most other nearby nations – yet somehow I think that Pride Parades in San Francisco are not all that prominent on the radar screen over there.
Wake up and smell the coffee at last, really. Lots of straight people don’t like homosexuals or homosexuality and it doesn’t much matter what we do or don’t do. It doesn’t matter how decent you, or I, or anybody here is; there are people who don’t like us on principle and don’t want us around. We’re strange and weird to them, and undeserving of the simplest courtesies, let alone marriage.
Stop living in a fantasy world about this.
posted by bls on
GregQ: That’s a perfect example of the “tyranny of the majority,” thanks.
And who’s “we,” BTW? You apparently don’t consider gay people part of “society,” but I’m sorry to tell you that gay people pay taxes just like you do. We contribute to society through our work and our money and our other efforts – and in fact in every other way just as you do. Why, then, do you believe you have rights that do not accrue to us?
Obviously you’ve never imagined how you’d feel if “society” told you that you had no right to marry.
posted by bls on
(Anyway, here are a few good reasons why “you” should accept it.
1. Family is important and central to people’s lives, and to life in “society.” And gay people often take care of elderly parents and others.
2. Gay people often have children; at present these children are denied the most basic of legal protections.
3. Fidelity is a virtue that “society” might want to encourage generally.
4. Marriage is among the most basic of human rights; heterosexuals wouldn’t dream of allowing “society” to tell them that they can never marry anybody. Careful; if it can happen to us, it can happen to you, too.)
posted by Roger on
The reason why racism is winning is because there are less people who are white. Gays and lesbians will always be in the minority. So the only route is one of basic civil rights applicable to everybody.
posted by Roger on
Ooops. Didn’t proofread properly.
My previous post should have said…
The reason why racism is *less* is because there are less people who are white. Gays and lesbians will always be in the minority. So the only route is one of basic civil rights applicable to everybody.
posted by Attmay on
Wake up and smell the coffee at last, really. Lots of straight people don’t like homosexuals or homosexuality and it doesn’t much matter what we do or don’t do. It doesn’t matter how decent you, or I, or anybody here is; there are people who don’t like us on principle and don’t want us around. We’re strange and weird to them, and undeserving of the simplest courtesies, let alone marriage.
Do unto others, indeed!
posted by Viking on
I grew up at a time when the standard rap against gay people was that they can’t commit to relationships, they’re promiscuous and emotionally immature. And when gays and lesbians have shown across the country that their relationships can be as stable as straight ones (or even more so), the charge shifted to us being subversive because we wanted to undermine society and marriage itself. The shifting public opinion is slow; civil unions with full federal benefits would be fine with me. I really don’t care what it’s called, I care about what it is and does.
posted by gus on
How we are working for marriage equality
My partner and I live in a mostly Black neighborhood. Every time a neighbor is out in their yard or drives by, we wave hello, even if they don’t. If someone is moving in, we are the first to welcome the family. When the underage white teenagers, whose parents own an empty house being rehabbed, decided to use the house for a beer party, we called the police. A wind storm left all of us without power for 6 days this year, as the nieghbors all gathered in the street to see what was happening, we checked on everyone to make sure they had candles, and asked if they needed a wake up call in the morning to get to work, etc. Later, the insurance adjusters came to look at our roofs, we talked to the elderly woman who was afraid she would lose her insurance if she made a claim.
Tuesday, Miss Effie got her new roof, we had explained to her, with a sigh, all our insurance premiums were probably going up, whether she got a new roof or not. She had not made a claim for 30 years! When her daughter and grandchild come over to help with the clean up after the construction workers, we waved. They did not, the teenage scowled, I figured the teenager thought she had better things to do than work at her grandmother’s. Miss Effie came outside and started to sweep up the bit of left over debris in the street and curb. I waved again and told her she was making us look bad. Her smile beamed across the street and she waved.
Face it, les/bi/gay community, you are self centered snobs and think every day is a Gay Pride Parade. Showing off, then looking down you noses at your neighbors. You think you have the best taste and are more than eager to share that judgement. You have a loud party, then call the police when your neighbors do. Drag Queens and ass-less chaps do not belong in a neighborhood with kids, not even on Halloween. And your straight neighbors would look askance at any woman or man who had a steady stream of strangers for one night stands. They teach their kids about ‘Stranger Danger’ and you try to have one every Saturday night. And stop cruising the straight guys/gals, if they want you, they will tell you. If they see you in the yard on a Saturday morning and come over to talk, it is not an invitation to get in their pants. Instead of a rainbow flag, fly the American Flag on appropriate holidays, and yes, on MLK, Jr Day. Everyone knows you’re gay, try to show you are an American.
Think of what you want in a neighbor. If you are going to have a party, apologize beforehand for taking up street parking. Warn your neighbors when construction workers will be at your home. The little guys will be curious, may have to be watched and apologize for the noise and mess. Ask if your neighbor needs help, and if they refuse, smile and say, ‘OK, see you later.” and go about your business. Offer, but don’t intrude. Ask them to watch your house when you will be away for an extended period, you don’t have to tell them what you are doing, and don’t inquire when it is your turn to watch out for them. It takes a couple years to build the trust in a neighbor, and it’s not just because you are gay.
Before anyone thinks we are self loathing, we’re just a couple of old fashioned Mid-westerners living in the inner city. Yes, we were called fags by some of the neighbors. Yes, we have tried a little harder. But we live in a neighborhood now. Some still don’t like us, don’t say hello, but that could be because they think we are assholes. But, when one of us is working in the yard alone, most of our straight neighbors ask about the other. They see us as a couple.
Right now, in Ohio, that’s progress.
posted by Tonio on
Jonathan Rauch wrote: An introspective movement should be doing some fundamental rethinking at this point.
Yes, of course. But you’re still thinking inside the box. You start with the premise that “we’re now zero for 30 on state constitutional bans” then conclude that we must keep pushing marriage.
I think that a better conclusion would be to abandon gay marriage (and civil partnerships) for the next generation or so, and focus on non-discrimination and more winnable goals.
Also, we immediately cease any and all political support for black/latino civil rights. We don’t start opposing these causes, but we withdraw our money and support from these causes.
We give President Obama one term to turn the black constituency around on this issue. When black pastors start speaking out for us, we will consider re-entering their struggle, but a majority of that community is going to have to roll over in a big way to regain our support.
The Mormons are also due a payback. Abandoning marriage equality means that we will no longer be carrying water for LDS polygamists. Yes, I do realize that current official LDS policy is opposed to polygamy, but the reality is that many, many mainstream Mormons still secretly approve/practice/idealize polygamy.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I used to be an Episcopalian. I left, in part, because I despise Gene Robinson and the sort of tactics he and the leftist gays have used which, as you point out, have brought a backlash which has destroyed the church. You can see the effect of the Stonewall tactics in the Anglican Church; you can see them in the votes in California, Arizona, and Florida; and yet you never want to change them.
Saying that I focus too much on one small, vocal segment of the gay community is like saying people blamed one small, vocal segment of 1930’s Germany. If that small segment is bringing destruction on the rest of us, then we all need to work to do something different.
None of the introspection Rauch calls for seems to involve actually changing our behavior. Let’s just keep marching in the streets and trying to subvert the legal system instead of actually trying monogamy, sobriety, and stability.
posted by Tonio on
Woo-hoo! Ashpenaz just Godwinned the thread. Forfeit, forfeit!!!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Abandoning marriage equality means that we will no longer be carrying water for LDS polygamists.
And I’m sure the lack of gay support will bring the LDS Pro-Polygamy juggernaut to a crashing halt…
posted by Tonio on
And I’m sure the lack of gay support will bring the LDS Pro-Polygamy juggernaut to a crashing halt…
Great snarkage, but misses the point and does nothing to move debate forward.
My talking point is that we set aside the struggle for marriage because we’re losing badly on this and it’s time to try something else.
That this may make things a bit more difficult for the Mormons adds value to the proposition, while costing us nothing. “Gravy” but not a primary objective.
posted by Scott Shackford on
And now, apparently, some folks have decided to respond by starting a petition to take the Mormon church’s tax-exempt status away. This, of course, is not going to happen (even if they have gone too far) and will instead convince many Mormons that the gay community is indeed a threat to their beliefs. And it will be used as ammunition next time. The pro-8 propaganda actually warned of churches losing tax-exempt status if they didn’t accept gay marriage, which was nonsense, and now here they are trying proving them right.
posted by Me on
This one-Democratic-governor-away stuff is silly. What makes you think that the pro-8 mob wouldn’t have sought to overturn an act of the legislature by contitutional amendment exactly as they overturned a ruling of the court? God could have granted gays the right to marry and the pro-8 mob would still have tried to overturn Him! This loss is a pause on the march to vitory. 48% of Californians are ready for gay marriage; the opponents are down to their last 2% despite the most ferocious, well-funded campaign ever waged against a gay rights issue. Civil unions are secure and so are the 18,000 married gay couples. This is the last hurrah of the anti-gay marriage crowd in California. Their base–old people–shinks daily; ours increases. Quit despairing. Accept a set back and prepare for victory. The future belongs to us!
posted by Beth on
You’re saying….
1) No lawsuits, no court challenges, no litigation.
2) Be nice to our opponents, and don’t call them bigots, or use the language of the civil rights movement.
Basically, we should STFU and eat it. Smile broadly at the world and “prepare” our straight countrymen and women to one day accept us?
I totally disagree.
Prop 8 was CLOSE. +/- 2.5% Had we won, this would have been seen as a transformative moment, a clarion call to other states. The media would have lined up behind gay rights organizations, and declared America, with its new black President-elect, a transformed society.
We COULD have won this. And then we all would have been singing a different tune.
Now you’re saying we need to suck it up and shut up and silently hum to ourselves, hoping for a better day? What did you think got this movement on the map? Court challenges!
We need to be relentless. We need to stop putting up and shutting up, we have a right to live as equals and we will not give our consent to this crap.
And remember, if you vote against gay equality, you ARE a bigot. You can parse and spin and rationalize all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that on a specific measure related to gay rights, you went THE OTHER WAY.
I’m sorry if I sound like a crank, but I used to be a moderate. Now I’m not. I don’t have the time to wait as my partner lives abroad, unable to come and live with me in the USA. (Thank you DOMA.) I don’t want to be a white-haired, wrinkled lesbian smiling at the cameras…. I am a young woman with her whole life ahead of her and I’m not going to sit still.
I hope there are others here who agree with me that the strategy of waiting and behaving is a useless one.
Thanks.
posted by KipEsquire on
Utter nonsense.
First, gay marriage did not exist in any of those 30 states anyway, and was not likely to come any time soon. You can’t lose what you never had. And now we at least have an agenda and people’s attention.
Second, it is ignorant and gratuitous tut-tutting to accuse Lambda Legal of “mindlessly pushing lawsuits.” Is every case the ACLU, ADL, NOW or NAACP ever lost proof that those advocates are “mindless”?
Third, it is just as reasonable to value the moral high ground as it is to value political victories. I personally would rather call out a bigot for his bigotry (and see a bigot amendment passed in the process) than shut myself in a political closet and hope that maybe, someday, “the people” will stop acting like the vicious mob that they are.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Let’s say a red-haired guy comes up to someone on the street and kicks him in the shin, throws a pie in his face, and knocks him into a puddle. The man looks up from the puddle and says, “I hate you!” And the guy who did it says, “You bigot–why do you hate me for my red hair?”
The point is, people don’t hate the gay community for being gay. They hate the gay community for Pride parades with drag queens and ass chaps, the exhibitionist behavior at Rainbow rallies, the seeming unconcern for spreading STDs, the exploitation of youth, the meth addiction, the multiple partners, etc., etc., etc. If you asked the voters what qualities they associate with being gay, you know in your heart that’s the list they’d give.
But you say that’s homophobia. They just hate us for being gay. Like the guy in my story wants to blame the hatred on his red hair.
You’re not going to get the votes you want as long as people have that negative stereotype of gays. And you’re not going to change that negative stereotype until gays start behaving like normal people. And you know, but you won’t admit, that a large percentage of those who identify as gay reinforce all the negative stereoptypes. For every Ellen there are 99 George Michaels. Gays can’t have Pride parades with drag queens in Amy Winehouse wigs throwing condoms at the crowd AND the right to marry. Pick one or the other.
P.S. Yes, I know I brought up the Nazi thing and that every thread in every blog devolves into that. It’s too early to use Obama supporters instead of Nazis, though.
posted by Bobby on
“The point is, people don’t hate the gay community for being gay.”
—Some people do, Ashpenaz. There are conservatives who don’t like me in-spite of my credentials. Alan Keyes is a good example, while most republicans “disagree” with gay rights, Alan Keyes HATES gays. Let’s just say I’ve been thrown out of freerepublic so many times I don’t even bother to join anymore.
posted by DaveO on
Take advice from Barack Obama, from his infamous “redistributive change” radio interview:
?And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.?
Drop the reference to “redistributive change” and replace it with “marriage equality” and it’s words to take to heart.
posted by Pat on
None of the introspection Rauch calls for seems to involve actually changing our behavior. Let’s just keep marching in the streets and trying to subvert the legal system instead of actually trying monogamy, sobriety, and stability.
Good start, Ashpenaz. Now work on your own behavior, and you’ll be just fine. Here’s the thing. First of all, I disagree with your perspective of the gay community somewhat, and definitely your revisionist history. But again, I’ll concede those points, and say you’re 100% right for now. And let’s say people start agreeing with you. That’s not going to change things until years down the road, if at all. You’ve made your opinion known. Now work on yourself and stop blaming others for what you don’t have. Make it my fault, I don’t care. But that doesn’t help you. You know what you want, now go for it. Stop blaming everyone else for what you don’t have.
posted by Tim on
Ashpenaz, how am I supposed to rein in all these misbehaving gays? I have no control over the people marching in parades or having promiscuous sex. Nor should I. This is America, land of the free.
What you are describing is straight squeamishness at the more extreme gay elements, but why shouldn’t they do as they please? Who is telling frat boys boozing it up and screwing everything in site to behave themselves? Or straight swingers? Or those Bourbon Street revelers? Some gays are sluts and that is their RIGHT. And no, we don’t have to choose between partying and marrying. We can have both and we will have both.
I’m gay. I think I’m normal. I’m not doing drugs off the back of escorts while I bang them sideways with a double dildo. But who cares?
Stop being so self-hating and start living your own life. EVERYONE in America should be free.
posted by Ashpenaz on
OK, I’ve run out ways to say the same thing. We “confirmed bachelors” in flyover country will just have to deal with the fact that urban gays are destroying rights for everyone. When I tell people I’m attracted to men, I’ll continue to say, “I don’t use the word ‘gay’ because of the political and cultural baggage it carries,” because the behavior of urban gays will cause me to continually have to distance myself from them. When I try to express my sexuality with stability, monogamy, and dignity, I’m not going to say, “This is what gays are really like,” because they aren’t. Those three qualities belong to men who are attracted to men, and who have to courage to step outside the Pride cult. Since those who hate marriage have successfully destroyed the chance that those who want marriage will ever have that right, we traditional homosexuals will just have to create rituals and institutions for ourselves, the way we’ve always done. Again, I can’t think of another way to say this, so that’s it for now.
posted by bls on
Ashpenaz, you really are very presumptuous.
You don’t know what I want to do or don’t want to do. For your information – not that you care about reality very much, pretty obviously – I’ve argued against the “gay bishops” route pretty consistently, because I think it’s irrelevant and elitist. I frankly don’t give a damn about job opportunities for Episcopal clerics. But please: spare me the laughable analysis of the situation. Homosexuality was illegal in Nigeria and many other places long before Gene Robinson – and believe me that it isn’t because of Gay Pride.
If it were, one would think that there would be a nationwide hue and cry about the heterosexual debauchery that’s on display every Mardi Gras. I won’t hold my breath, though, on that one. Any one of the heterosexuals can get married anytime they feel like it, and they do. Often numerous times. Straight murderers, too, get the privilege, even being allowed to get married while serving life sentences in prison. So, please.
And of course, gay Episcopalians (and other gay people) have made it possible for you to sit here whining about how you can’t get married and about what everybody else is doing to you. In any case, I have said for many months now that the push in the courts was going to backfire. So, really: you don’t know what you’re talking about.
(And think for a second about your “logic”: here are gay people in California who want to commit to one another. One would think, using your line of reasoning, that heterosexuals who detest Gay Pride and Promiscuity would actively support this. I mean, that’s how you see it, right?
No? Gee, what a surprise….)
posted by Terry on
There are straights who are positively fixated on gayness. It’s an obsession, it just sets them off, and even if we all stayed in our homes, bound and gagged, watching Mr. Rogers and praying to Jesus, they’d still have a problem with us. If Gay Pride ended today, they’d get worked up about something else. It’s thanks to courageous gay rights activists, people who stood up and declared their existence, that we have become unignorable. Why some people are so eager to hide and shrink from our political challenge is beyond my comprehension.
posted by bls on
(And FYI: none of the gay people I know are as you describe. Most are part of long-term couples; I haven’t been to Gay Pride in 15 years. I frankly don’t even see the point of Gay Pride; it’s long beyond its past-due date, IMO.
I live in New Jersey, about 15 minutes from Christopher Street, along with literally millions of others (including millions of heterosexuals, some of whom probably have been to Gay Pride) Yet somehow, the legislature passed civil unions here, without much opposition, and we may be one of the next states with marriage. Explain, please.
And while you’re at it, also explain how you’re going to get all those urban gay men to do what you say….)
posted by Tonio on
Shackleford:
This…will instead convince many Mormons that the gay community is indeed a threat to their beliefs.
I think they came to this conclusion before now. That’s why they massively funded opposition to CA Prop 8.
The pro-8 propaganda actually warned of churches losing tax-exempt status if they didn’t accept gay marriage, which was nonsense, and now here they are trying proving them right.
You are correct that churches cannot be forced to perform or host any marriages which they don’t sanction. That’s different from losing tax-exempt status for politicking. The IRS, and then the courts will make that determination.
posted by Tonio on
Oops, “Shackford,” sorry.
posted by Attmay on
I am supporting the effort to take the tax-exempt status away from churches that supported this disgrace.
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
You should also give serious thought to a tax protest. Send a message to the state and federal governments. Hit them in the pocket books.
posted by Pat on
We “confirmed bachelors” in flyover country…
Okay, Ashpenaz, so there are “confirmed bachelor” persons that identify as you do, and share many of the same values. Become friends with them, date them, take a trip to MA, CT, or Canada and marry that special someone. So what’s the problem?
I live in New Jersey, about 15 minutes from Christopher Street, along with literally millions of others (including millions of heterosexuals, some of whom probably have been to Gay Pride)
Bls, I live about 30 minutes away, with no tunnel traffic that is. Most of the GOP in the state are okay enough. But fossils like Richard Merkt, assemblyman from Morris County, is pretty certifiable. He wanted to impeach all 7 of the NJ Supreme Court justices. And now he is thinking of running for governor. Thank God he doesn’t have a chance in hell.
posted by Greg Q on
bls: That’s a perfect example of the “tyranny of the majority,” thanks.
No, actually, it’s a perfect example of democracy in action. The tyranny was when 4 judges decided to rewrite the CA Constitution to their personal specifications.
And who’s “we,” BTW?
The majority, whose rights were trampled by those four thugs in black robes.
See, you guys consistently get it wrong. The most fundamental right is the right to have your vote count.
Look up Baker v. Nelson. There is no right to SSM in the US Constitution. Heterosexual marriage, which has existed for all of human society, is a fundamental right. Homosexual marriage, which never existed anywhere until, what, 20 years ago, is not a fundamental right.
Why, then, do you believe you have rights that do not accrue to us?
I don’t. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. We both have the exact same right.
You do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is also your right.
What is not your right is to change the definition of marriage. You have the right to try to convince a majority of your fellow citizens that the definition should be change. But you don’t have the right to demand.
(Anyway, here are a few good reasons why “you” should accept it.
1. Family is important and central to people’s lives, and to life in “society.” And gay people often take care of elderly parents and others.
What does that have to do with changing the definition of marriage?
2. Gay people often have children; at present these children are denied the most basic of legal protections.
Not in CA. Civil Unions carry all the legal benefits of marriage that CA can give. The Federal DoMA blocks members of an SSM from gaining any of the Federal benefits of marriage. So changing teh namefrom civil union to marriage does not get the children anything.
3. Fidelity is a virtue that “society” might want to encourage generally.
A person who cheats on his / her civil union partner is just as likely to cheat on his / her spouse.
If you’re not capable of making a lifetime bond, or even just a bond whose term’s you’ll honor, unless the Government blesses your union, then you’ve got big problems. Problems that won’t be solved by getting that blessing.
4. Marriage is among the most basic of human rights; heterosexuals wouldn’t dream of allowing “society” to tell them that they can never marry anybody. Careful; if it can happen to us, it can happen to you, too.)
No, heterosexual marriage is one of society’s foundations. Freedom of Speech, the right to think as I wish, the right to own property, the right to defend myself, those are fundamental rights.
A marriage is valuable to the extent that its members take their oaths seriously. If you do, the government blessing doesn’t matter. If you don’t, the government blessing won’t save you.
posted by Pat on
I don’t. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. We both have the exact same right.
Ugh! Greg, could you at least admit that encouraging gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex is wrong?
But you don’t have the right to demand.
Sure we do. It’s what you alluded to later on in your post…Freedom of Speech.
Heterosexual marriage, which has existed for all of human society, is a fundamental right. Homosexual marriage, which never existed anywhere until, what, 20 years ago, is not a fundamental right.
Really? Tell that to interracial couple as recent as 40 or so years ago.
A person who cheats on his / her civil union partner is just as likely to cheat on his / her spouse.
We’ve seen plenty of that from heterosexual marriages.
No, heterosexual marriage is one of society’s foundations.
Many things were once one of society’s foundations, but no longer are, thank God. So far, the biggest argument I’ve seen for heterosexual’s exclusive claim on marriage is that, well, it’s been around for thousands of years. The question is, why should that still be the case?
posted by Marc B. on
Not sure why Greg Q is posting here, but regardless, he’s making a lot of silly arguments in bad faith. I mean asking a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex is deeply dishonest and cruel.
The fact is, gay people have always existed, and always will exist.
Our desire to partner with another is a HUMAN desire, shared by everyone. It deserves to be represented in law.
Until recently, Western societies did not grant rights of any kind to gays, discriminated against them, incarcerated them, and even killed them — just for being gay. In response, gays have fought for equality and won important victories against tradition and the status quo. Greater and greater numbers of our straight citizenry have been won over to our side and this will continue (a reason to hope).
What is more, America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Judges are going to make anti-democratic decisions against the “will of the majority” from time to time — it’s the way the system is set up. Didn’t you go to high school? If judges didn’t make contrarian decisions and “invented” rights, blacks would still be working the cotton fields.
We’re going to win this, sooner or later. No question about that.
posted by Ashpenaz on
“Until recently, Western societies did not grant rights of any kind to gays, discriminated against them, incarcerated them, and even killed them — just for being gay.”
Umm–no, they didn’t. As I have said many times, if you look at the lives of Tennyson, Lincoln, Thoreau, T. E. Lawrence, Ruskin, Whitman, Thoreau, Melville–or even further back, Richard 1, Aelred, Bacchus, Alexander, Achilles, Jonathan, David, all the way back to the epic of Gilgamesh–uh, no, sorry, gays weren’t persecuted. There is no evidence that any of these gays felt oppressed, either. That’s a myth.
Please use citations for your baseless claims. Find one gay person who was persecuted for being gay prior to the last half of the 20th century. Other than Oscar Wilde. If you can’t, and you can’t, then please stop try to push the myth of victimization which led to the disaster of Stonewall and the the self-defeating Pride parades.
posted by Pat on
Until recently, Western societies did not grant rights of any kind to gays, discriminated against them, incarcerated them, and even killed them — just for being gay. In response, gays have fought for equality and won important victories against tradition and the status quo. Greater and greater numbers of our straight citizenry have been won over to our side and this will continue (a reason to hope).
Exactly, Marc. It wasn’t until the early Seventies, right around Stonewall, when gays really started getting rights in the U.S. Maybe a little earlier for San Francisco. Before then, you pretty much had to be in the closet to avoid being bashed, persecuted, or oppressed. And as disheartening as Prop. 8 passing was, the polls clearly show that the younger voters were much more supportive of same sex marriage.
As for your comments on judges, I don’t think the Constitution enumerated such rights to the judiciary. But they grabbed it, and no one stopped them. So amendments, and perhaps voter referenda, are the only checks to the judiciary. As such, judges seem to not make rulings in which it appears that a high percentage of the population will reject it, even if they believe such a ruling is constitutional.
posted by Scott Shackford on
You are correct that churches cannot be forced to perform or host any marriages which they don’t sanction. That’s different from losing tax-exempt status for politicking. The IRS, and then the courts will make that determination.
This distinction means nothing to members of the church. Since there’s no way in hell the courts are going to strip the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church (really, it’s not going to happen), the only actual real-world consequence of taking this action is the appearance of having declared war on the church, which will then be used as ammunition to stir members into action the next time a vote like this comes around. There were signs in my neighborhood that said “Vote yes on 8 to protect free speech.” Next time this happens, every single Mormon church-goer will be handed a copy of this stupid petition and will be told, “See! They want to destroy us!”
posted by Greg Q on
Pat,
So far, the biggest argument I’ve seen for heterosexual’s exclusive claim on marriage is that, well, it’s been around for thousands of years. The question is, why should that still be the case?
Because no one on the pro-SSM side has even come close to making a good case for why we should change the definition of marriage. You want the change, the burden of proof for why we should change is on you.
“It will make me happier / feel better” is an utterly pathetic reason. “Because it will help gay people” misses the point. The question isn’t “what’s in it for you?” The question is “what’s in it for society?” Heterosexual marriage is the foundation of our society. It provides the people who make our society go (with all due respect to single parent families, their kids do a lot less well, and are a lot less likely to be productive citizens, than do kids from two parent, mother and father families). It therefore makes sense that society should provide the members of this valuable institution with benefits.
Does SSM provide society with the same benefits as heterosexual marriage? No? Then why should it be treated the same way?
Ugh! Greg, could you at least admit that encouraging gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex is wrong?
I’m not encouraging them to do anything, other than respect the law, the Constitution, and democracy. There are lots of things that you can do, that you shouldn’t. You have the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, therefore you have the ability to marry. Whether or not that’s a bad idea is a completely separate issue (certainly plenty of heterosexuals engage in marriages that were a bad idea).
But you don’t have the right to demand.
Sure we do. It’s what you alluded to later on in your post…Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech doesn’t give you the right to call on someone to violate their oath of office.
Tell that to interracial couple as recent as 40 or so years ago.
Um, how many States in the US banned interracial marriage? How many societies in the past have had interracial marriage?
How many States ban SSM? How many societies in the past have had SSM? 30 and 0, yes?
Marc:
We’re going to win this, sooner or later. No question about that.
No, you’re not. Not so long as you keep on going about your goals so dishonestly and thuggishly.
Yes, we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic. But things go into the Constitution because of the decisions of the democratic majority, not because of the decisions of judges / “justices” / self-appointed philosopher kings.
Neither We The People, nor our elected representatives, have ever placed a requirement for “extra special equal treatment” for gays in our Constitutions.
That means it’s not there.
When you claim it is, you reveal yourself as a dishonest individual.
In 2006, the voters of Arizona narrowly voted down an anti-SSM Constitutional Amendment. In 2008, thanks to the CA and CN Supreme Courts rewriting their Constitutions to create a right to SSM, the Arizona voters passed a similar Amendment quite handily.
So much for “history is on our side”.
posted by Pat on
Because no one on the pro-SSM side has even come close to making a good case for why we should change the definition of marriage. You want the change, the burden of proof for why we should change is on you.
Greg, we disagree on both of these issues, I suppose.
Does SSM provide society with the same benefits as heterosexual marriage? No? Then why should it be treated the same way?
So then you support banning marriage for opposite sex couples that are unable or unwilling to have children. If that’s the case, I’ll at least agree that you’re being consistent.
I’m not encouraging them to do anything, other than respect the law, the Constitution, and democracy. There are lots of things that you can do, that you shouldn’t. You have the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, therefore you have the ability to marry. Whether or not that’s a bad idea is a completely separate issue (certainly plenty of heterosexuals engage in marriages that were a bad idea).
Gay people are well aware that they can legally marry someone of the opposite sex. And granted having a right and whether one should use that right are two different issues. So forget about the constitutional issues for a second. Is it wrong to encourage a gay person to marry a person of the opposite sex?
Freedom of Speech doesn’t give you the right to call on someone to violate their oath of office.
Um, okay. We were talking about demanding rights. Not about calling on someone to violate their oath of office.
Um, how many States in the US banned interracial marriage? How many societies in the past have had interracial marriage?
How many States ban SSM? How many societies in the past have had SSM? 30 and 0, yes?
I don’t get your point, Greg. My point was that as recent as 40 years ago, some interracial couples were restricted from marrying. I guess you could argue that they had the same rights. That every person had the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and the same race.
No one is asking for special rights here. With same sex marriage, straight people will also have the right to marry someone of the same sex too.
Yes, we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic. But things go into the Constitution because of the decisions of the democratic majority, not because of the decisions of judges / “justices” / self-appointed philosopher kings.
I guess you’ve only studied the Constitution up to Marbury v. Madison then. I’m not disagreeing with your point here. But your ideal vision of government is not reality, and hasn’t been for a long time.
Neither We The People, nor our elected representatives, have ever placed a requirement for “extra special equal treatment” for gays in our Constitutions.
Good. Because, I for one, am not asking for “extra special equal treatment.” Just equal treatment.
So much for “history is on our side”.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but it does seem that the future is on our side. The exit polls show that younger people were overwhelmingly opposed to Prop. 8. Sure, it’s going to be slower in some states, like Arizona. But freedom and equality is on the rise.
Umm–no, they didn’t. As I have said many times, if you look at the lives of Tennyson, Lincoln, Thoreau, T. E. Lawrence, Ruskin, Whitman, Thoreau, Melville–or even further back, Richard 1, Aelred, Bacchus, Alexander, Achilles, Jonathan, David, all the way back to the epic of Gilgamesh–uh, no, sorry, gays weren’t persecuted. There is no evidence that any of these gays felt oppressed, either. That’s a myth.
Please use citations for your baseless claims.
Sorry, Ashpenaz. You can repeat the same revisionist history all you want. But you listed 16 people. If they were the complete list of gay persons in history, and you actually had evidence that none of these persons were never oppressed, you might have something. Assuming that Lincoln was gay, why wasn’t he able to be open about his relationship with men as he was open about with Mary Todd? Any reason why you left off Edward II who was deposed and killed for being gay. His death wasn’t too pretty. As for the others, who did, in fact, thrive, how do you know they were not oppressed. What we do know is that they clearly could not be open about their sexuality and their (gay) relationships as their straight counterparts. Those who did marry, didn’t feel the need to hide their spouses.
You may claim that these persons were happy about hiding (or playing demeaning euphemistic games), and perhaps some were. But the fact is, most free people don’t like to hide if they don’t have to.
posted by Tonio on
Shackford:
[T]he only actual real-world consequence of taking this action is the appearance of having declared war on the church…
The greater point, which you seem to have consistently missed throughout this thread is that the Mormons already declared and are actively waging war against us.
Yes, it was completely predictable that the Mormons would try to play the victim card on this — that’s what religious types do when attacked.
If we surrender every time any religious group screamed “victim,” we’d never get anywhere. They view our mere existence as a threat, and any recognition of our rights as opressing them.
Agree that the attempt to remove their tax-exempt status is not likely to succeed, but it does seem to have rattled them nicely, which is a good thing.