ultimatebrokebackforum.com forum

THE GAY EXPERIENCE => Gay, Bi, Whatever (Gay-Friendly Always Welcome) => Topic started by: Dave Cullen on December 24, 2005, 02:46:08 PM

Title: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on December 24, 2005, 02:46:08 PM
So here's the thing:

When and if I ever find a guy to marry, I deserve to be able to. Legally.

The question is tactics.

Are we recklessly charging ahead too quickly and inviting/inciting a backlash, or are we still being too timid and dragging our feet?

Update:

On Jan 17, I expanded the thread title from "Gay Marriage" to "Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?"

All the existing debate is relevant, but I'm wondering if the presence of Brokeback Mountain or legalization in England, Canada, Spain, etc. or any other force is changing the winds.

Are things likely to get better or worse on this front? Will we keep losing state ballot initiatives? Slow them down? Will more states legalize?

What forces are driving the change, in either direction?

Update, Mar 15, '06:

I keep getting emails seeking links about gay marriage, so I'm posting this one here, for easy reference.

I created a Gay Marriage page on my blog way back in 2003, with lots of links to the major sites, here:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/stories/2003/08/14/gayMarriageendTheBan.html


I stopped updating it after about a year, but most of the key resources have not changed, including gay marriage pages by principle supporters like GLAAD and GLAD and detractors like the Family Research Council. Most of them continue to update, so this still gets you to most of the major parties.

LINKS -- UPDATED:

LINKS TO THE MAY 2008 CA SUPREME COURT DECISION:

Read the 121-page decision here:

 http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF


Read the 7-page press release from the court here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR26-08.PDF


It's an excellent executive summary of the full decision, the dissents and a bit of the history. It quotes liberally from each and outlines the arguments in a manner intended for the general public.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Ranchgal on December 24, 2005, 11:25:56 PM
Well I think that committment, legal partnership, and protection under the law is something that should be obvious to people, but it isn't--and my state just voted it down--I am ashamed of them--and my Mother and I are having discussions about it---it is very wierd, cause on an individual basis--she can see the justice and the acceptance-and doesn't want to punish anyone---but she has this "thing" about we as a country have just gone to far to the left--and being the staunch Repub. she is--she thinks that voting this down will restore some sort of balance we have been missing.   And as she is 85, and not going to change her vote on it---we finally leave it alone, I don't know how to approach it anymore to get her mind opened up.   And I haven't a clue as to what to do with this State(SD)---but considering we just kicked one of the most powerful Democratic senators out of office, cause he was just in the limelight too much-and replaced him with a family values down your throat Repl.--I guess we get what we deserve.  But I am sorry for all the people that are getting hurt for lack of this legislation.    And I probably shouldn't even comment on it, cause I am not gay, and am married, but the whole thing just makes me so disgusted.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: mary on December 24, 2005, 11:55:24 PM
ranchgal, I think we are the ones who HAVE to say something. If it is only gay folk who speak up it is easier for a lot of people to ignor/dismiss this argument.  More straight people need to speak up so it becomes a mainstream issue, not part of the so called 'gay agenda' so many people seem to like to talk about and dismiss. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on December 25, 2005, 12:35:59 AM
Dave, you may regret that you created this thread. For a single guy I’m strangely obsessed by the topic of gay marriage (well Constitutional law, legislative politics, and the like are more akin to my usual passions that the entertainment biz). Honestly, your weird infectious enthusiasm for BBM is the only thing that’s distracted me in from the topic in eight years. (Oh, dear g-d, I’ve been neglecting all those other blogs.)

. . . protection under the law is something that should be obvious to people, but it isn't--and my state just voted it down--I am ashamed of them--and my Mother and I are having discussions about it---it is very wierd, cause on an individual basis--she can see the justice and the acceptance-and doesn't want to punish anyone---but she has this "thing" about we as a country have just gone to far to the left . . .

What’s even stranger (to me) is that my father is the exact same sort (he’s only 70, but otherwise quite similar—well, he has a gay son). Mind you, there’s never been much friction in the family about my gaydom. (There was a weird episode that came up just this past summer--a tangential Catholic thing . . . story for another day). He’s always treated my ex’s (yes, I’m a two time loser) as part of the family. He doesn’t seem to give a wit about all the usual stuff, but the topic of marriage? Oy vey. I’ve never heard such ill-considered double-speak come from the mouth of such a caring and intelligent man in my life. His drivel isn’t harsh or mean. It’s just . . .  forgive me . . . stupid.

All the more so when I contrast it with my (maternal) grandfather. He died a few years ago (as a really quite spry 98-year-old man). Born and bred as a midwestern rural man, my grandfather’s family settled there when it was still “Indian country.” A devoted Catholic too. But to him the whole gay-marriage “problem” was the stupidest thing he’d ever seen in America. Where’s the problem? (To paraphrase a man who would make Ennis look like blabbermouth.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on December 25, 2005, 12:43:30 AM
ranchgal, I think we are the ones who HAVE to say something. If it is only gay folk who speak up it is easier for a lot of people to ignor/dismiss this argument.  More straight people need to speak up so it becomes a mainstream issue, not part of the so called 'gay agenda' so many people seem to like to talk about and dismiss. 

Mary, deep down inside I wish you weren't so very much on the money. I really want for an America that would be willing to listen to the case made by those of us with the most direct stake in the game and come to the right conclusion. That's what I find so frustrating. (Okay, that America only exists in my fantasy life . . . and it isn't just about gaydom).

It's also what I find so heartening. Here in California, the most reliable polls put an even 50-50 split on marriage-equality (and I don't mean marriage "lite" or marriage by another name . . . just good old fashioned marriage). Those numbers would never happen unless friends and family and just run 'o the mill straight folks say "enough is enough."

Hell, the nutters couldn't even gather enough signatures this fall to put a "Marriage Protection" constitutional amendment on the ballot. Maybe the tide is finally turning. Maybe BBM will help move that along in some small way too.

I really hate standing here with my hat in my hand (it's a stupid pride thing probably), but I'm awfully grateful for the millions of people like you.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Wayman Wong on December 25, 2005, 01:02:00 AM
I've just been reading ''Brokeback Mountain: Story to Screenplay,'' and Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana did such a phenomenally faithful job of adapting it as a movie. But what they chose to expand and add is also intriguing. The scene where Alma Jr. tells Ennis that she's getting married (at age 19) doesn't exist in the short story. But in the screenplay, right after Alma Jr. and Ennis clink their glasses and toast her upcoming marriage, there's this note: ''Ennis smiles back at his luminous daughter. But his smile can't hide his regret and longing, for the one thing that he can't have. That he will never have.'' In a subtle way, McMurtry and Ossana contrast a teen girl who can marry a guy he's known for ''about a year,'' with two grown men who have known each other for 20 years, but cannot marry. With any luck, straight filmgoers will make this connection, and see the injustice of how society treats gay couples.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: lynn on December 25, 2005, 05:01:52 AM
I admit to some confusion on this issue as it arose in the news this last year. My instinct is that we should all have the same rights but I heard some compelling arguments suggesting the right-wing "majority" wasn't "ready" for this and so it was best to go slowly, starting first with civil unions but not marriage to avoid a conservative backlash. And even some "gay rights" groups seemed to suggest this, along with pointing out that some are satisfied with a type of "marriage lite". However, it's possible my interpretation was distorted based on someone's spin and I didn't really delve into it too much (wasn't up for a vote in our state, Pennsylvania). Sometimes what seems like a simple and obvious political decision can be more complex once you start looking at all of the angles.

My take now? Completely different. It is impossible to read your stories and those on the BBM board and not come away convinced that love marriage and commitment can mean the same to all of us and it is crazy that I should have that legal right and not you. Sharing your very personal stories made it clear to my heart as well as my head that we want exactly the same things, in a way that all of the magazine articles and talking heads on TV never did.

The fact that South Africa is now more progressive than us in legalizing same-sex marriage (as pointed out by Jon Stewart on a recent show) is embarassing and should be unacceptable. Plus, maybe it's not really my place to worry about a backlash. Maybe I need to say, screw you, WE are taking back this country. All I can promise is that when and if the issue ever comes up for a vote here I will review it thoroughly and most likely support it completely. (Part of the solution, not the problem, right?)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: WLAGuy on December 26, 2005, 02:14:06 AM
Well, okay, Dave, since you asked.   ::) 

I think until it is possible for gay couples to get married, we are not going to see the gay community grow up as a whole.  As it stands now, gay men are cursed with eternal "teenage-hood" (if that's a word), and have to make mighty efforts to shed that mantle.  We are not part of a society that expects us to marry, settle down, raise children, buy houses in the suburbs and attend PTA meetings.  Because we are not, each of us has to basically feel our own way through life, and I think a great many of us basically end up stuck in a stage that for the majority of the straight community is a passing phase on the way to adulthood.  I think that's also why you are more likely to see gay men in lower-paying jobs with less authority.  There is usually no mortgage to worry about, and no children to feed and clothe and send to school, and hence no pressure to pursue the jobs that pay more.  And while my guess is that there probably are a good many gay relationships that have lasted a good number of years, there is no unifying force that brings gay men who are in long-term relationships in constant contact with single gay men, where they could serve as role models, as opposed to the straight community, where there is a lot more contact between the generations as well as single and married people simply because of the way straight society works.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Carissa on December 26, 2005, 06:52:03 PM
This is another topic that really pushes my buttons.  I don't understand how 2 men or 2 women getting married will "ruin and tarnish the institution of marriage."  I've gotten into fights with my mother and on other message boards about the topic.  I hope that one day we will live in a world where the only prerequisite for getting married is being in love and being committed to one another.  (If you couldn't tell, I wear my "straight but not narrow" badge very proudly!)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: CellarDweller115 on December 26, 2005, 06:52:49 PM
I think until it is possible for gay couples to get married, we are not going to see the gay community grow up as a whole.  As it stands now, gay men are cursed with eternal "teenage-hood" (if that's a word), and have to make mighty efforts to shed that mantle.  We are not part of a society that expects us to marry, settle down, raise children, buy houses in the suburbs and attend PTA meetings.  Because we are not, each of us has to basically feel our own way through life, and I think a great many of us basically end up stuck in a stage that for the majority of the straight community is a passing phase on the way to adulthood.  I think that's also why you are more likely to see gay men in lower-paying jobs with less authority.  There is usually no mortgage to worry about, and no children to feed and clothe and send to school, and hence no pressure to pursue the jobs that pay more.  And while my guess is that there probably are a good many gay relationships that have lasted a good number of years, there is no unifying force that brings gay men who are in long-term relationships in constant contact with single gay men, where they could serve as role models, as opposed to the straight community, where there is a lot more contact between the generations as well as single and married people simply because of the way straight society works.

Wow!  Very well put!

I also agree with ranchgal and mary.  The gay community is going to need help from the straight community in getting this.  Gay marriage will always be seen as a "gay" topic, until a good number of straights come on board to help.

And the gay community has to be vocal about getting that help.  I talked to all my straight friends about this topic.  I had a debate with a friend who is Republican, during the last presidential elections.  When I stated I was voting against Bush, because of his want for a gay marriage ban amendment, he said he didn't think that gay marriage was enough of a reason to vote Democrat.  

I gave him a list of the protections he gets with his wife, that I am not allowed to have, just because I am gay, and because of that, I can not vote Republican.

While I didn't convince him, I did manage to influence my other friends who overheard the debate, and they now support gay marriage.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: PetterG on December 27, 2005, 11:49:03 AM
I don't understand how 2 men or 2 women getting married will "ruin and tarnish the institution of marriage."

I agree with You, I cannot understand that either - but - when a female friend of me married a boy/man, just to give him Swedish citizenship - I was very upset, because she misused the marriage (in MHO anyway).
By this I could in some way see how the conservatives Christians thinks about 'gay marriage' as a misuse of the 'holy' thing.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: WLAGuy on December 27, 2005, 12:04:41 PM
By this I could in some way see how the conservatives Christians thinks about 'gay marriage' as a misuse of the 'holy' thing.

Their argument doesn't work for me (and I'm guessing quite a few other people) because most of the straight community treats marriages as disposable.  I'm not just talking about the people at the bottom of the ladder, either.  Think about how the "movers and shakers" treat marriage.  Donald Trump has been married a number of times (I think it's three, but who's counting?  Apparently not Donald), and no one thinks less of him because of it.  Hollywood marriages are considered successful if they last more than a few years, and no one is surprised if they only last a few months. 

If the straight community wants to successfully argue that marriage is a "holy" thing, then they're going to have to start treating it as such.  They could start by doing away with divorce, and passing stronger laws against adultery and sex outside of marriage.  THEN they would have a strong argument that marriage is "holy."  They will never do these things, of course, because their real argument is that they don't want to see gay and lesbian couples as equal to them.  It's basically the plantation mentality -- "We treat our slaves just like part of the family, but give them equal rights?  You're kidding, right?" 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: PetterG on December 27, 2005, 12:27:34 PM
I agree with You, the conservative Christians should be much more upset about the 'marriage-misuse' the heteros are doing. I think today is the wedding (ie the party) the important thing, not the marriage (long relation).

But by this example I understood how someone could be angry that someone else 'misused' the marriage (a very common argument is that "I don't 'destroy' Your hetero-marriage if I have a 'gay marriage'" - mind Your own business).

It is not only in the 'animal farm' that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal".

Here in Sweden we today have a gay marriage (registered partnership is the official term) - and it is exactly the same as the civil registration the heteros can do. So there are ideas to rename the partnership and use the term marriage for everyone - which has upsetted the christians.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: WLAGuy on December 27, 2005, 12:36:20 PM
Well, God knows Sweden (and many other countries) are so far ahead of the US that you'll probably see that happen long before we do. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: CellarDweller115 on December 27, 2005, 07:35:35 PM
If the straight community wants to successfully argue that marriage is a "holy" thing, then they're going to have to start treating it as such.  They could start by doing away with divorce, and passing stronger laws against adultery and sex outside of marriage.  THEN they would have a strong argument that marriage is "holy."  They will never do these things, of course, because their real argument is that they don't want to see gay and lesbian couples as equal to them.  It's basically the plantation mentality -- "We treat our slaves just like part of the family, but give them equal rights?  You're kidding, right?" 

If they were to "allow" us to get married, they would have to drop that whole "Hate the sin, love the sinner" thing too, which they just LOVE to throw around. 

lmao

I had a priest once say to me "It's ok to be homosexual, as long as you don't practice your homosexuality."  I turned to him and said......"Well thank you.  And it's ok for you to be religious, as long as you don't practice your religion."

The expression on his face was priceless.  I wish I could remember who said that quote that I borrowed.  It was either Bob Smith or Michael Thomas Ford.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Alex on December 28, 2005, 01:14:49 AM
Here is an editorial from the Star Tribune of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota - http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5803900.html

Editorial: Can gay cowboys find true equality?

Sometimes a popular film meets politics at just the right moment ("The China Syndrome" and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 come to mind), and now it may have happened again, perhaps in a more important way.

In the coming weeks, "Brokeback Mountain" will spread from major cities into the heartland, and millions of Americans will line up to see what's being called the "gay cowboy movie" -- although it's more accurately a classic story of forbidden love and of lives wasted because of the world's narrow conventions.

This is a quiet, nonpreachy film. Its power lies in the ordinariness of the characters. They are common ranch hands who, in 1963, become clumsy, inarticulate lovers, incapable of analyzing the surprising turn in their lives or the toll inflicted on their families over 20 years' time.

What thoughtful audiences will be forced to decide is whether the nation should continue to marginalize and devalue the commitments of couples who happen to be gay. Should it, for example, constitutionally ban "gay marriage"? In the coming months, the Minnesota Legislature will get obsessive over this topic. The governor and other politicians will try to convince you that same-sex marriage would be a terrible threat to your marriage, and to the wider civil order.

Our view is, first, that the right words should be employed in this dispute. It's not about "marriage" in the way most Minnesotans think of it. That happens in a church or synagogue where a sacrament or religious bond is invoked. Some religions should (and will) continue to define marriage as only between a man and woman.

The state's interest is different. Its interest is in the forging of committed relationships that protect health, promote stability and provide equal protection and equal rights under the law. It has no interest in discriminating, in any of these areas, against committed same-sex couples. None. Indeed, it's outrageous, we think, that any state would continue to deny these couples the legal rights and obligations (inheritance, adoption, child support, etc.) that married couples enjoy. Minnesota, in other words, should leave the marriage business to religion and get into the civil partnership business.

Civil partnership far better describes what this issue is about. Universal tolerance of gayness cannot be compelled. Religious belief about what constitutes sin is not being challenged. The central question is whether government can continue to deny equal rights to a whole class of citizens.

The importance of "Brokeback Mountain" is that it offers to large, ambivalent audiences a lens through which can be seen the tragedy of having to live secret lives. Ang Lee's quiet film captures well the profound sadness of Annie Proulx's original 1997 story. All the two cowboys really want is a small ranch in a remote corner of Wyoming, not a "lifestyle" in South Beach. They don't want to promote anything. The question that lingers is how exactly their happiness, acceptance and equality under the law would threaten others' marriage. Or whether the greater threat to American liberty is to continue to deny them the equality that is rightfully theirs.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: jack on December 28, 2005, 02:49:26 AM
oh my alex, that was a fabulous catch.  it is so good to hear words like that at a time like this, and not coming from same gay rights guru.  thank so for sharing it with us.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Alex on December 28, 2005, 03:31:04 AM
oh my alex, that was a fabulous catch.  it is so good to hear words like that at a time like this, and not coming from same gay rights guru.  thank so for sharing it with us.

Jack, you're welcome. It is refreshing to read this type of editorial from other newspapers aside from the New York Times. I'm going to email the article to everyone I know.  And, here's what I suggest. We should all write positive "Letters to the Editors" to let them how we feel.  Here is the link - http://www.startribunecompany.com/143.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: adamblast on December 29, 2005, 03:19:04 PM
Thanks for sharing your situation, [username removed by request], my heart goes out to you and your family.  If you've read much on this site, you'll see that this film brings out "the truth" in many of our lives, and leaves us needing to talk about them with someone, anyone...  I think I've read more sad tales here than any forum I've visited.

I don't have much in the way of council, other than to warn you against being *too* sure you understand the hidden factors in your husband's oddly passionless approach to your marriage. 

Yes, it may well be that he is, like Ennis, both gay and deeply, unalterably homophobic.  (I know that I'll be battling such internalized homophobia all my life, and may never find the happy/healthy gay love life I deserve.)  There could be any number of other things which can shut a man off, however.  The world is full of emotionally crippled men, trained all too well that chinks in the armor can mean danger and death.

Just about my only advice is to find your own support network, and to be sure to take care of yourself.  If you wind up having to broach these taboo topics with your husband, make sure not to do it from some "pet theory" standpoint, as if you know him better than he knows himself.  What man will own up to that?

Edit: username removed by request
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: WLAGuy on December 29, 2005, 04:59:38 PM
Your post packed quite a wallop with me, as I'm sure it will for others here.  Had things turned out differently for me, that could have been me in your husband's position.  I'm sorry you've had to deal with this situation all these years, but I'm glad you at least found this site, where a good many people understand what you're going through. 

You've got a good bit of work ahead of you, and I agree with the other posters who recommended you talk to a marriage counselor, or at least a therapist who can help you sort out your feelings. 

That said, there are a couple of practical concerns you may want to think about (and the only "right" answer is what's right for you). 

The first question is, what would you do if your husband told you he was gay?  Assuming you would want a divorce, you mentioned that your children are teenagers -- would you want to stay married until your youngest is 18, or are they mature enough to be able to handle a divorce now? 

The second question is, what would you do if your husband told you he was not gay?  From the sound of it, there are serious problems with your relationship -- assuming your husband is not gay and there is a chance the problems can be fixed, are you willing to invest the time and energy necessary to fix them?  In other words, do you think the relationship is still salvageable? 

Again, there are no "right" answers to these questions.  The only "right" answer is what your heart tells you.  Having myself grown up with parents that had a very unhappy relationship, I think the only "wrong" choice would be to do nothing.  You (and your husband) both deserve better than what you have now. 

Finally, you mentioned feeling anger at feeling "used" all these years.  While your feelings are what they are, and no one else can tell you how you should be feeling, there may be another way of looking at the situation.  If your husband really is gay, as you suspect, he may very well have not realized this until after your marriage, and in reality been doing his best all these years to live up the promises he made you, and to take care of his responsibility towards your children, rather than using you to hide from the truth. 

I hope this helps somewhat.  Please let us know how you are doing.

Joe aka WLAGuy
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: delb on December 29, 2005, 05:04:07 PM


also for me very moving to read what you have to experience at this moment. Must indeed be a hard time for you and also for your husband, in case your guess is right.
I am a gay man still married to his wife, though we are living seperated for six years now. Since I was a little boy I kind of knew that I was different, but never ever could even think about being a gay person. Because what I always wanted was to make a family. I found a wonderful woman, fell in love, married, got two lovely daughters and during 9 years struggeled and fighted against what I felt inside. (Sorry, my English....) Looking back, I have to admit that it sometimes was hell, knowing that a huge part of the life I was living simply was wrong. Of course there were good times too, when the kids grew older and made us such proud parents.
Though it became more and more difficult for me to deny my homosexuality the hardest and most impossible thing seemed to me to tell her about it. I can't tell how ashamed I felt all that time and even now it sometimes hits me out of the blue. May be I never would have told her until now, but when I fell in love with a man for the first time there was no other way than telling her the truth. What a bitter moment for the two of us, but also such a big relief for both. We were able to think about our lives and very slowly tried to make a new start in different directions. That's six years ago now, somehow it happened that I'm living with the girls now and she has her own life not far from us. We still spend much time together as a family but are free to build new relationships if we want to.

Don't know if this can help in any way, just my thoughts by reading your story. My very best wishes for you.....
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: dallaskweer on December 31, 2005, 05:49:22 AM
For those of you living in blue states or outside the Bible Belt, let me give you fair warning.

Hilary will NEVER NEVER carry one red state down here...NEVER. And if you keep using the M word...marriage...you are going to shoot yourselves in the foot every two years during election cycles, presidential or congressional.

I am liberal Bostonian who somehow found himself living in Texas. You would not believe the mindset down here about ANYTHING NOT white, Protestant, and straight.

Bill Clinton snuck by his first go around because he had a drawl and seemed very moderate..."It's the economy, stupid." Hilary's true colors came to light later and let me just suggest that down here, they think of her as Hanoi Jane.

We will continue to elect these fascists who will eventually try to encamp us if we don't get REALLY PRACTICAL and fast. The Blue States are losing population. The Red States are growing. Do the math. And Latinos do not like fags, as a culture, in general.

Sorry this is harsh but I am really tired of my liberal brothers and sisters touting Hilary Hilary Hilary....she just ain't gonna get elected.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: chiaros on December 31, 2005, 07:55:41 AM
Well,

Here's an article to stir the pot.  Not that it says anything we don't already know - rather, it reinforces how abhorrently certain conservative, straight societies/people can behave.

http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-12-27/torrisi-gaycowboys

Chiaros.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: jim ... on December 31, 2005, 09:01:52 PM
Well, okay, Dave, since you asked.   ::) 

  We are not part of a society that expects us to marry, settle down, raise children, buy houses in the suburbs and attend PTA meetings.  Because we are not, each of us has to basically feel our own way through life, and I think a great many of us basically end up stuck in a stage that for the majority of the straight community is a passing phase on the way to adulthood.  I think that's also why you are more likely to see gay men in lower-paying jobs with less authority.  There is usually no mortgage to worry about, and no children to feed and clothe and send to school, and hence no pressure to pursue the jobs that pay more.

While I certainly see your point here WLAGuy, I'm not sure that our rights to marry, raise children and buy homes ... etc., necessarily have a bearing on gay men in lower-paying jobs.  I know plenty of gay men that work in positions of authority and earn a handsome income. I would like to hope that it's the individual's drive and ambition that rewards anyone (gay or straight) financially, rather than societies expectations.

I too feel that gay men and women should be afforded the same rights as our straight friends. As someone had mentioned earlier on this thread, it's important how we move the gay agenda. I do believe that our straight allies are our greatest asset.  In being overly militant in our quest for equal rights, we possibly run the risk of alienating more than only the conservative right-wingers.  We live in a predominantly homophobic culture and although there are many of us that would like "immediate results", I for one am not sure we should expect them anytime in the near future.  I can't help but wonder that if we push too hard and are overly ferocious in our demands, that it will backfire and more of this country will jump on the conservative bandwagon.  We have made tremendous progress over the last 50 or so years. Perhaps treading lightly (as much as I really hate the thought of that) and letting movies like BBM help middle America re-think their position about gays and their rights, is a viable way to proceed.  Real growth takes time I'm willing to take that time if it means real change.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: mary on December 31, 2005, 09:49:53 PM
I too feel that gay men and women should be afforded the same rights as our straight friends. As someone had mentioned earlier on this thread, it's important how we move the gay agenda. I do believe that our straight allies are our greatest asset. 

jim
I'm one if the straight folks willing to help, and sometime just wondering how.
As a woman in my 40's I can recall women being denied a lot of opportunities (ex. when I was a teen ager I somehow got on a bunch of military academy lists as 'mark' The were recruiting me hard. Then they discovered I was a 'mary' That was the end of that.)
So to me some of this is 'payback'  Women would not have made some of the strides they have with out the help of fair minded men who saw the simple justice in equal right for women. Same concept applies here as far as I am concerned, simple justice.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Fish on January 01, 2006, 07:19:13 PM
I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere, but could someone please enlighten me on the differences between "gay marriage" and "gay civil unions"?  The editorial above made it a bit clearer but I honestly have be puzzled about this and have not found a good set of definitions anywhere.  I want to be crystal-clear when arguing with friends in favor of gay marriage/unions.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: MellorSJ on January 01, 2006, 07:42:15 PM
I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere, but could someone please enlighten me on the differences between "gay marriage" and "gay civil unions"?  The editorial above made it a bit clearer but I honestly have be puzzled about this and have not found a good set of definitions anywhere.  I want to be crystal-clear when arguing with friends in favor of gay marriage/unions.  Thanks!

As always, it's a matter of definition.  The most common (I think) definition in the US is that "gay marriage" is exactly equal in all respects to straight marriage, but gay civil unions are a form of contract recognized in certain limited ways and jurisdictions.  A straight civil union or "domestic partnership", for example, is recognized by some companies (Disney, for example) for health insurance purposes (as are gay ones--my point was to illustrate.)  Outside of the company, jurisdiction (whatever) a civil union would not be regarded as a marriage.  In other words, "marriage" is a special type of contract enshrined in law that provides a multitude of rights and priviliges (inheritance, hospital visitation/decision making, etc.); civil union does not.

There is also the value of the word.  If the US were define a gay civil union as in all respects equivalent to straight marriage, for some that would not be sufficient.  It's GOT to be "marriage".  Personally, I think that makes the perfect the enemy of the very very good.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Hotoddy on January 01, 2006, 07:59:44 PM
For some of us marriage implies a religious marriage and civil union the non religious version.  In Great Britain now, civil unions are the same as marriage except  they are not performed in a religious establishment.  By not calling it marriage you can get into the whole separate but equal  (not really equal) discussion. Depending on my mood I'm all for MARRIAGE and the next minute wish 'they' would stop using that word and call it civil union.   ???
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: MellorSJ on January 01, 2006, 11:43:13 PM
For some of us marriage implies a religious marriage and civil union the non religious version.  In Great Britain now, civil unions are the same as marriage except  they are not performed in a religious establishment.  By not calling it marriage you can get into the whole separate but equal  (not really equal) discussion. Depending on my mood I'm all for MARRIAGE and the next minute wish 'they' would stop using that word and call it civil union.   ???

Understood.  And I think that would be a perfect solution in the US too.  Civil union would be blessed by the state (which has no business discriminating against any one of its citizens), and marriage would be blessed by a church (maybe even a gay one :).

But the implication would be that some people who are currently "married" by the state, but not in a church wouldn't be married under this definition.  There are ways to grandfather them in, I suppose.

IOW, I agree completely.

Here's a question though.  Let's say Elton emigrated to the US.  Could his husband enter the country as Elton's spouse under US law?

If I were leading this charge in the US, I'd promote civil unions (i.e. not call them marriage), but under the clear understanding that a civil union confers exactly the same rights as does marriage today.  A bit sneaky, but it would allow the people who claim they have no "problem with gay people", but just deal with them being "married" to maintain their contradictions, while getting everything we want, except the word.  The word would follow, as soon as people started asking "but what's the difference?"
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: adamblast on January 02, 2006, 12:33:21 AM
MellorSJ, it's really not an either/or question in terms of gay marriage vs. civil unions...   Yes, it's very true that America is far more likely to grant gays civil unions than full legalized marriage.  And if the rights and responsibilies of civil unions are equal (or near-equal) to that of marriage, it would be a huge step.  The sad fact is that gay couples today are legally *so* devalued and maligned that their relationships have basically no standing whatsoever--so even gay civil unions are a vast improvement.  Most gay folks, including gay activists, would be very glad to see gay couples given increased legal rights, even under the banner of civil unions. 

But don't forget for a second that, while it may be better than the *nothing* we have now, it is also a severe compromise--in effect an enshrining of second-class relationships.  By saying our couplehoods don't deserve the name "real marriage" society is also telling us we are inferior, and that they can take those rights away from us again whenever they choose.  It's a legal apartheid system, seperate and unequal.  So it's hard to tell gay folks they should be pushing for civil unions instead of marriage, even if it is the politically more realistic move today.

It's hard to get behind a civil rights crusade for "near-equality."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: adamblast on January 02, 2006, 12:55:57 AM
Here's a question though.  Let's say Elton emigrated to the US.  Could his husband enter the country as Elton's spouse under US law?
Certainly not.  The Federal government refuses to acknowledge gay marriages from other countries. 

And the state governments refuse to acknowledge them from other states.  Can you imagine if a straight couple was told they weren't  married anymore because they moved across the country? We currently have one state, Massechussetts, which has full legal marriage for gays, but it may well be overturned in 2008.  Interestingly for those who think civil unions will be so much easier to get, nearly all the 20+ states that have outlawed gay marriage in their state constitutions have also outlawed anything that seeks to approximate marriage, i.e. civil unions.  In other words, our relationships deserve *nothing.*  We are officially second-class Americans.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: MellorSJ on January 02, 2006, 01:04:25 AM
MellorSJ, it's really not an either/or question in terms of gay marriage vs. civil unions...   Yes, it's very true that America is far more likely to grant gays civil unions than full legalized marriage.  And if the rights and responsibilities of civil unions are equal (or near-equal) to that of marriage, it would be a huge step.  The sad fact is that gay couples today are legally *so* devalued and maligned that their relationships have basically no standing whatsoever--so even gay civil unions are a vast improvement.  Most gay folks, including gay activists, would be very glad to see gay couples given increased legal rights, even under the banner of civil unions. 

But don't forget for a second that, while it may be better than the *nothing* we have now, it is also a severe compromise--in effect an enshrining of second-class relationships.  By saying our couplehoods don't deserve the name "real marriage" society is also telling us we are inferior, and that they can take those rights away from us again whenever they choose.  It's a legal apartheid system, separate and unequal.  So it's hard to tell gay folks they should be pushing for civil unions instead of marriage, even if it is the politically more realistic move today.

It's hard to get behind a civil rights crusade for "near-equality."

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I don't think I was clear.  I think we have three (effective) choices:
1.  "Marriage."  The goods and the name.
2.  "Civil Union." The goods without the name
3.  A watered down "civil union." A second-class form of marriage.

I think we should *never* settle for #3, because then we have lost the high ground.  The argument is this: "This <thing> (to use Ennis' priceless word for what he has going with Jack) is about equality under the law.  Now if Joe Blow's religion says it's immoral to eat pork, does that mean we should make the eating of pork illegal?  Obviously not.  Same goes for us."  We have to hold on to that principle, for once it is lost it is impossible (in a reasonable time frame) to get it back.

But the success of "dog-whistle politics" means we have to be realistic.  Going for #1 just brings on the Fundies.  Next thing you know, we have nothing.  

So I say #2.  Call it "Civil union" but *insist* on exactly the same rights as in a marriage.  It's only a word.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: MellorSJ on January 02, 2006, 01:19:21 AM
Certainly not.  The Federal government refuses to acknowledge gay marriages from other countries. 

And the state governments refuse to acknowledge them from other states.  Can you imagine if a straight couple was told they weren't  married anymore because they moved across the country? We currently have one state, Massechussetts, which has full legal marriage for gays, but it may well be overturned in 2007.  Interestingly for those who think civil unions will be so much easier to get, nearly all the 20+ states that have outlawed gay marriage in their state constitutions have also outlawed anything that seeks to approximate marriage, i.e. civil unions.  In other words, our relationships deserve *nothing.*  We are officially second-class Americans.

Thanks for the data in your first para.  It's what I thought, but it pays to know!

My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Quote
Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
(I had to take a test, remember!)

I understand, too, what you say in the rest of your post.  But IMO, that is a measure of the success of their strategy and the failure of ours.  Had we said "We don't want marriage!  Just the rights every other citizen has!" I think (and of course we can't run a controlled experiment), we'd have fared better

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: adamblast on January 02, 2006, 01:28:02 AM
Not sure I can agree that there's any worthwhile distinction to be had between your #2 and #3. 

The harder you insist that civil unions carry the exact same legal standing as marriage, the harder they will be to accomplish.  A seperate marriage-lite system "for gays only" will, by definition, have a different body of laws governing it.  In fighting for #2 I don't see how you end up with anything but #3.  And realistic or not, I don't think we can ask gay people to fight for #3.

Equality is only a word as well.  And if you don't have it, you don't have it.  You can't tell people not to want it.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: adamblast on January 02, 2006, 01:29:59 AM
My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Yes, you would think so.  Which is why 20+ states have written new articles into their constitutions claiming they *don't* have to on this point.  And once it's in the state contitutions, judges can't overturn them.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: MellorSJ on January 02, 2006, 02:19:00 AM
My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Yes, you would think so.  Which is why 20+ states have written new articles into their constitutions claiming they *don't* have to on this point.  And once it's in the state contitutions, judges can't overturn them.

Bzzzzt.  The Federal Constitution can override State Constititions.  See anything to do with the Civil rights era.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: dallaskweer on January 02, 2006, 03:15:34 AM
One of the marvelous things about the yahoo lawyers in the South writing up these anti-gay marriage amendments is that, due to poor use of language, and poor law school educations, they have shot themselves in the foot.

The new Texas law, in its second clause, essentially invalidates ALL marriage, via bad syntax. This state amendment will eventually wend its way up to the SCOTUS and the can of worms will open up and all hell will break loose. Thank God!

(Ivy League, snotty old money Boston faggot here who lives in Dallas and just LOVES to rib his native cowboy husband about how fucking ignorant these bubbas are.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: adamblast on January 02, 2006, 08:23:35 AM
My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Yes, you would think so.  Which is why 20+ states have written new articles into their constitutions claiming they *don't* have to on this point.  And once it's in the state contitutions, judges can't overturn them.

Bzzzzt.  The Federal Constitution can override State Constititions.  See anything to do with the Civil rights era.
Yet again, you're talking about what should or should have happened.  Not what did.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: MellorSJ on January 02, 2006, 01:41:14 PM
My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Yes, you would think so.  Which is why 20+ states have written new articles into their constitutions claiming they *don't* have to on this point.  And once it's in the state contitutions, judges can't overturn them.

Bzzzzt.  The Federal Constitution can override State Constititions.  See anything to do with the Civil rights era.
Yet again, you're talking about what should or should have happened.  Not what did.

Hmmm.  Are you telling me there's been a court case where this was decided?  Details please, for I am ignorant.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: doodler on January 02, 2006, 07:43:05 PM
A religious ceremony does not a marriage make. For it to be legal, a license must be issued by the state. The same license works for a church ceremony or one before the justice of the peace. So calling it marriage or civil union, it amounts to the same thing.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: red_sun on January 03, 2006, 02:18:23 AM
I don't mean to change the subject, but is anyone paying attention to the Canadian fedreal election (I'm from Canada). The Conservatives seem to be catching up to the Liberals. I'm, hoping that they won't form government, but if they do what effect do you guys think it will have on Gay marriage in canada (it is legal now)? I think that they will be unable to repeal the law, but will still try their hardest to.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: adamblast on January 03, 2006, 10:04:28 AM
Hmmm.  Are you telling me there's been a court case where this was decided?  Details please, for I am ignorant.
No, my point--and I'm sorry if I haven't been clear--is that pending any federal decisions (which we have every reason to fear may be biased against us) the state constitutions *are* the law, and neither gay marriages or civil unions are transferrable from state to state.  Obviously, like yourself, I feel that it's wrong, and not something that would be tolerated for any other minority.  Your insistance that the full faith & credit clause triumphs over all the state constitutions just isn't an accurate picture of the current state of affairs.  These state ammendments were written to explicitly say otherwise, however poorly and unjustly.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: jim ... on January 05, 2006, 05:43:33 PM
I don't mean to change the subject, but is anyone paying attention to the Canadian fedreal election (I'm from Canada). The Conservatives seem to be catching up to the Liberals. I'm, hoping that they won't form government, but if they do what effect do you guys think it will have on Gay marriage in canada (it is legal now)? I think that they will be unable to repeal the law, but will still try their hardest to.

in all honesty, I haven't paid as much attention to the election as I should.  I can assume however that if the conservatives find themselves in the majority, your legal right to marry will most likely be threatened.  Perhaps some of our friends from north of the border could enlighten us.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: red_sun on January 05, 2006, 11:25:35 PM
The Liberals have been loosing support not because of their suipport of gay marriage ( 3 of the 4 major political parties supported it, the Liberals being the "softest" supporters though). What's killing them is a series of financial scandals that keep coming. However, our Conservartive party isn't nearly as bad as the Republicans. The conservative leader said that if he is elected he will call another vote to decide the fate of gay marriage. If it fails to pass he said he will keep it legal. if not he will ban it (no one knows how though... lol) but will still keep civil unions with full rights. But it angers me why they claim the right to marriage. Marriage was not invented by Christians, there has also been evidence of gay mariages occuring in Roman times. I guess no single party can hold power for 14 straight years *sigh*
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: jim ... on January 06, 2006, 06:49:34 AM
The conservative leader said that if he is elected he will call another vote to decide the fate of gay marriage. If it fails to pass he said he will keep it legal. if not he will ban it (no one knows how though... lol) but will still keep civil unions with full rights.

thanks for the info red-sun.  In Canada, what exactly is the difference between "gay marriage" and "civil unions with full rights"?  If Canada did make gay marriage illegal, what rights would be lost?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: red_sun on January 07, 2006, 12:09:55 AM
The conservative leader said that if he is elected he will call another vote to decide the fate of gay marriage. If it fails to pass he said he will keep it legal. if not he will ban it (no one knows how though... lol) but will still keep civil unions with full rights.

thanks for the info red-sun.  In Canada, what exactly is the difference between "gay marriage" and "civil unions with full rights"?  If Canada did make gay marriage illegal, what rights would be lost?

I figure it's just for namesake.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Rae on January 10, 2006, 11:31:16 AM
I seem to have been the only one to walk out of that theater a bit more than disappointed. Not disappointed in the movie actually for everyone says that its very much the reality so I find myself disappointed in the reality. The scenes of caring are subtle at first and its this that caused me to be quite shocked at the first sex scene - more akin to a rape scene. Where I felt like it was a gross anti-climax to the developing love. It wasn't the love that seemed repressed, it was the sexual desire. I hoped the movie could have overcome this but it didnt. I still can't get over the fact that in the whole movie they DID NOT FISH... If I was with someone I truely loved, the experience of fishing is so calm and beautiful to do it together, the movie implied they just went up there to have sex. They didn't stop disappointing me there. Jack twist(Mr Gyllenhall) didn't pay ANY mind to Ennis's(mr Ledger) kids. He didn't even want really to meet the woman his lover decided to marry for he stayed outside by the car everytime he came after the first. It was real but not true to me.

Jack was the open one who proclaimed love and wanting a good life together with ennis so I looked to him for what the movie was saying. Jack Twist occurs to me as a hedonist, who want to have sexual pleasures all the time. He said it himself at one point that he wasn't 'getting it enough' (paraphrasing) from ennis and it most definitely wasn't love or time together, it was sex because he said that's why he went down to mexico for it. Worse, if the male prostitutes in Mexico were teenagers, he would be pedophile, a sexual predator, as Gene Shalit has mentioned on NBC Today Show. Gene, by the way is supportive of Peter, his gay physician son, and on the same side of gay movement, according to an open letter published on Advocate, written by Peter in defence of his father. I just totally sat back at that point confirmed in my disppointment in humanity. Instead of treasuring meeting ennis once a year, he went down to mexico for sex.'Jack Twist? Naw Jack natsy! ' This guy, some part of him loved Ennis(it was not total love cuz at he end we see where he changed his dream of building the ranch, including another guy instead of ennis in it), but the entire movie took the standpoint of - we can't fix our sexual desires so screw love we will make a compramise to get what we want.

I wanted to see a love story, so if you say instead I saw reality I will say humanity I am disappointed in you. I made my decision from that movie. If thats what 'being gay' entails, I felt like I wanted no part of it. Jack shuns his responsibilities and commitments to his wife, son and lover. Despite his double infidelity to both Ennis and Lureen, I can still empathize, but not sympathize, with Jack, probably because of the superb filmmaking. I'm also very disappointed with most internet messages posted by gay people who identify themselves with Jack and swoon over him. Once this character chooses to get carnal fulfillment with male prostitutes (despite having a wife and a lover), whatever good feeling I have toward him during the first 45 minutes of the film is gone.

Ennis is also problematic with unresolved inner conflict: he's basically a homophobic man who falls in love with a man. But at least he has a sense of commitment to his daughters, not only working to pay for the alimony, but also trying to fulfil his duty as a father. This commitment and care does pay off, and you can see it in his relationship with Alma, Jr, who reciprocates... I don't think she would have shown the respect (asking for permission to get married) and care for Ennis, if he had not put in the effort to connect with her. Despite reservations about the main characters, I'll still give the film 10/10.

I'd like to add that I've no problem with gay relationship (or heterosexual for that matter) if it is a committed one. Although I've met some gay people who are committed to long-term relationships/unions, I think they are in the minority after watching this film and reading the responses on this website. I wanted to see a love story, so if you say instead I saw reality I will say humanity I am disappointed in you. I made my decision from this movie that I will want society to set higher bar for gay relationship/marriage than heterosexual relationship/marriage before society can approve of it, if ever. Show me the commitment to overcome obstacles.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 10, 2006, 12:21:09 PM
I figure it's just for namesake.
I guess I'd read the situation in Canada a little differently. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to who is going to form next government. I'm still leaning toward the Liberals (another minority gov probably), but it's hard for me to say.

Even if Harper forms the new government, I just don't see any serious liklihood of rolling back to Recip. Bene's (or some variation on that theme). Obviously gay-marriage (and perhaps by extension the notwithstanding clause) are great campaign topics. And, I grant that anything is possible, but I think even Harper would be stuck with the status quo.

What if a conservative Parliament did pass a law undoing Martin's C-38 (or whatever that bill number was). That wouldn't accomplish much. The government has already conceded the unconstitutionality of the heterosexual definition of marriage. The courts aren't going to ignore that.

Obviously, that leaves Harper with only the notwithstanding clause (for those who don't know, Parliament can essentially override certain rights otherwise afforded in the Charter, but it's never been done and would have to be reauthorized every five(?) years). Successfully invoking that clause in this circumstance is almost too far fetched.

Perhaps I'm misreading Canada's mood. I just don't think there is a popular groundswell undo what is already done. I also doubt that enough MPs (separate from the electorate) have the stomach to invoke the notwtihstanding clause (which is a different matter from blathering about it during a campaign).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Dave Cullen on January 17, 2006, 03:46:01 PM
I expanded the thread title from "Gay Marriage" to "Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?"

All the existing debate is relevant, but I'm wondering if the presence of Brokeback Mountain or legalization in England, Canada, Spain, etc. or any other force is changing the winds.

Are things likely to get better or worse on this front? Will we keep losing state ballot initiatives? Slow them down? Will more states legalize?

What forces are driving the change, in either direction?
Title: Colorado might consider civil unions?
Post by: nakymaton on January 18, 2006, 11:04:51 AM
Quote
Two leading Democrats say they want to ask voters whether Colorado should legalize domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Senator Tom Plant and Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald say it's a legal issue -- not a debate over traditional marriage values.
The referred measure would need a two-thirds vote in each house to get on the November ballot. It would not require the signature of G-O-P Governor Owens.
The measure would give same-sex couples the right to visitation and to be involved in the care of hospital patients and nursing home residents, inheritance and pension benefits, access to a partner's health care benefits and family leave benefits, and the right to take possession of a deceased partner's remains.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ksut/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=866519

It would be really astounding if the state that's the home of Focus on the Family and that passed an anti-gay ballot initiative (Amendment 2) during the 90's would have a civil unions-type measure go through the legislature. And if it could pass... that would be wonderful.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: michaelflanagansf on January 19, 2006, 09:40:44 PM

Quote
I guess I'd read the situation in Canada a little differently. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to who is going to form next government. I'm still leaning toward the Liberals (another minority gov probably), but it's hard for me to say.

Even if Harper forms the new government, I just don't see any serious liklihood of rolling back to Recip. Bene's (or some variation on that theme). Obviously gay-marriage (and perhaps by extension the notwithstanding clause) are great campaign topics. And, I grant that anything is possible, but I think even Harper would be stuck with the status quo.

What if a conservative Parliament did pass a law undoing Martin's C-38 (or whatever that bill number was). That wouldn't accomplish much. The government has already conceded the unconstitutionality of the heterosexual definition of marriage. The courts aren't going to ignore that.

Obviously, that leaves Harper with only the notwithstanding clause (for those who don't know, Parliament can essentially override certain rights otherwise afforded in the Charter, but it's never been done and would have to be reauthorized every five(?) years). Successfully invoking that clause in this circumstance is almost too far fetched.

Quote

I was very glad to find this analysis here - I've been wondering about this, particularly as Harper has said earlier that he was going to put it up to a vote.  Here's an article from 365Gay.com about what he said recently about overturning Gay Marriage:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/011906canada.htm

What seems strange about his saying he'd go to parliament is that he most certainly can't count on BQ or NDP support.  He's talking here like he expects a majority government.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Lola on January 23, 2006, 02:47:57 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

And no as far as I know there is not a popular groundswell to undo what is already done.   :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: helen_uk on January 23, 2006, 04:22:16 PM
In the UK I think that Civil Partnerships were brought in mainly to provide same sex couples with the opportunity to marry, and that this is the reason why the partnerships weren't extended to siblings as some MPs were pressing for.  Cruiser - couldn't agree more about:

So under English law a civil partnership is almost identical to marriage - why is it not called a marriage? A political decision probably as most non-lawyers wouldn't know how close the two things are and therefore it was easier to get through Parliament without a lot of fuss.

What I would like to see in the future is marriage open to same-sex couples and CPs open to opposite-sex couples. And both of these to be civil ceremonies with an additional religious ceremony if you are that way inclined. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: pylon101 on January 26, 2006, 03:06:10 AM
I guess it would not be bad to get a word from an American lawyer. I think we all believe that sooner or later the issue will be solved in the United States.

So my question(s) is related to legal paths how the situation may develop in coming years in legal terms.

Okay. There are 18 states with amendments in constitutions. What's next?

In Europe everything is legally simple: national government or a number of parliament members bring up a draft of the change of a basic statute (Civil Code in Spain). If approved by simple  majority - it becomes the law. To reverse the law 2/3 of PMs required - that's almost impossible in any EU country.

Approved.  Done. Period. Going to next vital issues.

In the American legal system it works different and based more on judicial branch of power. So what are legal options?

Is it the Supreme Court that will eventually take a case and make its decision regarding conformity of states' constitutional amendments and the Federal Constitution?

My understanding is that the Federal government has nothing to do with marriage/ civil union regulations, those are matters of states - is it correct?

I just would like to get a better vision of legal prospects.

I am a Russian. As many year experience shows changes in Russia follow European AND American patterns. But always both, European and American. Otherwise some politicians refer to Europe and others - to the States.

I would be grateful if anybody enlighten me in these legal matters.

Thanks.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: aceygirl on January 26, 2006, 12:45:59 PM
Wow, some of these legal questions being asked are so advanced, I couldn't even have asked them!

Here in NY/NJ there appeared to be a happy ending for a struggle in a New Jersey town, where a police lieutenant (or sargeant, or something along those lines) who is terminally ill wanted to leave her pension to her wife. But the town refused like crazy. Not until an emotional videotape of the literally dying woman pleading her case was played, and major strings pulled, did the stubborn town council give in. Sheesh. So being registered as domestic partners doesn't always cut it. How insanely homophobic can you be to want to refuse a dying public servant the right to give her money to her partner?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 26, 2006, 06:13:53 PM
In the American legal system it works different and based more on judicial branch of power. So what are legal options?

Is it the Supreme Court that will eventually take a case and make its decision regarding conformity of states' constitutional amendments and the Federal Constitution?

The situation in the U.S. is horribly complicated in the details, but you certainly understand the mechanics quite well (better than most Americans, I’d suspect).

At the federal level, the Supreme Court has long held that the individuals posses a fundamental right to marry, and the government can only intrude on that right with a constitutionally satisfactory reason (and that government motivation needs to be addressed in rather narrow fashion). If you want to go out on a limb, you find the germ of this idea going back to rulings in the early 20th century. At that time, most of the personal liberty/rights analysis was in its infancy, but by mid century, you could certainly say that it existed.

And, as a general matter, the federal government hasn’t usually interfered with the states’ primary power to legislate who can and cannot get married. The federal government does incorporate marital status in a variety of policy areas (immigration, taxation, public benefits, etc.), but they usually don’t get involved in the administration of marriage.

There are some notable exceptions: the admission of Utah (with the specter of multiple marriages) spurred federal action. And, as I mentioned the federal Supreme Court has ruled many state-level marriage restrictions unconstitutional (anti-miscegenation, inmate marriage prohibitions, licensing fees, and obstacles to adults who fail in court mandated child-support payments, etc.).

The monstrous exception in this context is the inaptly named federal “Defense of Marriage Act.” Enacted about a decade ago, this law purports to refuse federal recognition of same-sex marriage (even where it’s allowed; Massachusetts is the only exception in the U.S. thus far). The law also purports to give states the power to ignore same-sex marriages from other states.

The legality of DOMA is suspect (there are a few Constitutional problems, mostly having to do with the degree to which Congress has authority to pass this sort of law). But no one will really know how problematic DOMA may be until the courts deal with it.

The situation in the states where things get really complicated. I’ll post a few thoughts on that separately.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 26, 2006, 06:36:26 PM
Thus far most of the action in the states has indeed been in the courts. That’s not surprising given the political atmosphere in the U.S. today. I’m not suggesting that the courts are apolitical. Rather, the political dynamic is very different from the legislature.

Early on, the Hawaii Supreme Court effectively ruled that preventing same-sex couples from marrying violated their constitutionally protected rights. The Hawaii high court, sent the matter back for further proceedings in the lower court. Before the case came back up to the state Supreme Court, Hawaii amended its state constitution to explicitly forbid same-sex marriage. Case closed.

Something vaguely similar started (and ended) in Alaska too.

The Vermont court ruled similarly, but allowed the legislature to create “civil unions” instead of literal “marriage.” The legislature made that choice.

In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Council ruled (eventually) that marriage was the only solution, and six months later that became a reality. Folks opposed to the collapse of Western Civilization are still trying to amend that state’s constitution to undo the “damage.” Frankly, the people of Massachusetts have simply moved on to more important things, so not much is likely to change there.

California is an interesting (if somewhat nutty) exception. Our legislature gradually enacted a domestic partnership scheme that is almost indistinguishable from marriage. And it did so without the threat of a court order.  That scheme is wildly popular among the electorate (so much so that attempts to undo it are doomed to fail). Sometime next year, presumably, California’s Supreme Court will take up the matter of same-sex marriage. At the same time, groups opposed to same-sex marriage have already tried (and thus far failed, but they’ll try again) to change California’s constitution to forbid same-sex marriage. I’d guess that they will continue to fail, but that’s not a sure bet.  Meanwhile, the California legislature actually passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. It was quite controversial, but it was the first state legislature in the U.S. to do so. The governor (Schwarzenegger) refused to sign the bill. (There is a peculiar Constitutional provision that casts significant doubt on whether the state legislature can enact such a law now without sending the matter to a referendum).

There are similar court challenges underway in several other states. Washington state’s high court is certainly going to be the next one to issue an opinion on the matter (rumor has it in early March, but it could be sooner).

Most states, of course, won’t enact (or in the case of state courts, rule favorably on) same-sex marriage. We’ve see the same sort of thing play out before in other contexts.

Once a significant fraction of the states have instituted same-sex marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually step in and require that all states do so. That’s a very long way off right now. I’m not convinced (but I am hopeful) that it will happen in my lifetime.

For the next couple of decades, however, the worst thing that could happen to same-sex marriage is to put the question before the U.S. Supreme Court. That would surely result in a colossal set back. Very similar to what happened with the sodomy cases (in the 1980s the Supreme Court upheld state laws banning sodomy; the opinion was an shocking embarrassment, a horribly conceived opinion; twenty years later, the court finally reversed itself).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: exlogcabin on January 26, 2006, 06:49:07 PM
Gosh, Greg.

From your picture, you seem really young.  I hope that it happens in your lifetime.  But given how you have laid things out so well, I can see where it will take a long time.  For my partner and I, it's about getting some federal tax benefits.

Curtis
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 26, 2006, 06:51:18 PM

As a UK lawyer, I thought that I could clarify what a civil partnership is under English law (and basically the rest of the UK with some slight technical differences).

{MEGA SNIP}

The other thing that is quite funny is that some opposite-sex couples who don't want to get married because of the cultural baggage that term carries, feel hard done by that they can't become civil partners. So perhaps there will be movement to most relationships into civil partnerships and get rid of marriage!
There's a similar strain of sentiments about marriage vs. civil unions (by any name) here in the U.S. too. Perhaps not as pronounced as in the U.K.

Unfortunately, the legal landscape is quite different. We don't have the same uniformity in family law as the Britain (if not the U.K. more generally?) or Canada (BTW, I'm still completely convinced that marriage equality is safe in Canada, even if my hunch on the election was wrong).

Several states already have some form of civil unions that are, for state purposes, almost identical to marriage (most of the same attributes you cited). Unfortunately, these things are not portable in the slightest (if you move just 20 miles from New Jersey to Pennsylvania and, poof!, you're two single people again). Likewise, these partnerships have no federal standing whatsoever: no Social Secuirty surivior benefits, pensions, estate-tax relief; the list of federal impacts is more than 1,000 items long in the details.

And, in many cases, benefits people expect from employers (pension, family leave, health care . . .stuff we Americans don't generally get from the government) are a crazy patchwork too.

Worse, couples geniunely married in Massachusetts are in the same boat. It's quite a nightmare (in most cases the couples couldn't even get divorced if they left Mass. . . how's that for limbo?)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Uclapeterg on January 26, 2006, 06:53:39 PM
Gosh, Greg.

From your picture, you seem really young.  I hope that it happens in your lifetime.  But given how you have laid things out so well, I can see where it will take a long time.  For my partner and I, it's about getting some federal tax benefits.

Curtis

Like? When it comes to taxes, married people get the shaft. Although buying a home and other various tax deductiuons and credits can yield a tax benefit that could be shared.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 26, 2006, 07:06:08 PM
Gosh, Greg.

From your picture, you seem really young.  I hope that it happens in your lifetime.  But given how you have laid things out so well, I can see where it will take a long time.  For my partner and I, it's about getting some federal tax benefits.

Curtis

Curtis, darling, I am young. I just happened to have lived roughly half my life already.

As you've probably gathered, I follow the blow-by-blow in all things Constitutional+gay marriage with an almost Brokeback-like obsession.

The good news is that most of the federal-recognition issues will probably fall long before the Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage nationwide. The question of federal benefits raises distinct issues, both political and Constitutional. You may not get married in Kansas anytime soon, but you may get some tax relief much sooner.

(I concede that I shouldn't pick on Kansas any more than I should pick on Alberta. It's just a cliche, and I'll gladly apologize to any good-natured Kansan, of which there are many, who might be offended.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 26, 2006, 07:18:50 PM
Like? When it comes to taxes, married people get the shaft. Although buying a home and other various tax deductiuons and credits can yield a tax benefit that could be shared.

As someone who's been in relationships with highly disparate incomes, I find little comfort in what happens to most married people. I want the same treatment, whether favorable in one circumstance or not.

Relative incomes aside, there are many other substantial penalties. To cite just one example from my own life, I supported my ex in the same way that many other folks in a serious relationship do/did. We would have married (and presumably later divorced . . . ouch!) at the time, were that possible. It wasn't, so we did what we could to carve out as much protection for our relationship as we could.

That included me putting my ex on my employer's health insurance (he had none). My employer made that option available to all employees (no matter where in the U.S. they lived) and on the same terms as any other married couple (which was impressive more than 15 years ago). Unfortunately, federal tax law wasn't as egalitarian. Not only were the premiums I paid not deductible for federal tax purposes, I had to recognize thousands of dollars each year in imputed income. That excess income was based on the purported value of my employer’s contribution to the insurance (and grossly overstated). The tax man picked my pocket to the tune of four digits every year.

The justification? Because of surplus of penises in my bedroom. That crap is just wrong. We need to make healthcare more affordable, not less. My employer did its part. I expect the feds to do the same.

I’m hopeful that you’ve never been in situation where you built a life together with someone and had that partner die. The tax man (among numerous others) ain’t your friend in that situation either.

I realize you’re not the one holding up the train. Whatever anger you divine from this posting (surely it's bubbling to the surface) is squarely directed at the responsible body politic.  Not you.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: pylon101 on January 27, 2006, 01:21:54 AM
Thanks, Greg! You do sound knowledgeable in these matters.

I lived in D.C. area for 3 years in 1995-1997. Since then I used to read "Washington Post" on daily basis. So I have been following state by state developments.
But thanks again for putting all the pieces together.

Though overall legal aspects of the situation were even worse than I expected. Well, if Alito approved - which appears to unavoidable at this point - it might be even better that the Supreme Court will not take some groundbreaking breathtaking case in the nearest future.

I am an optimist. I believe that political and ideological situation will be changing faster. You kind of "freezed" and "zoomed" the things as of today. But all the developments - taken together: the war, GOP related scandals, November '06 elections - may change the pace.

Anyway. I entertain hope that we (as far as I am 40 too) will be still functional to change our status from "single" to ....whatever... not single.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 27, 2006, 10:00:15 AM
Though overall legal aspects of the situation were even worse than I expected. Well, if Alito approved - which appears to unavoidable at this point - it might be even better that the Supreme Court will not take some groundbreaking breathtaking case in the nearest future.
As you obviously know well, the U.S. Supreme Court changes very slowly. These days we tend to see nominees in their 40s or maybe early 50s, so sitting for at least two decades. And, it's safe to assume that Alito will be on the court before long.

Presumably, Justice Stevens will be the next one to go (he turns 86 this year). Thankfully, he’s in excellent health (and apparently still plays a mean game of tennis). He’s also stubborn enough that he’d sooner die on the bench than retire from it while the current strain of conservatives control his replacement.

Ginsburg shows little interest in retiring, but she’s had some significant health woes along the way (she’s in her early 70s). I wouldn’t expect any other retirements in the near future.

At best, replacing either of these justices would be a net nothing for the court. They are moderates/centrists for the most part, and I can’t really picture a “liberal” justice making it to the court in the next three to six years (presumptive timeframe for the next retirement or two). Of course, their replacements could be much more conservative depending on how things pan out in the national elections in 2006 and 2008.

Quote
I am an optimist. I believe that political and ideological situation will be changing faster.
I’m optimistic too, if perhaps not a full-fledged optimist.

Obviously, I don’t see much progress at the U.S. Supreme Court soon, and only the most modest progress in Congress (whenever the political pendulum swings the other direction, as it surely will).

The states, however, are quite promising. I’d expect to see same-sex marriage in about five states before Bush’s successor’s term is over. Perhaps even sooner. 

I hesitate to predict much beyond that with any sort of precision. If history is a guide, we’d then begin a slow battle of attrition for a couple of decades. But, things are moving very quickly on social issues. Perhaps the momentum will carry us to the Promised Land sooner.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: pylon101 on January 27, 2006, 11:23:37 AM
Well, you covered most issues I was interested in. Thank you.

Just a comment: legalized marriages/full scale civil unions will not turn landscape around you or me into Promised Land. It all within our selves.

But it would certainly help!!!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 27, 2006, 11:44:54 AM
legalized marriages/full scale civil unions will not turn landscape around you or me into Promised Land. It all within our selves.

But it would certainly help!!!
It is indeed within ourselves. Bons mots, mon ami.

Check back here from time to time, I'll update on any progress (I'm already behind on mentioning a recent Maryland lower court ruling, but I'll get there).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: exlogcabin on January 27, 2006, 06:38:05 PM
Hey Greg,

You would get along with my partner.  He was deputy director of the Gay and Lesbian's Legal Center for many years, working mostly on political asylum cases and running the free legal clinic.  (He now works at a foundation.)

Anyway, you point out the exact situation we are dealing with now: since I am a writer, my health coverage is covered by the WGA.  I am usually fine, but this year, I am short a little bit on my credits (I worked on an animated show that was non-union).  My coverage is set to expire in June unless I rack up X amounts of credits from now to Spring.  Given the nature of the biz, it will be hard to do so and I will probably be off health insurance then.  I checked in with his work and I can sign up for his policy, but that would be taxable income from the government on a federal level.  And believe me, it's a pretty noticable impact.

Exlogcabin (curtis)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: adamblast on January 27, 2006, 08:01:29 PM
It looks bad for the supreme court, yes, for the next 10 years at least, so is the time ripe for a change?  Short answer: I guess not, damn it.  But if one state can turn to five in the next president's term--and I think that's a wonderful goal--then there'd be plenty of reason for hope.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on January 27, 2006, 09:13:29 PM
Hey Greg,

You would get along with my partner.  He was deputy director of the Gay and Lesbian's Legal Center for many years, working mostly on political asylum cases and running the free legal clinic.  (He now works at a foundation.)

Curtis, get that charming devil over here! Sooner or later, we may have to start talking about something other than Brokeback Mountain.

(Am I inviting a flame war? Mind you, I'm not finished talking about BBM yet; someday I pretty sure I'll have to venture out into something else.)

Quote from: exlogcabin
Anyway, you point out the exact situation we are dealing with now: since I am a writer, my health coverage is covered by the WGA.  I am usually fine, but this year, I am short a little bit on my credits (I worked on an animated show that was non-union).  My coverage is set to expire in June unless I rack up X amounts of credits from now to Spring.  Given the nature of the biz, it will be hard to do so and I will probably be off health insurance then.  I checked in with his work and I can sign up for his policy, but that would be taxable income from the government on a federal level.  And believe me, it's a pretty noticable impact.

I've got a whopping six months left on my current COBRA coverage. Please don't remind me that I need to start doing something about that. I'm (sort of) ready to start talking about other things, but not that painful reality.  ???
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: exlogcabin on January 29, 2006, 01:10:12 AM
Before BBM, I would spend all my time on sites like Daily Kos and Americablog.  But now, my webtime is taken up with this site and Towleroad and other gay sites.  I wonder what will happen as the movie continues to steamroll.  Of course with the midterm elections coming up, I assume I'll get back into that groove!  Maybe we'll bump into you at some political rally!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 01, 2006, 09:35:13 PM
Here's an interesting analysis of the potential for the free-vote motion which may come before the Canadian Parliament:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/01/26/1413274-cp.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Parenthetical Greg on February 02, 2006, 09:38:54 AM
Interesting article on the Canadian possibilities, though still scant in the details.

I’m left wondering, should there be a free vote on whether to pursue legislation to resurrect the heterosexual definition of civil marriage how many Tory MPs might vote it down? You don’t have to be keen on same-sex marriage to want to leave this divisive issue buried in the past. And ultimately passing such legislation as it’s currently conceived would be pointless waste of time in the courts.

Would the Liberals stick to a party line even if their leadership again permitted a free vote? That’s probably unlikely given the friction within the party on this question, but as an expression that Harper’s bile is less than welcome I suppose it could happen.

I can envision a few (overly optimistic) scenarios where the motion’s defeat wouldn’t be as close as most folks estimate. Do any of neighbors have any insight on the political mood?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: lynn on February 12, 2006, 12:46:47 PM
From today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13848986.htm

New Jersey could become the second state to legalize gay marriage in a case that will reach the State Supreme Court this week, focusing debate in the battle that many advocates call the civil rights struggle of the 21st century.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: pylon101 on February 13, 2006, 03:43:59 AM
Thanks for the link, Lynn.

Will be closing developments closely. Keeping fingers crossed.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Boris on February 13, 2006, 03:50:40 AM
I have lived in states and I also had work permit there. Two years ago I was offered another stint to work there. I turned it down. First: my spouse couldn't have come with me because USA does not recognize us a couple. Second: I chose to live in a country that really respects my rights and treats me as equal citizen. Unfortunately in my hopelessly European eyes that is not the case in USA.

On the other hand: I would settle for civil unions if they would provide equal protection and rights. The word marriage is too loaded in US (and in Europe) and as you have seen religious right knows how to use "marriage card" to destroy ALL advances made in gay civil rights. Eventually we will get marriage, and I think it should remain our goal. But before that it is more important to secure the rights and protections of gay relationships and families than the word "marriage".
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: pylon101 on February 13, 2006, 08:53:12 AM
A statement made by FL governor: adoption rights  might be allowed to gay partners; no marriages - but civil unions O.K.

It's a full mess. In Switzerland they allowed everything - but adoptions (until additional social studies completed).

It still made me think that there had been 2 clear options some time ago: the 1st option - a one step fight for marriages and the 2nd option:  (1) acknowledgment of civil unions (de jure or de facto) and (2) further  fighting for expansion of rights within civil union institution.

I clearly remember the period between Hawaii and Mass.It was then when Bush threatened to apply to the Supreme Court. (Am I right in terms of time?)
Then he stopped, made a brief pause and said with a sigh of relief:
"Let the states decide".

LGBT community (or its leaders) preferred the first way. Unfortunately it triggered backlash in the form of state referendums. Sure thing: being asked if marriage is a union between a man and a woman - most people said "yes".

It is very easy to fuck up with "the will of people". It's as old as humankind itself.

Conservatives were not be able to manipulate with referendums unless this play of words and definitions (marriage! - family! - sacred!) would have been initiated by LGBT activists.

Most citizens - even in red states - would rather agree (or forced - by their hypocrisy -  to agree) with civil unions.

And then we would have sweet cute "second class citizenship" cases. Something what we have in N.J. - so perfectly described  by the link above.

Greg,  ( I address Greg because 1.he is parenthetical and 2. he is good in this stuff). Anyway. Is there an opportunity to switch the gear?

If definition of the marriage in written in a state constitution, amendment based on referendum, is there a way to pursue option No. 2?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: zen2000 on February 14, 2006, 07:00:22 AM
I couldn't find where to post a new topic...If you like, please post this where it should be posted...zen

 

Support Marriage Equality for ALL!


From coast to coast, we are coming closer to achieving true marriage equality for GLBT Americans. But we need your help to fight efforts to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, including any Constitutional amendment. Please, sign the Million For Marriage petition below, and be a part of this historic civil rights battle. Gay, straight, married, single...we need everyone who believes in marriage equality to stand up NOW.


http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: ToolPackinMama on February 15, 2006, 09:09:52 PM


http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac

I signed it.   ;D
Title: Czech President vetoes registered partnership law
Post by: Albert on February 16, 2006, 08:25:01 AM
Hi from Prague!

I needed somewhere to vent my frustration.  I've been coming to this board from the very onset, usually as guest, waiting to start getting involved after Brokeback Mountain comes to this country and I actually see it. From what I have read, I can only say that I have found this to be the home of an incredibly wonderful group of people.  So, what better place to tell you how sad I am just now.

As the title suggests, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, just vetoed (two hours ago) the registered partnership law, citing (the usual) "breakdown of the traditional family" and (this is new) dangerous interference of the state in interpersonal relationships! I am still trying to understand what he meant by the latter.

To explain the Czech system... For a law to be passed, it first goes through Parliament, then Senate, and finally the President.  After five futile attempts over eight years, the registered partnership law actually passed through Parliament late 2005 with a majority and the Senate with an even greater majority.  When taking into consideration that an opinion poll had 62% of Czechs FOR registered partnerships, you have to wonder how the President, a purely symbolic figure in this country (the Prime Minister is the head of government, not the President), could make such a decision.  The law now goes back to Parliament, which can bypass the President's veto with 101 votes, but that will be very difficult.

I was hoping the Czech Republic would be one of the first post-Communist countries to pass the law (I think Hungary beat us to it in some form) and send a positive message to the word (the Czechs are really quite a liberal society). It is sad that one person's opinion (the President is not voted directly by the people, but by Parliament), fears and arrogance can do so much damage.

It may be a true godsend that Brokeback Mountain will finally be in theaters here in a couple of weeks.  The timing is perfect and may illicit just enough public discussion to influence Parliament enough to give the law those 101 votes -- a wonderful kick in the President's a**.

Keep your finger's crossed!

Hugs,

Albert

P.S. - I hope this was the appropriate place for this post.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on February 16, 2006, 08:56:51 AM
Appropriate it was! - and now I'm so depressed about this decision. Bad, bad news.

I keep my fingers crossed that this obstacle will soon be overcome in your country.

As for myself and my gay partner (a German and a Frenchman, living and loving together for almost 16 years), it seems we too will have to wait many more years: no civil marriage planned neither in France nor Germany.

So all my toasts go today to tolerant, beautiful countries like Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands -

"HOW MANY ROADS MUST A MAN WALK DOWN

BEFORE YOU CAN CALL HIM A MAN?"
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: valkyrie911 on February 17, 2006, 01:57:34 PM
 :'( :'( :'(People marry for all kinds of reasons every day-money, convenience, unwanted pregancy.

Why is such a huge population being denied this priviledge to marry for the most important reason of all-love?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: lynn on February 17, 2006, 03:20:08 PM
Here are some articles covering the NJ Supreme Court case on gay marriage. (and why isn't this thread busier - lack of interest, too hard to find, or everyone already knows all this? ???)

(for the nj.com links you have to put in a zip code and year to proceed)

Q&A: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/13875342.htm

Overview: (registration is free for the NY Times) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/nyregion/16marriage.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

But New Jersey's high court, legal scholars say, is particularly interesting because it has been considered one of the most liberal, and has also been unafraid to recommend solutions in other controversial matters, including schools and housing, that some people argue could have, or should have, been done by the Legislature. And while a number of states have moved to ban same-sex marriages, New Jersey has been going in the opposite direction and expanding its modest package of domestic partnership benefits.

"How the court frames the decision could have an influence, a bearing, on other courts throughout the united states," said William B. Rubenstein, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of "Sexual Orientation and the Law." "If it comes against same-sex couples, it's a blow to the momentum."

Political analysis suggesting the court will rule in favor of gay rights:  http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1140159203293210.xml?starledger?colmor&coll=1

Report on demonstrations, for and against: http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1140069861300310.xml?starledger?ntr&coll=1

John Tomicki, executive director of the League of American Families and chairman of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, led a group of about 50 opponents to gay marriage who stood praying in the cold.

He called marriage between a man and woman a "sacred cornerstone" of modern society, and he said he doubts the court will redefine marriage without legislative action.

"Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the union of one man and one woman," he said. "There is no right to marry a person of the same gender. It's not in our culture. It's not in our history. It's not in our tradition."

…Gerst said he is a lifelong Catholic who has been gay for 25 years and still opposes same-sex marriage. "People need a mother and a father. They don't need a father and a father, or a mother and a mother," he said.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Uclapeterg on February 17, 2006, 04:33:27 PM
He called marriage between a man and woman a "sacred cornerstone" of modern society, and he said he doubts the court will redefine marriage without legislative action.

"Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the union of one man and one woman," he said. "There is no right to marry a person of the same gender. It's not in our culture. It's not in our history. It's not in our tradition."


This is so not true I don't know where to begin. Marriage is a CIVIL thing and really has nothing to do with religion (or it SHOULDN'T).

Thousands of years? Please. Try a couple of hundred at most.
There is no right to marry a person of the same gender? Yea, DUH!!! That's what we are asking for!!!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Groch on February 18, 2006, 07:05:23 PM
While reading through hundreds of posts on this forum over the last several weeks it only now strikes me just how ironic (moronic?) the entire gay marriage debate really is.
Gay Marriage already exists.  From what I can tell, nearly half of the gay men who are regular posters here either have been or still are married, they married women.   As you will see shortly I have some strong feelings on this issue and will with your indulgence rant a bit.

Fundamentalists see gay marriages that are "entered into dishonestly, swearing before God and witnesses to a love they don't really have," as perfectly fine.  Better than fine, it's even commendable as it is evidence that the gay person is fighting to live the life (or lie) that god intended.   I remember seeing a quote somewhere that heterosexual Christian women do not seem to be lining up as potential spouses to assist gay men in this sacred conversion process.

The real question is whether Gay people should be allowed to marry based on love or on lies.  The argument that same sex marriage "threatens the family" is disingenuous at best. The most persuasive arguments (at least for the red staters) on this are by conservatives themselves, like Andrew Sullivan.  He writes:

"Gay marriage could only de-legitimize straight marriage if it were a real alternative to it, and this is clearly not true. To put it bluntly, there's precious little evidence that straights could be persuaded by any law to have sex with--let alone marry--someone of their own sex. The only possible effect of this sort would be to persuade gay men and women who force themselves into heterosexual marriage (often at appalling cost to themselves and their families) to find a focus for their family instincts in a more personally positive environment. But this is clearly a plus, not a minus: gay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones. It is not, in short, a denial of family values. It's an extension of them."

The truth is the marriage debate is not about families at all, it is about power.   Early in this fascinating thread were some descriptions of otherwise compassionate and understanding family members who could not support gay marriage because "the country was just getting too left wing."   The "Focus on the Family" bunch as well as the Republican party see this as a wedge issue that has the capacity to keep them in power.  Frankly, many Democrats, and some of the other posters on this thread see it the same way- a wedge issue that will keep the right wing in power.

This debate has everything to do with BBM. Brokeback was banned in Sandy Utah while slasher flix played unencumbered NOT because Brokeback was immoral, but because it is so morale.  Ennis and Jack, and Alma and Lurleen were all really good morale people with strong family values.  It was the hypocrisy of the laws and societal norms that were immoral and anti-family.  The Bill O'Reilly bunch fear Brokeback because they understand what it is. A very powerful moral instrument for change.  If we are to ever win another national election it is exactly this high moral ground that we must recapture.

I will step carefully off of the soapbox now and grin sheepishly, but leave you with a couple of interesting links.

First a link to Andrew Sullivan's article on gay marriage: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=19890828  and then to a rather unusual site by Misty Irons, a fundamentalist with a rather unusual point of view on gay issues: http://www.musingson.com/index.html.  Her husband was dismissed as the minister for a fundamentalist church for allowing his wife's article on "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage" to be posted on his web site.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: helen_uk on March 10, 2006, 09:24:58 PM
All the existing debate is relevant, but I'm wondering if the presence of Brokeback Mountain or legalization in England...


I haven't read the entire thread, so someone may have already mentioned this.  It is not just England that has legalised Civil Partnerships, the legislation covers the whole of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).

The relevant Act is the Civil Partnership Act 2004, for anyone who is interested.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/20040033.htm




Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: estefue on March 12, 2006, 11:30:45 AM
Let's not forget legalized marriage in Canada, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands and Denmark.  The US tends to march to its own drummer; wonder if even if legalized gay marriage existed everywhere it would ever be lawful here.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Boris on March 12, 2006, 11:53:48 AM
Let's not forget legalized marriage in Canada, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands and Denmark.  The US tends to march to its own drummer; wonder if even if legalized gay marriage existed everywhere it would ever be lawful here.

Actually they are legally marriages only in Canada, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. The Scandinavian countries (including Iceland) call them "registered partnerships" or "civil unions". They have all the benefits of marriage and equally full legal standing. There are some restrictions, most notably concerning adoption. Denmark was the first to give full marriage benefits to gays in 1989.

There are some form of civil unions in Germany, France, Portugal and Switzerland. The gay civil union law of Czech Republic is pending (the parliament approved the law, the president vetoed it). There is pro gay civil union law in progress in Italy (Vatican vehemently opposes it) and some sort of law has been considered in Slovenia.

There are marriage amendments in constitutional law that ban gay marriage in Lithuania and Latvia (someting that Evangelical churches of USA imported to those countries).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: estefue on March 12, 2006, 07:39:52 PM
Poland also seems to be taking some steps back at this time.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: pylon101 on March 13, 2006, 11:29:08 PM
Words are a strong thing. Amazing thing.

Since I was a child I was wondering how it could be that  the same word repeated for 20 times it was loosing sense and turned into collections of senseless sounds.

Words can kill and words can save.

So we have a situation here. In all legal codes/statutes in Europe and Canada the term "civil union"/"civil partnership" is used. The term "same sex marriage" is used informally only in media, in discussion - just for clear understanding  what's it all about.

In the United States the community activists keep insisting on legal application of the term "marriage".
Logic: any other term doesn't guarantee 1,000 + benefits provided for traditional families.

Isn't it the irony of fate that in the country where religion does matter most the real battle of words is being waged ??!!

I had posted my humble opinion in this thread before . It was a major blunder of the community leaders to involve gay people into the fight for "marriage". It gave religious right all arguments to conduct a successful war for referendums in states. And we are losing one state after another getting state constitution amendments.

Sure. America is a huge entity. But ignorance of European experience doesn't seem to be wise - to say the least. What does this experience tell us?

1. Ideological platform should be "equal rights".

2. The main argument should be: the state - separated from church by the Constitution - has no moral right to decide whom an individual should love and with whom he/she should share life. But the state must provide protection to individuals living together. And this protection must be equal for all.

3. Legislative and judicial and executive branches have the right to use terms they find appropriate and legally correct assuming that they act with the honest purpose to provide equal rights.

4. Discussions in mass media should be in a milder, more embracing - well, eventually - in a wiser form. No confrontation - but understanding. No "cold dog" humble begging - but reaching out to get a human touch.

I always give citation of the Spanish PM addressing the Parliament in Spain:

"I will never understand those who proclaim love as the foundation of life, while denying so radically protection, understanding and affection to our own people... 

We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives.''



Title: Re: Gay Marriage -- Is the time ripe for change?
Post by: Dave Cullen on March 15, 2006, 05:37:38 PM
I keep getting emails from people looking for links about gay marriage, so I'm posting this here and in the first post of the thread for easy reference.

I created a Gay Marriage page on my blog way back in 2003, with lots of links to the major sites, here:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/stories/2003/08/14/gayMarriageendTheBan.html


I stopped updating it after about a year, but most of the key resources have not changed, including gay marriage pages by principle supporters like GLAAD and GLAD and detractors like the Family Research Council. Most of them continue to update, so this still gets you to most of the major parties.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on March 15, 2006, 06:15:06 PM
I would like to focus some of this debate, so I changed the first pirst to open like this:

So here's the thing:

When and if I ever find a guy to marry, I deserve to be able to. Legally.

The question is tactics.

Are we recklessly charging ahead too quickly and inviting/inciting a backlash, or are we still being too timid and dragging our feet?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: BADBRAD on March 15, 2006, 06:45:28 PM
Initially I was not really supporting Gay Marriage; it wasn't that I was against it, I just had no strong opinions about it.  But lately I have realized it does make a difference.  Why should a committed (male or female) couple have the same legal rights as straights.  After seeing BBM my support became much stronger.  "People should be able to love whoever they want to love."  Look at the damage of marrying someone you are not in love with.  It effects everybody involved; it is sad that as advanced we are as a society, people are stuck in the dark ages when it comes to love and sexuality.  We are really still a primitive culture.  And we are in the 21st Century?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on March 15, 2006, 07:06:36 PM
sometimes, I think we are moving too slowly on this matter, and then sometimes, that we can't force it on anyone.

So, I guess that's not a real answer.

I honestly feel that we won't get the right to marry until more straight supporters show up for us on this matter.  Gov't sees this as a "gay" issue.  Once more straight supporters come out, we may start seeing more progress.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 16, 2006, 08:18:45 AM
To CellarDweller:

I completely agree. 6% of population can not fight. Having in mind that only a per cent of these 6 are ready to fight for something.

I watched a great movie of HBO "Iron Jawed Angels" with Hilary Swank. They fought.  But they had a half of population behind -  and could recruit supporters anywhere. It makes me also wonder why the majority of women in red states are strongly  against HRC  ???

Anyway. Tactics, about which Dave said above, is everything. Let's discuss it!!!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: adamblast on March 17, 2006, 11:36:07 AM
Firstly, it helps to remember that we didn't frame or start this debate.  It began in the Hawaiian courts, then the Massachusetts courts, then all hell broke loose. 

I have all along been resigned to a two-pronged approach: fighting for true equality, but willing to accept whatever breadcrumbs we're given.  Domestic partnerships are much, much better than nothing...  but it's not easy to take pride in "Marriage Lite" -- knowing that the whole reason we don't deserve the *real* name of marriage is because our relationships are seen as inferior... and knowing that without real marriage, they can easily legislate away tomorrow everything they give us today.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: sactopete on March 18, 2006, 01:57:58 PM
Firstly, it helps to remember that we didn't frame or start this debate.  It began in the Hawaiian courts, then the Massachusetts courts, then all hell broke loose. 

I have to agree with Adam here.  When you remember that Metropolitan Community Church started performing Gay weddings as well as attempting to obtain marriage licenses in the early 70's - its been over 30 years folks! - you can argue "gradualism" or not, but its not like there's anything sudden about this.

Adam also rightly observes that all hell broke loose ONLY after straight white males took the issue into their own hands.  And, for example, Barney Frank's warning that we were "moving too fast" was also reflected by other activists and community leaders at the time.  No matter how you want to paint those warnings, the lesson is that you need those allies to get anything done.

My approach to most issues is pragmatic, so the word "marriage" hardly matters to me.  It's the 1,049 Federal benefits that go with the license that I'm interested in.  That's why I like what the Brits have done.  They use a different word, but the benies are identical.  And I'll bet that if you just had say the two dozen top big bennies, the rest would seem rather like small potatoes.

There's nothing magical or sentimental about marriage for me.  And none of the long term relationships, neither men nor women, that I know of bothered to make the short drive to SF for a license during our Prague Spring.  In fact, I don't know of anyone just itching to get hitched.  There are legal alternatives to those state and federal benefits.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 18, 2006, 02:26:03 PM
Guys, I posted my opinion in another thread. I will copy a part of  it here.

Gay communities are far from "think tanks". We have very limited resources, including intellectual resources, to waste them on fruitless discussions with fundamentalists.

All we have should be concentrated on what we can do in terms of strategy and tactics.

As to the strategy the community leaders made their choice: ALL AT ONCE. This simple and easy-to-understand position (completely destructive, from my point of view) was adopted by gay community in America. To change that is almost impossible at this point.
Probably coming referendums in various states will change this attitude.

The situation is getting worse in terms of marriages/civil unions.

As to the tactics. It impossible to work out tactics until the strategy is questionable. It appears that CA pattern is going to be applied even in the states where Senates approve positive changes. Governors don't sign - appoint state referendums with predictable results.

IT IS EXACTLY HOW IT "WENT LOOSE". The right found a great tool - referendums - the will of people.

So they are changing state constitutions. And you perfectly know what is the only body which can make all those state amendments invalid: The Supreme Court. Until some case reaches the Supreme Court - nothing can be done. 

It's a long talk, actually.

BBM is a great example of another approach: changing minds. But it's a long way.

Even though it looks not very optimistic - we all should keep trying. Life goes on.

Title: Registered Partnership Law Passed in Czech Republic
Post by: Albert on March 18, 2006, 02:45:15 PM
Hi!

Just an update of my message from mid-February, at which time I was on the verge of crying after President Vaclav Klaus vetoed the Act on Registered Partnerships after it had passed both Parliament and the Senate.  To overturn the President's veto, 101 MPs had to vote for the bill, and on Thursday, March 16, that's exactly what happened! So, now, the Czech Republic joins those countries with laws dealing with same-sex partnerships. :))))  It's not a perfect piece of legislation by far, but it is a good first step.

Albert

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 18, 2006, 02:56:48 PM
My congratulations, Albert! You were lucky!

Now you can understand me: I can live in Russia or in the States.

But with the present situation in America I'd better stay in Moscow. It's home after all. Anyway I spent 2 months in a year in the States on business.

So I am pushing on both sides!!!!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Groch on March 18, 2006, 05:19:12 PM
Dave & the mods have gotten a little pushback for changing the titles of some of these threads......hey, I really love you guys and gals and know that your purpose is to kick the discussion on these boards up a notch.....but in this case I must regretfully pile on.  "Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly"  presupposes that gays and those who stand with us are driving this bus.  We're not.  Because we are not we must change the way we respond to this issue.   

In the last two years in the U.S. there has really been no gay agenda.  Instead, our agenda has been determined by reacting to the conservative/fundamentalist agenda.  They are the ones who are petitioning for state constitutional amendments, and in many cases passing them  At the national level, Bill Frist, who just won the first straw poll for 2008 Republican Presidential Nominee, will be reintroducing the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment to the U.S. Senate for a vote in early June.   There is no chance it will get the necessary 2/3 majority - it is being pushed for one reason only, for it's hoped for backlash effects on the November mid-term elections. This makes it certain that gay marriage will be a key issue in the 2008 presidential election, but it will be driven, as in 2004, by the Republicans as a family values issue.

The question for gay people and our allies in the U.S. has little to do with what we might incite, but what we do in response to those who incite against us.  In most cases our tactics are chosen for us.  If an anti-marriage amendment is up in our state, we must actively oppose it.   If a referendum in our state bans civil unions or institutionalizes discrimination based on orientation, we oppose that. 

On a personal level we DO choose our own tactics at the water cooler, in our churches, in discussions with our friends gay and straight.  We do then have the option to say whether we support fully equal rights or merely  "equivalent rights" ----i.e. civil unions.  On this level, I find it hard to understand why we should ever support anything less than full equality in marriage or any other civil/governmental institution.  It is true that many gay people will not choose the option of marriage for themselves, but that is no reason to agree to be less than a full citizen in the eyes of the law.  Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat was a victory for rights for all black people, not just those who ride municipal buses.

Anything short of full marriage equality officially perpetuates our second class citizenship.  The civil union option officially sanctions the religious rights view of what constitutes love, and what consistutes family.  Some gay people don't care about society's sanction, Jack didn't.   But many gay people will never accept themselves or become whole until doing so does not prevent them from enjoying the same rights to love and family everyone else has. We should not force future Ennis' to make that horrible choice. 

PS..I am really not criticizing the thread title change, just trying to make a philosophical point.  Dave & company are making the topics in this section more targeted to get more participation and the creative juices flowing and seem to be achieving that goal, a good thing.   


 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Ken on March 20, 2006, 10:56:03 AM
From the debate in Maryland on banning same-sex
marriages:

 "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage  is only between
a man and a woman.  What do you have to say about
that?"
— Maryland State Senator Nancy Jacobs, Republican

 
 "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you
placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the
Constitution.   You did not place your hand on the
Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

—Jamie  Raskin, American University Professor of Law
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 20, 2006, 12:10:53 PM
I was posting about this great response, about Maryland and Montgomery County in particular here: http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=922.90

But I was just annihilated by another guy. So I feel my mouth is a little bit "fist clenched"-like  :o
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: estefue on March 21, 2006, 12:50:12 PM
I'm going to be a little bit heretical.  I am for marriage and all its rights.  But what if it was called something else but hadall its rights?  Does that make any difference?   Right now Spain has "marriage" and the UK has "civil partnerships" but my understanding is that the benefits and rights are exactly the same (someone please correct me otherwise).  So what to do?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: adamblast on March 21, 2006, 01:11:45 PM
...what if it was called something else but had all its rights?  Does that make any difference? 
It makes every difference in the world--not that it isn't better than nothing. 

"Domestic partnerships" creates a whole seperate-but-supposedly-equal institution--the *only* purpose of which is to deny us the real name and equal footing of marriage.  It's them *pretending* to give us equality.  Not only does it reinforce the inferiority of our relationships, but it gives them every political opportunity to chip away again at the rights they've just grudgingly given us.   Seperate but equal is *never* equal, as we learned painfully once before.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 21, 2006, 02:01:26 PM
I am not sure about term used in Spain. But it appears to me in none of EU countries the term "marriage" is used officially.

All the rights and benefits are equal. But in Switzerland they decided not to allow adoptions at this point. I understand they are waiting for social results get obvious.

I saw a link to some Web-site with country by country information related. But I lost it.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Presh on March 21, 2006, 02:51:50 PM
I am sure that the term marriage is used in Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium. I also had the idea that Canada referred to it as marriage, but not completely sure.

Adoption is allowed in Sweden, Great Britain, Spain and The Netherlands of the countries in Europe. Not sure about elsewhere though.

I personally won't be satisified until gay people can be married, an I am not satisfied with the benefits that civil-unions provide. While civil-unions are better than nothing, I agree with adambalst. Civil-unions are not equal to Marriage, and I won't be happy until marriage is freely available.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 21, 2006, 04:04:42 PM
You know, guys, I don't want to play Cassandra here.  But I have a grim feeling that the country is entering a pretty turbulent phase in terms of politics (hopefully not economics).

Electoral political system (commonly referred as democracy) is in its essence a tool of compromising interests of elites. And the tool ( two party system first of all) seems to be not in good shape.

But if it goes how it goes we are going to witness interesting and disturbing developments this year and in 2008.

This way or other the gay community will have to join Democrats. And having in mind the "shifting states" issue I am afraid we all will be forced to keep low profile and lower voices. Otherwise such "support" would be definitely more harmful than helpful to HRC or any other DP candidate.

It's a big talk. WHAT THREAD IS ASSIGNED FOR SUCH TALKS BY OUR BELOVED MODERATORS??
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jim ... on March 21, 2006, 04:08:33 PM
here you go pylon101

http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=922.105
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: sactopete on March 21, 2006, 04:48:57 PM
I'm going to be a little bit heretical.  I am for marriage and all its rights.  But what if it was called something else but hadall its rights?  Does that make any difference? 

I saw an explanation posted on the Independent Gay Forum (http://www.indegayforum.org/index.shtml) which stated the UK chose "civil partnerships" because Anglicans can't condone same sex marriage for doctrinal reasons, and since Anglicanism is the UK's state church, they had to make for allowances.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: estefue on March 21, 2006, 06:41:54 PM
That's an interesting take that I hadn't heard.  Thanks for posting the link.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 22, 2006, 02:40:07 AM
Quote
I am sure that the term marriage is used in Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium. I also had the idea that Canada referred to it as marriage, but not completely sure.


Okay. We go on with The Great Wording Battle. I started to check on each country. It's not that easy. In all media it's referred "gay marriage". Which doesn't mean that the term is used officially. To get to what is actually written in the document that is issued to people is quite time consuming.

So far I made a little investigation about Spain. 14 article of the Civil Code were altered;  the words "man and woman" and "father and mother" were replaced by "partners" or "parents".
As far as I understand Town Halls where judges finalize the procedure and issue a document where " CIVIL UNION" is stated.

If someone knows Spanish I would appreciate if he/she tries to find direct link original document in the Spanish language.

Wording turned into a considerable issue. As far as a many people in the States insist on the term "marriage" - and nothing else - we should investigate EU countries experience.

I still have opinion that in none of EU countries the term "marriage" is used. I would be glad if the issue is cleared up.

Let's do it together.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Boris on March 22, 2006, 04:07:24 AM
"Marriage": Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain

"Registered partnerships": Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland (the term is partly due the fact that Scandinavian countries do not have any difference between terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" i.e. they are untranslatable. The laws give the same all the same benefits to gay couples as marriage, excluding adoption. On the other hand adoption laws do not require the parents to be married couple. The "registered partnerhips" are usually translated as "civil unions" and those terms are both being used.

"Civil partnerships": UK

"PAC" "civil solidarity contracts" in France, some of the rights of married couples, not all of them.

"Civil partnerships" in Germany. The law provides almost the same rights to gays excluding adoption. The key financial provisions which would have ended discrimination on the basis of sexuality over income and inheritance tax laws where in original proposal but they were voted down in Parliament.


 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 22, 2006, 08:05:43 AM
O, this is good, Boris.

Sounds knowledgeable.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: mountain boy on March 23, 2006, 09:41:20 AM
Michelle posted this over at the Main Thread:

US public opposition to gay marriage decreases (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14162528.htm)

In surveys by the Pew Charitable Trust, the proportion of respondents saying they oppose gay marriage decreased from 63% in Feb 2004 to 51% recently.

The proportion saying they strongly oppose gay marriage decreased from 42% to 28%.

They surveyed 1405 people and the margin of error is 3%. So maybe things will get better after all?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on March 23, 2006, 10:48:56 AM
I posted it in another thread. It's my preliminary take.

Did you see poll results: opposition to gay marriages declining: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060323/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_attitudes;_ylt=AoWTcEbhtQm1cqNG9hTr4oBH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Interesting. They explain it by the fact that gay marriage issue was not covered by media so intensively compared to 2004.

I had this idea: the less loud we are - the less is opposition. What would be tactical lesson: to keep low profile and play cold dogs?

Perhaps. Compassion and sympathy are very intimate feeling. When average people are under pressure of loud rallies they might react in a more conservative way.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: Marge_Innavera on March 26, 2006, 06:29:28 PM
The gay community is going to need help from the straight community in getting this.  Gay marriage will always be seen as a "gay" topic, until a good number of straights come on board to help.


Hello, I'm a straight woman who's been on this forum for awhile, but this is my first visit to this part of it.

I've always been supportive of gay rights including gay marriage, and outspoken about it.  But experiences at work over the past year that thoroughly radicalized me as far as human rights are concerned have convinced me that I need to do more than that.  I'm old enough to remember the Civil Rights era, though too young to have participated, and one of the biggest influences on me outside my family was a white columnist named Ralph McGill, who was sometimes called the "conscience of the South" during that time.  He understood that to designate any group to deny human and civil rights to diminishes everyone.  And I know about the Righteous Gentiles, though I hope to God/dess it would never come to that in this context.  IMO, people in the majority group who look the other way and let any other group become "The Designated Exception" to human rights have a terrible moral crime on their souls.

Is there anything specific you can think of that a straight person wanting to make a contribution can do? Are there organizations for us who can "do inside work", so to speak?

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jim ... on March 26, 2006, 06:36:41 PM
hi Marge...   welcome to our corner of the board. I'm glad you found us!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: helen_uk on March 27, 2006, 04:10:26 AM
CPs and marriage are more or less the same in the UK.  There's probably some small differences, one being the religious aspect.  But hey, i'd rather we have what we have now, than nothing at all.  It gets called marriage anyway mostly.  And it's a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: adamblast on March 27, 2006, 03:21:24 PM
Several of these anti-gay constitutional ammendments are turning out to have unforseen consequences. 

Ohio Anti-Gay Amendment Ties Prosecutor's Hands In Domestic Violence Cases
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

March 26, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET
 
(Dayton, Ohio) In case that has been closely watched by lawyers across the country an Ohio appeals court has ruled that domestic violence charges cannot be laid in cases where the couple is unmarried because of the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Opponents of the ban, passed in 2004, warned that it was so poorly worded it could be used to deny rights to unmarried opposite sex couples.

Since then prosecutors in several Ohio counties have refused to lay charges in cases of domestic violence involving non married opposite-sex couples.

An appeals court on Friday reaffirmed that, ruling that the state's Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law is in conflict with the marriage amendment.

The amendment states that Ohio cannot "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

full story link below:
http://365gay.com/Newscon06/03/032606ohio.htm

Title: Re: Gay Marriage
Post by: sactopete on March 28, 2006, 08:48:31 AM
Is there anything specific you can think of that a straight person wanting to make a contribution can do? Are there organizations for us who can "do inside work", so to speak?

Marge, thanks for venturing into the wilderness here.

There's always Parents Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, aka PFLAG.

Their main web site is here: http://www.pflag.org/
And you can find a local chapter in your state here: http://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=189

State laws vary quite a bit, so the most meaningful work for you will be at your local level.  Your local PFLAG people will be the best source for other local organizations to get involved with.

Thanks for asking!!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Willhoite on March 28, 2006, 09:08:53 AM
When Oklahoma passed an anti-gay marriage law here, a rider including anti-common-law marriage was included.

That meant that after the law was officially enacted, no common-law marriages after the law was enacted was not supposed to be recognized by any state agency.

While the Oklahoma Department of Human Services goes by the law officially, it still accepts a couple living together when financial or other assistance is needed.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: adamblast on March 28, 2006, 12:34:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20060328/co_po/rulingmarriagebancanshieldabusers

Marriage Ban Can Shield Abusers

Ann Rostow, PlanetOut Network
Mon Mar 27, 7:40 PM ET
 
SUMMARY: An Ohio appellate court rules that the state's marriage amendment effectively prevents prosecution of domestic violence between unwed couples.

An Ohio state appellate court has ruled that the state's 2004 marriage amendment effectively prevents the state from prosecuting domestic violence between unwed couples.

In a decision released Friday, a divided three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeals ruled that Ohio's strict constitutional limitations on marriage mean that its domestic violence statutes may not be enforced against a "person living as a spouse."

The majority wrote that the legal status of "person living as a spouse" is unconstitutional in light of the amendment's ban on recognizing a relationship that "intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

[full story linked above]
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: JessicaMarvin on March 30, 2006, 01:40:17 PM
hi my name is jessica i am a college student i am told to write an essay on my position of gay marriage, i was wondering if you could give me your point of view of being gay and your view on gay marriage, i am all for gay marriage i think it is unconstitutional NOT to allow any same-sex or male and female to get married.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on April 04, 2006, 12:07:23 AM
Here is an interesting article fron Associated Press related to options available:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on April 05, 2006, 10:09:12 AM
I think there is something to be said for laying low at the appropriate time, to avoid a political backlash.  However, that does not mean we stop pressing forward.  Organize, give money to good organizations, network, and encourage high profile & well liked straight people to give good spin on gay marriage in front of the camera.  Honestly, that is how is has to be.  The gay-straight alliance has to be built up.  The culture has to change somewhat.  We can help do that with a better PR campaign than blips on the evening news of fags and dykes half-dressed in a parade wearing leather and carrying signs that say "gay marriage now."  The average Joe is gonna say, yeah right.  There's a difference between self expression and good PR and we have to know the difference and score points where we can.  And by the way, accepted public figures (sports, tv, movies, religious figures, etc.)  who are closeted would help the cause a lot if they came out and were visible.  The closet simply can't be the norm anymore if we're going to make any progress. 

Polls are clear.  People who know a gay person, have a family or friend who is gay, are way, way, waaay more likely to vote in our favor.  So it's a matter of positive exposure.  Come out of the closet, talk to people, make a difference. 

When Ellen had her show and came out, that was a milestone.  I think Brokeback is another milestone, if not a more subtle one.  It did change the atmosphere somewhat.  Willie Nelson decided that the time was right to release his song about gay cowboys.  Unfortunately it didn't get much press for very long, but people do get brave, and decide the time is right to do certain things, and it helps build tolerance.

I've been thinking about the whole ball of wax....the anti-gay thing, the anti-abortion worries (I thought that was settled in the 70's!),  the very weird developments on the family level of putting cameras in the homes, low-jacking the family car to find out where your teen has gone at night, filtering the internet, and so on.  And what I think is that as time marches on, people in general feel less in control of their lives.  They are frustrated at a whole laundry list of things - some at the local level and some national. They have no control over their government, over the global economy, over anything.  Gas prices go up, inflation, crime, there is too much sex on tv, there are natural disasters, everyone seems to be getting cancer or asthma because of all the toxins.  And in a time where you have no control over ANYTHING,...you relish control over what you can in your life.  So if you can trace where your kid goes on the internet or where he drives to or who he talks to, you WILL.  Even if it means being up his ass 24/7, because you feel better that you're in control.  And if you can be the judge and decide if some gay person can get married, you WILL.  Because the politicians will ask you...you decide, should we allow gay marrige we ask?....hm,....NO!  No gay marriage.  You might as well ask them if we should allow razzberry popsicles to be sold in stores.  Just get a few folks on tv to say that razzberry popsicles causes your daughters to be more sexual or something, and you'll have people answering polls and saying....NO! No more razzberry popsicles...they're bad and wrong!  We don't need them!  We never had them before and they're causing a lot of problems now!  We need to get back to the basics and stop all this nonsence! 

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on April 05, 2006, 10:23:06 AM
Very wise, deliberate and balanced posting IMHO, SYC.

Spend a couple of minutes to read the article I referred above. It appears to be a mess in the community. And some stupid competition - whose case will reach the Supreme Court first?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on April 07, 2006, 10:09:26 AM
Quote
Spend a couple of minutes to read the article I referred above. It appears to be a mess in the community. And some stupid competition - whose case will reach the Supreme Court first?

Interesting article.  The ACLU and Lambda certainly have a point.  Our successes in the past have been in state court, not federal.  So I support their efforts and their tactics.  On the other hand Smelt and Hammer have a right to bring their case to the Supreme Court.  It is unlikely the Court will hear it though, and if they do hear it I expect them to rule against it.  That is Lambda's fear, the legal precedent. 

Personally, for me, I've always wondered why we haven't challenged anti-gay marriage laws the same way Brown vs Board of Education did.  Separate but Equal has been ruled unconstitutional.  So why can't we bring all these states before the Supreme Court under the challenge that their own domestic partnership laws are violating the separate but equal clause?  What I'm saying is, the government can't have it both ways, saying there is no such creature as same sex "marriage" and yet on the other hand recognize it in a different, legal, version. 

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are mirrors of marriages, and therefore they violate separate but equal.  I think that angle should be worked.  I think we should risk every single Domestic Partnership law in the country being struck down, and force their hand.  Geez, what am I saying?....lol.  Now I'm leaning back toward Smelt's case!  Well, I don't know.  I guess we can go under the radar and get some more clones of Massachusetts, or we can blow it all open and go the civil rights route. 

Well, why not.  Why not delve into it.  It's always bugged me, and it's always seemed very hypocritical to me for big corporations to keep talented gay individuals in their workforce by enticing them with same-sex insurance benefits, for counties and states to give out domestic partnerships and faux-marriage licenses.  It makes us feel all cozy and like we're winning.  Are we?  Are we, Lambda?  Even in Massachussetts you're only married there...your rights don't extend past the border because of the Defense of Marriage Act.  And those folks can't file a joint federal tax return...they are simply not married in the eyes of the Federal Government.  To me, that's still like sitting at the back of the bus. 

Look, maybe Lambda should re-think this.  The backlash has already happened, the DOMA was passed, and we didn't gain as much as we thought we did.  So why not put it back in the perspective of a civil rights struggle.  African Americans pressed their cases Federally, they won full citizenship, and they threw the attempts to satisfy them (separate schools and separate access to bathrooms, etc) right back in the government's face.  They said, no, we don't want sorta the same schools as you.  We want to be in your fucking schools.   

I say, no, we don't want those little domestic partnerships you set up for us, we want in on marriage.  Federally-recognized marriage, not just state sanctioned.

Sigh....
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on April 07, 2006, 01:01:49 PM
SYC, my reaction to the article was like yours: I was simply lost.

After all we can't be fixed on our issues at the time when a huge tsunami in politics is coming.
So somehow it should be negotiated with Dems.
I guess that's what they discussed with HRC this week.

Well, it's supposed to be discussed in another thread. In "Today's political climate", I guess.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on April 08, 2006, 01:15:30 AM
Yes, I agree, the dems have been given quite a rough time.  The Repubs have tilted everything in their favor over the years, with gerrymandering and media takovers and fear-mongering.  The dems need our support.  But they also need to grow a spine, otherwise they'll never be able to help us.  Since I'm female, I have other concerns as well.  I mean, we are having to go back to fighting for contraception because the conservative pharmacists believe it's against their values to fill a prescription.  Not to even mention abortion...that's headed back to the Supreme Court as well.  Hell, let's let Roberts turn us all down.

The important thing is to know who we are, and what we want.  And to keep fighting, maintain the high ground, build allies and win the PR war. 

I've always thought that the gay struggle follows in the footsteps of the black struggle.  I recall one of their sayings going something like this: 

"First give me the law, and then the respect will come." 

I think about that a lot.  I think about what the best course of action is.  Do we need to get people to like and understand us first, or get them to pass laws in our favor?  Do we fight on the local level or the national?  Are we too gay, not gay enough?  Jews and Blacks asked themselves these same questions, I'm sure.  So it's obvious there's a process going on there, which is as much internal as external.  What I believe is that both understanding and legal protection is required.  We need to put our successful, respected gay heros out there for people to see.  And we need to eliminate descriminatory laws.  African-Americans would be nowhere today if there were still segregated schools, signs in the window saying no blacks need apply, and probibition on interracial marriage.   Because sometimes, getting the rights, getting the law to back you up, increases others respect for you, and makes you less of a target. 



Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Passion on April 10, 2006, 05:31:53 PM
This is most of an article from our local "trash" newspaper called The View.  It is very conservative.  I want to respond to it and plan to read this whole thread before writing my letter of disgust.  I want to also help friends respond intelligently!  I really don't think our State cares if children have a mother or father---otherwise women would be forced to get married if they were pregnant or it would be illegal to get divorced if children are involved! I think the points are ridiculous and I am embarrassed that I have already been asked TWICE to sign a petition for this! Ug!  I love the desert heat but I can't stand the political environment I live in and I want to start making a change! Any feedback or comments that I could include would be much appreciated!!!
http://www.nearbynews.com/the_view.htm

Marriage – Between One Man And One Woman
By Paul S. Rowley Roberts Rowley Chapman, Ltd

"Who would ever imagine that we would need an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to define that a marriage is between one man and one woman? Well, the initiative is underway.

It reads in part as follows:
To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions. And no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.

If same sex marriages were legal in Arizona, the following could occur:

1. The definition of marriage would change to any union of two people regardless of gender.
2. Gender would no longer be important in a marriage.
3. The state would not care whether children grow up without a mother or father.
4. Legally binding children to their biological father and mother would not important.
5. Children would be taught in school that homosexual relationships are as normal as heterosexual relationships.
6. The words “father” and “mother” would become discriminatory and obsolete.
7. The door would be open to pedophilia, polygamy and incest all under the guise of “marriage.”
Opposing same sex marriage does not equate to being hateful, bigoted or intolerant.

Persons who live a homosexual lifestyle can, even now, without a marriage contract, have full rights to have hospital visits with their partner, have medical decision rights, have powers of attorney, can jointly own real property, can have joint bank accounts, can inherit, can be beneficiaries of life insurance policies and many more rights.

It has been said “when you change marriage you change the family. When you change the family you change the children. When you change the children you change future generations.”"

Paul S. Rowley is a founding partner of Roberts Rowley Chapman, Ltd. Born, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 18, 1954. Education: Arizona State University (B.S. 1980); Southwestern University (J.D., 1986); Member of the Bar United States Supreme Court; Member Southwestern Law Review. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pro Tem..

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on April 11, 2006, 12:03:32 AM
Passion, they'll arrange a referendum and they will win and the AZ Constitution will be amended. It is inevitable. They are following other states. The question they ask at the referendum makes the outcome pre-determined.

If you feel you should fight - just do it.

Please go through "Today's political climate" thread as well. It might be helpful.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Passion on April 11, 2006, 12:17:15 AM
Passion, they'll arrange a referendum and they will win and the AZ Constitution will be amended. It is inevitable. They are following other states. The question they ask at the referendum makes the outcome pre-determined.

If you feel you should fight - just do it.

Please go through "Today's political climate" thread as well. It might be helpful.
Thanks!  I have some very ANGRY suburban housewives on my side so I hope that we can work together to try to change it but I am afraid that this very Republican and very Mormon state will get the AZ Constitution amended.  I appreciate your feedback and I will look at the "political climate" thread also!
P
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on April 18, 2006, 09:58:04 AM
Sigh.....it seems that even it we aren't fighting for marriage we're still being pigeonholed.

The marriage debate has been going on so long in the public eye, that some newscasters I guess don't realize that OUTSIDE of that issue we still exist, and we're still normal, and we've been around for centuries and we're nothing new.

What I'm talking about is, I was watching the news coverage on the easter egg roll at the White House, and it shocked me.  Basically, what happened is that the White House permits a public easter event for kids and parents on the lawn, and you have to stand in line for tickets all day.  Last year, some gay parents went, and thought this was a really good place to be visible as gay parents, to be seen as normal.  So a lesbian mom got some organizations excited about it, and this year there was a large turnout.  In order to be visible (because we're gay but we often look just like everyone else!) everyone wore a rainbow leigh.  Naturally there were some straight parents who were leary about it, and there were whispers and stares, but nothing happened.  All the kids played together.

But my local news station treated it like another other gay controversy, and started up the story with the intro that "some parents were seeing red!"  What?  No one was seeing red.  Then there was this shot of two gay men (sans children of course) and the voiceover to that interview was an introduction that explained that this was a "non-traditional" couple.  What??? 

This WASN'T about gay marriage.  Maybe they could call gay marriage non-traditional.  But BEING gay is not non-traditional, and having kids while gay is not non-traditional or uncommon either.  Many lesbians give birth to children long before they realize they're gay, and many gay men as well start families before they realize themselves.  You may not like gay people, but calling their very existance non-traditional is like calling a person of another race or religion non-traditional.

They are getting their slogans all mixed up!!  So in this particular instance, the gay marriage debate has so overshadowed everything that we're stuck with the label whether we like it or not.  So lets go get our marriage rights then, we might as well, now.  There's no going back.

What peeves me too, is, that some of the straight parents were annoyed that the group wore rainbow colors.  Hey, we are not gang members.  We just want to identify as gay, just as any other group.  NO ONE asked the straight dads to leave their army fatigues at home.  No one asked the jews to leave their yamikas at home.  No would dare ask an indian or muslim woman to leave their headress or attire behind.  No one would ask a black person to please not wear african colors on their scarves or hat or dress.  No one tells hispanics to not wear t-shirts with the dominican flag on it.  But....god forbid an average, church-going, gay mom or dad wears a rainbow color,....the world stands on end.  At least in the media it does.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on April 18, 2006, 11:31:57 AM
Staying positive!

Let's see how it develops in Italy. Romano Prodi promised civil unions like in Spain.

I would be great if it happens right in Rome, right a mile from Vatican. Sad and funny things - all mixed together these days.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on April 19, 2006, 08:44:40 AM
Yeppers!  I am soooooo happy Prodi got in.  I read that Canadian votes tipped it in his favor.  All I can say for many years now, is thank god for our northern neighbors.  Canada has been such a good example and good influence.

It would be so great if they liberalize the Italian government, and civil unions sound like a big step in the right direction.  Europe is definitely becoming more and more progressive.  The Spanish election was such a blessing. 

I know the Vatican has other plans for Europe, attempting to re-conservatize it and meddling in politics, but things do seem to be moving in a direction that's contrary to that, thank god.

 ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Willhoite on April 19, 2006, 11:47:01 AM
Yeppers!  I am soooooo happy Prodi got in.  I read that Canadian votes tipped it in his favor.  All I can say for many years now, is thank god for our northern neighbors.  Canada has been such a good example and good influence.

It would be so great if they liberalize the Italian government, and civil unions sound like a big step in the right direction.  Europe is definitely becoming more and more progressive.  The Spanish election was such a blessing. 

I know the Vatican has other plans for Europe, attempting to re-conservatize it and meddling in politics, but things do seem to be moving in a direction that's contrary to that, thank god.

 ;D

Oh "the Vatican" (officially a county because the American Government sends an Ambassdor there to represent the USA) still wants to have control of the whole wide world. It keeps right on meddling in the politics of the USA, too.

I found it very interesting in what I learned about the History of the Roman Catholic Church and Spain's history as a Spanish and Education major when I was an undergraduate student. Almost every country in the world which had the RCC as its official state religion has had dictators as head of goverment. And, in the study of countries' histories, when they had official state religions ("Christian" or other), they also had dictators, too.

Jesus the Christ himself stated that he did not come to set up a political government or even overthrow one as the Pharisees had hoped a Messiah would do. He said he came to establish his kingdom in the heart of men (women included). I find it interesting that the Greek word for "king" in the Greek New Testament, "basileus" literally means, "support(er) of the people."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on April 19, 2006, 12:00:46 PM
It's a good point.

But I wouldn't link Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches with political regimes. At least directly.

After all Germany was mostly protestant by THE time.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on April 27, 2006, 02:15:45 PM
Guess this may be the most-applicable thread.  Salon today linked to this story about a rancher who lost everything because he and his partner weren't married:
http://alternet.org/mediaculture/35496/
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on April 29, 2006, 07:14:34 PM
This is a languishing thread, but this article on changes in the S.F. "gay lifestyle" is interesting.  And mildly depressing to me, but that's not because I think toning down some of the excesses of public display is such a bad idea.  I happen to be a population prude, and while adoptions are great, I used to think gay men and women did a planetary good deed by not breeding.  (Besides, most small children are so boooring except to their caretakers...)

http://www.ebar.com/columns/column.php?sec=outright
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: phrag3 on April 29, 2006, 08:11:36 PM
OK - just come to Canada and get married and live your life .... with or without kids :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on May 02, 2006, 09:44:55 AM
This is a languishing thread, but this article on changes in the S.F. "gay lifestyle" is interesting.  And mildly depressing to me, but that's not because I think toning down some of the excesses of public display is such a bad idea.  I happen to be a population prude, and while adoptions are great, I used to think gay men and women did a planetary good deed by not breeding.  (Besides, most small children are so boooring except to their caretakers...)

I read the article, and nothing in it seemed surprising to me.  I personally see this from several angles.....personal, community, and political. 

Personally, I am (now single) and have been childless.  I lament the adult spaces just as the straight community does.  You can't go into a sushi restaurant without being accommpanied by screaming, spoiled children.  You can't go to 400 dollar a night hotel without putting up with their noise and yes, destruction.  Forget about movies.  And Vegas itself was turned into disneyland.  It's like, all anyone wants to do anymore is cocoon with their families and breed children. 

From a community perspective, I see the point of eliminating overt sexuality and bondage.  I wasn't into bondage or hung around a world that seemed like a hustler convenience store BEFORE I became a lesbian and so I am not going to suddenly desire that now.  No, I don't want to see naked people in hallways or wooden statues of men with hard-ons in store windows.  So I'm happy SF is taking steps to change that.  And I see the point of feeling out of place if you have a child with you.  I assume gays with children have no problem letting them hang around their friends, gay-co-workers, famiies and so on.  But the normalcy (for lack of a better word) seems to sometimes disappear from the gay experience once you attend one of these pride events or pick up a local gay newspaper with pictures of near naked men over it.  And there were some really good journalistic articles in that paper too, it was just a shame that everything else in it was an embarrassment....something I would never let my parents (or child if I had one) see. 

Political- last category.  The benefits are clear and the goal is crystal-clear.  Let the nation see us as families...not troubled gay people ostrocized from their birth families and unable to have any children of their own.  We are not that.  One of the first gay women I ever met when I was coming out, didn't have any children, but had a long-term partner, a house, a garden, neighbors who helped out, a vacation home on the lake, numerous extended family members, lots of friends, and a job with a desk that openly displayed a photo of her partner.  Straight people need to see that, they need to meet people like that.  So when I've walked in gay bars or gone to gay events, I always wonder...where are these people?  Where is my gay boss in his business suit?  Where is my gay lawyer?  Where is my lesbian doctor?  It's fine to see people of all walks of life, but I think it's a mischaracterization for the gay community to limit it's public advertisment of the gay lifestyle to just a small group.  If the rest of us are on the couch watching DVDs or at expensive private parties, then we need to get out and be noticed and be counted.

Gay marriage, I think, is an absolutely crucial piece of the puzzle in the struggle for acceptance and solid legal status.  There comes a point of growth and power where a distriminated group is no longer at a public risk of falling victim to the homophobes and tire-iron wielders, no longer in fear of losing their children in divorce or losing their jobs or social status because they are gay.  We have not turned that corner.  The goal is to turn it, and we cannot do that without gay marriage.  Otherwise we are a happy gay Berlin in the 30's which turns into a gay-bashed pumpkin at midnight.  I don't care how many rainbow flags we fly, IF later they can be ripped down or we take them down out of fear. 

The children of lesbians and gays are going to grow up and get to be voting age.  The article said they are 1 to 9 million.  As young adults, they are not going to want to be marginalized because they are part of a gay family.  They will want their family to have the same social and legal status as their straight friends.  So that, at least, is something to look forward to.  The nation cannot be blind to defacto reality. 

Having said all that, I also want to make one more small point.  The goal politically is to gain acceptance for gay marriage.  It is not the personal goal of everyone.  Not everyone should be married and certainly being single and gay is a fine choice.  We just need the choice and not be forced into either one. 

Along those lines, I think that straight marriage for gay people is worth a mention here.  Honestly needs to come into play here for all gay and bi people.  A lesbian/bi shouldn't rope a straight man into marriage in order to have children any more than a gay/bi man should.  I was quite offended at a post on another thread here which quoted the following:

"A woman for sons, a boy for pleasure and a goat for ectascy."

I don't agree with any form of that arragement and I find it offensive.  If you use a woman just to produce children, then you're a liar and a coward.  Same thing for women.  If you think you're gay then explore that, don't say to yourself, oh I'll get married to a man because it's what my parents want, and I'll have kids and then divorce him later. 

So straight marriage, gay marriage, they all have to be entered into with honestly and for valid reasons.





Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 09, 2006, 12:57:18 AM
SYC, I so much love to listen to you. I never have anything to oppose while reading your postings.

Just keep talking. And do know - you are being listened to!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on May 09, 2006, 09:48:22 AM
That's so sweet pylon, thank you.

I'm not sure why some threads seem to languish and others don't.  Gay marriage, I would think, would be an ongoing discussion here.

I've been thinking, and maybe we need a new thread to talk about the definition, or re-definition of the meaning of gay.  I don't know if it's the cultural and political climate, or something personal to each individual, but many people seem to restrict the definition of gay to very narrow margins, while the margins of straight are large enough to drive a tractor trailer through.  And this is a problem, because it effects the advance of gay rights, and we're reduced to the itzy bitzy "they" group who once again are looking for special rights.  And I think we need to expand beyond that.

If you search past the 10 percent (or less) of designated gay people, you'll find plently of bi people.  Then you'll find bi people who don't identify as bi (including ones on the downlow).  You'll find plenty of people (Anne Heche, Julie Cypher) who are not counted as gay and don't identify as gay because they've moved in another direction, but who used to have serious domestic partners.  There are many who had less than a domestic partner but a gay love - perhaps in college, and many who have had gay experiences or flings.  There are some who are basically gay virgins and never had a physical experience but have gay thoughts.  Then there are the ones questioning and exploring. 

Of all that, which do we own and say are part of the larger gay community and which do we not own?  Which are considered straight?  Which are part of the establishment?  I think this is all very important.  It's bad enough we are not out of the closet (and are therefore rendered invisible).  But we remain a small minority because our true numbers are not really revealed.  It's not enough to warmly embrace unidentified gay/bisexual persons in our community, we need to count them and claim them.  We need to show the world that we ALL are part of a wider spectrum of sexual behavior that in no way can be considered straight.

In reality, in my opinion, if you count everyone who has bisexual leanings or has enjoyed an adult gay experience in their lifetime, then that is the majority of people in this country, not the minority.  And they should be more empathetic to our cause and be voting in our favor.  But frankly nobody wants to vote with a minority.  Nobody wants to be singled out and be associated politically or culturally with a weirdl band of dykes and fags who want special rights.  That perception needs to be changed.  Somebody's got their big fat finger on the scale and it needs to come off.

BBM has helped in this regard, to make people identify with two gay men instead of pointing at them.  It has made the gay man everyman.  In fact, it's funny, because it's succeeded a little too well in that some don't see Ennis and Jack as gay at all, because they are so normal.  But they are, and they need to be embraced as gay, not embraced as straight. 

Black people had this problem a while back, that's why started using the term "people of color."  They didn't want light skinned blacks or black who were mixed with hispanic lineage to be confused as being part of the white establishment community.  They didn't want them co-opted. 

Phew...this was way too long, sorry.  I just wanted to write you back a few lines. 

But you think we can start a thread like that?  Or would it start a war? lol.

SYC
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 09, 2006, 10:48:07 AM
SYC, there is thread "The bisexuals respond!" Honestly I never went there. We should look into it. There might be those issues arisen there.

So the bottom line of the idea is to extend the community by including bi-sexuals of all kinds. Hm..hm... I don't know - those types are so unreliable. I had ...well...contacts of the third degree  ;) with bi-sexual men. By profile most of them are bottoms - which makes easy for them to continue their bi-sexual games, keep "healthy" family relations, etc.

But only minority of them would associate themselves with gays - I am telling you. I don't know about women. Angelina-Brangelina had and probably has relations with women. She seems to be a brave woman. She definitely supports gay rights. But would she identify herself as gay?

I've been working in adoption. And she was turned down as adoptive candidate in Russia because she was single and didn't hide her relations with women. Did you hear that? I am not saying it was a reason to pick up Brad Pitt. ;D

And I wanted to say about the threads. Some of them seems to be easy to take part in: jokes, little phrases. Sure thing that a thread like this one, or "Today's political climate" need a lot of thinking before you post something. These are not a small talk threads. It's one of reasons why you had posted on 5/2 - and I responded only today.

But. If you make a lot of thinking and post something really interesting and deep - and don't get no response - it doesn't mean your work was for nothing. People like me read  and keep thinking...and chewing over - and that's why we are here on this forum.
 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Passion on May 09, 2006, 12:14:01 PM
I saw this signature line on a mothering board I am on frequently and thought with SYC and Pylon's conversation--it kind-of fit!
"I'm GAY hear me!! GAY!! Well BISEXUAL.. And married to a man.. BUT STILL GAY!!!!"    I had a good laugh at it because it does apply to me!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on May 09, 2006, 09:45:53 PM
Quote
"I'm GAY hear me!! GAY!! Well BISEXUAL.. And married to a man.. BUT STILL GAY!!!!"   

GOOD GOD Passion, that is FREAKING PERFECT.  That is exactly what I'm talking about.  Re-defining Gay as what it is.  Yes, she is bisexual, and I consider that still gay, cause it ain't straight.  Some people have taken up the word queer actually...because they consider that more encompassing.  As in:  well maybe I'm not gay (translation-exclusively with a same-sex partner and never gonna switch back), but I'm queer, kinda thing.  But I don't thing the word queer will play in Peoria.  It's not useful.

Pylon I'm gonna write a separate post.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Passion on May 09, 2006, 10:06:55 PM
Yes, she is bisexual, and I consider that still gay, cause it ain't straight. 
That is exactly how I would define myself!  How could I possibly be straight if I used to sleep with women before I got married?  None of my straight friends used to do that before they got married!   :D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on May 09, 2006, 10:19:48 PM
So the bottom line of the idea is to extend the community by including bi-sexuals of all kinds. Hm..hm... I don't know - those types are so unreliable. I had ...well...contacts of the third degree  ;) with bi-sexual men. By profile most of them are bottoms - which makes easy for them to continue their bi-sexual games, keep "healthy" family relations, etc.

Yes, that's the idea.  No more down-low and still say you're straight.  You gonna be with us...then you get to BE us.  By the way, why were they all bottoms?

Quote
But only minority of them would associate themselves with gays - I am telling you. I don't know about women. Angelina-Brangelina had and probably has relations with women. She seems to be a brave woman. She definitely supports gay rights. But would she identify herself as gay?

No, she wouldn't.  That's certainly a problem.  But if we make the word less scary, and more populous, then she might.  Or rather, a younger Angelina might.  It's really the whole point....none of these people are identifying as gay, which restricts severely what"gay" is, which in turn makes less people identify as gay.  It's a vicious cycle.  We have to find a way to grow the group.  We need better marketing and PR. 

The civil rights struggle of African-Americans is similar to ours in many ways.  That's why we've gotten mentions from Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King.  However, they've gone in directions easer for them because of their culture.  They renamed Black to African-American, then re-framed it again by saying People of Color.  And the media followed suite.  But can we use another word than gay?  No, probably not.  That's why we need to grow the word and the number of people in that club.  It would take a lot of work. 

Another advantage black people have is their heritage and culture.  The lightest-skinned blacks never turn their back on their community because of the value in it.  Like Alicia Keys.  They'll never be lost to that community.  Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to the gay struggle.  Gay people have a community, but no built-in culture.  In fact, most gay people value their culture (latino, black, asian, etc) first, and their sexual orientation second.  So that's a problem.  There's no culture to hold us all together.  But it's an idea stil worth pursuing, I think.  Even if we don't change how people self-identify, we can re-frame the context of Gay a little better in the media. 

Quote
she was turned down as adoptive candidate in Russia because she was single and didn't hide her relations with women. Did you hear that?

That's awful.  And stuff like that drives us underground.  Same thing with gay or bi women with children who are going through divorce.  They don't want to lose their kids.  So they stay married or they hide their orientation from their ex husbands or ex boyfriends.  It can be used as a weapon in court.  We need to raise our legitimacy, gain some rights, get some respect and this problem will become less of an issue. 

And once again, gay marriage can and will be a huge block of progress in that direction, it will level the playing field and gain us a lot of respect, in the home, in the school, in the church, and in civil and criminal court.  (Here's the defendant ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Married and Gay). 

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on May 09, 2006, 10:31:23 PM
That is exactly how I would define myself!  How could I possibly be straight if I used to sleep with women before I got married?  None of my straight friends used to do that before they got married!   :D

Tell that to Anne Heche!  And I'm glad you didn't give us the old..."it's the person, not their gender" speech.  You're not denying your history, and your ability to love both male and female.  You're right, that's not straight, and none of your straight friends (that you know of) did that before they got married.  It's a healthy outlook.

You know, I'll tell you, my ex had a problem with her kids accepting her orientation.  Well, as it turned out, the straight best friend of my ex, whose kids grew up with her kids from a previous marriage, is bisexual.  And the more I looked around, there were lots of people her kids respected and loved who certainly couldn't be called straight.  So to me, here was an opportunity to make them understand and feel more comfortable with her gayness, by explaining that lots of people they loved were like mom too.  But nobody wanted to come out of the closet, and she was afraid it would scare them off.  I think the opposite.  My theory is, show them more people like us....we are not alone, not a small strange group at all, and it's ok to be proud of your mom even if she is a lesbian.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: estefue on May 09, 2006, 10:42:41 PM
Hi everyone!  This is a fascinating discussion that should be shared with others in the bisexual board.  Let's try to get back to the marriage issue.  I agree that this topic should be drawing more attention.  Why do you think people don't discuss it?  Fear or is it that for some in the community the issue is not that important?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on May 10, 2006, 08:24:58 AM
I did so, Estefue. 

Guys, come get my body if I don't return alive.

SYC
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 10, 2006, 01:10:01 PM
O, Gosh, my beloved SYC went to bi-thread.

I am rushing there to see if she is OK. Honey, are OK there?

NICK
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 10, 2006, 02:15:33 PM
I think we need more political strategists and lawyers for further development of this thread.

On the previous pages opinions got pretty much clear:

- those who require the term "marriage" and will rather die than yield;
- those who consider terms not that important and concentrate on the contents;
- those who think gays should resist loudly;
- those who think that it might be wiser to keep low profile at this point;
- those who think that to reach the Supreme Court with a case is the best way;
- those who think that state-by-state legislation and executive decisions are the priority.

So we have opposite opnions within the community. That's why the discussion got stuck.

It's okay. The whole gay community of America is unable to establish one think tank.

What can we expect from a 4,000 member forum  ???
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on May 10, 2006, 06:49:40 PM
Related to the marriage issue, StatsCan is asking married same-gender couples in Canada not to report themselves as married, next week. (!) Read the details here:
  • http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=&menu=1&item=1307
Geezzz ??? Jerome I filled out my census form just 2 days ago!
I'm flabbergasted.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on May 10, 2006, 10:40:09 PM
Pylon, the democratic party is almost as divided as that.  But after much disagreement, both types of groups should agree enough to make some progress forward. 

Look at a rock.  If it's rolling forward, some people might want it to stop, some have the opinion it should go in reverse, but the laws of physics are on the side of it moving forward.  So all opinions do not have the same probability of success.

Thanks for checking up on me.  I survived, but scratching my head.  I came back with this statement of good news.....Brokeback Mountain liberated homosexual love from the grips of the gay community.  Go try and figure that one out.

SYC



Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 10, 2006, 11:03:40 PM
SYC,

You were great down there in the twilight bi-sexual zone  :D
You were like Catwoman- approaching the issue with patience and grace - and then you touched the issue...
You were playing like a cat and mouse. And you chose a pretty playful mouse, I admit.

NICK

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: estefue on May 10, 2006, 11:45:44 PM
Pylon, a comment on your earlier post.  My fear is that expecting the current Supreme Court to rule on gay marriages in a positive fashion may be an impossible dream.  Roberts is still an unknown and we all know how Scalia and Thomas will vote.  Allthough the court can reverse itself, you never know how long a time will pass before it does.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 10, 2006, 11:58:45 PM
I completely agree. But such position exists. And people try to push it up to the Supreme Court.

I don't remeber where we discussed an article about all those movements. It was a month or two ago. Time is running.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on May 16, 2006, 04:05:55 PM
Laura Bush really pissed off the right wing this week--and gave us a huge helping hand--by disparaging the constitutional amendment against us just as the debate/vote looms in the Senate.

This from Tony Perkins in his daily email from Family Research Council:

Quote
I should also point out that the President has not given a prime-time address on the marriage amendment. It's not that we are demanding this, but when the First Lady is disparaging the issue and when the Vice President lets stand unrebutted Mary Cheney's claims, we think some demonstration of Presidential leadership is warranted--and overdue.

Hahaha. They are NOT happy with those Bush and Cheney families right now.

And much as Mary Cheney has annoyed me, if have to wonder if years of being close to her and her wife and her parents hasn't tugged at Laura's conscience enough that she just won't stand for it anymore.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: estefue on May 17, 2006, 11:06:42 PM
Or she could just be deflecting attention from other problems.  I believe that every move these people make is calculated to gain them some benefit.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: SYC on May 18, 2006, 09:03:16 AM
And much as Mary Cheney has annoyed me, if have to wonder if years of being close to her and her wife and her parents hasn't tugged at Laura's conscience enough that she just won't stand for it anymore.

When polling is done on this issue of gay tolerance and friends/relatives, it clearly shows that the people who have gay friends and relatives vote in favor of gay rights, and the people who are not close to any gays vote against gay rights. 

So, I'm sure this has to factor in with Laura Bush as well.  I'm glad to see that.  Still, I'm sure that politics comes into play.  Laura is definitely a political animal, as is her family.  I don't think she would be coming out and cracking the door for gay marriage ever so slightly, unless the political climate changed enough to allow that.  And I think it has.  The fundies weild tremendous power and influence, but under the crushing weight of Bush failure and Republican corruption, I think they now have a little less influence.  I think there's plenty of room for Republicans to now say that in order to win elections the GOP needs to pander less to the fundamentalists.  The anti-gay flyers will still be mailed out to the bible belt states, and the incorporation of Christianity into government and politics will continue, but on the national stage we may see less focus on this issue than last election. 

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Brokaholic on May 18, 2006, 12:30:50 PM
Or she could just be deflecting attention from other problems.  I believe that every move these people make is calculated to gain them some benefit.
Sadly you are most likely right...

The gay marriage issue is a though one...because the passion on the opposing side is very strong but also because quite a large part of the gay community is not that interested in pursuing it.

To me personally..I totally believe we all need to fight for Gay marriage not necessarily because I believe in the institution of marriage (I am not married..lol) but because it is discriminatory to say one set of people can and others can't. The govt has no right to tell anyone who they can or cannot be attracted to, sleep with or marry.

Infact take away the legal benefits of being married and it is just a piece of paper....a meaningless one if you look at divorce rates. I think 2 people being together because they love eachother and choose to....that stand by eachother everyday for years and years...means more than any marriage. I recognize that and respect it way more than covenants of a vow neither party knows for sure they can keep or not.

One more thing....in a gay relationship you are a partner, equal and undisputed...I love that word--"partner"....so much better than husband or wife. I honestly think the institution of marriage itself needs revamping. The best thing that could happen to marriage is for gay marriage to become a norm...maybe we will learn a thing or 2 for our "bent" brethren.

Has BBM opened the way...? I don't know; but I think it has at least opened some more minds to the idea that perhaps more Alma's and Lureen's out there is not such a good idea.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 21, 2006, 02:30:03 PM
Quote
The govt has no right to tell anyone who they can or cannot be attracted to, sleep with or marry.

Brokaholic, if you face a die-hard Republican, let's call him Mr. Dick Halliburton., with such a statement  in public - you would most probably lose the battle.

Why? Because he'd probably agree with almost everything you are saying:

- right, the government has no right to tell who you can be attracted to - and it doesn't!
- right, the government has no right to tell you who to sleep with - and it doesn't!

"As to the marriage, - Mr. Dick Halliburton would continue, - we are asking about one little thing: leave us this word "marriage" we kept saint for thousands of years; please leave it to us. Take all rights you are entitled to and you deserve - but leave us this word. Please."

And here you lose the viewers/listeners....

When we are talking about rights we should realize that the definition of the term "right/rights" is very thin ice.

You as a male don't need right to abortion for natural reasons.
It's about the logic the majority of people use when you talk about your right for marriage.

Well, I presented my position in a dozen of postings:
The term "marriage" is unaccessible for gay people in America due to the history of this country itself.
But the fight for 1,000+  benefits which fills the term marriage with meaning - is quite possible.

I guess the fight will end up eventually. And probably sooner than we imagine.
It will be something like "Marriage/Civil Union License" with a blank part to be filled out by church (optional) and finalized by state authorities.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on May 21, 2006, 04:17:12 PM
Being Canadian, I am not well versed on your government's agenda about gay marriage. But from up here what I see is that as long as you have religion mixed up in there you'll never get out of it. Here religion is nowhere to be seen in our legislature. We have the "Omnibus Bill"  stating the the government has no say into what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. Moral judgments are frowned upon. The private lives of politicians are of no interest. Our civil rights and liberties charter is based on equality for all races, religions and sexual orientation. Here in Quebec we have a gay contender to the post of prime minister.
We did have and still have "family" bigots and religious leaders who try to squash the same sex marriage law, somehow they always look like they're preaching in the desert.
 Your "Ten Commandments" stone being carried in a truck to be displayed a few months back was such a riot! And Intelligent Design? Paleeese! Abortion rights, the day after pill, the abstinence issue for teens,I can go on and on and of course gay marriage is a sin, it's nowhere in the Bible, it's immoral, it's sick, it's against nature. Religion in your country is a business and Washington seems to loves big business. Money and votes talk.
All this just make me, as a Canadian really happy I'm freezing my ass off half the year. The very first thing you should do is not only oust the moral right, you really should oust religion per say. Separating religion and state is the crux of the issue.Your puritan roots will get the best of you. You are a great nation and I admire you raccomplishments (aside from the Irak war), but please realize that you are NOT God's nation.
Your religious right is clearly manipulating your policies. To what good? I sincerely don't know or understand. It scares the begeebees out of me the same way the Taliban do.

I respect people's religious freedom, but will not tolerate proselytizing. I will never accept to be told how to think, act and to what god I should  pray. My country helps me in being able to live and think freely.
I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone. If I did, I'm sorry.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on May 21, 2006, 05:26:46 PM
the Senate will be voting the week of June 5th on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which will define marriage as between a man and a woman.

We need to organize, and present our case, and contact our senators.

Why??

Because those who don't want us to marry are organizing.

This was in the program for the church my parents attend:


Protection of Marriage Amendment

This month, the US Senate has begun deliberating on a matter of the highest urgency for all of our society - the Protection of Marriage Amendment.  This Amendment states clearly that the natural institution of marriage has been, is, and always must be, a union between a man and a woman. The Senate is expected to vote on the Amendment sometime in June.  The Bishops of New Jersey are urging all Catholic people to join with us in informing our two Senators to vote in favor of the Protection of Marriage Amendment by completing the postcards available in Church this weekend and returning them in the collection box.  The parish will arrange to mail them to Senators Lautenberg and Menendez this week.  Help us to make this campaign for the Protection of Marriage Amendment  a success.  Please fill out the postcards.

We need to contact our Senators, and ask our families and friends who will support us to do the same.

Send out this link to whoever will support:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Once you are on this page, just select your state.  Your Senators names will appear with their contact info, and you can contact them through this webpage.

Let them know how you feel about this amendment.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Garry_LH on May 21, 2006, 11:58:46 PM
I wrote a note to Senator Bond on this. However, Jim Talent, of Missouir, is one of the cosponsors. I wonder if writing him would be of any use?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 22, 2006, 12:02:52 AM
John John,

America is too much of an entity. Partly due to the reasons you mentioned in your posting.

In a sense it's like China or India. It will rather "swallow" you.

It's just a waste of time to hope that Europe and Canada can influence America. There is no capital punishment in Europe for 25 years or 30 years. And even here in Russia - a country as ethnically and racially diverse as America - death penalty isn't applied for 20 years.

Did all this experience change anything in attitudes of Americans toward death penalty? Maybe 5-10% - and thanks to good movies, not to other nations experience.

"Providentialism" is a heavy burden of the American past and American present.

But I think it is not a forum for discussing America, its history and values. It would definitely lead us to nowhere. We love this country and we care of it.
Otherwise we wouldn't be here on this forum for almost a half of year, right?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Garry_LH on May 22, 2006, 12:24:00 AM
Johnjohn... you sure haven't offended me. I have been watching, and participating in, this mess for thirty years. The one thing I have seen over the last two decades is, a terrible loss of a basic understanding of how deffending everyone's rights is guaranteeing no one can take the rights you take for granted either. To be honest, there are parallels here between the Wiemar Republic and the US over the last twenty years that are bothersome to me. The difference being, we have replaced political fanatics with religious fanatics.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on May 22, 2006, 04:23:27 AM
Garry von Lufthansa  ;D,

Comparison between der Weimar Republik und den heutigen Vereinigten Staaten (who switched me to a German mode  ??? Switch me back!) is a kind of too strong.

There are several key elements missing. Though some disturbing parallels are evident.

Why did you take 20 years? Was that a period you considered?

You frightened me a little bit. It's my never-ending nightmare that the present democracy (or what we used to call democracy) may be weaker than we casually think.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: goobles on May 22, 2006, 05:40:56 AM
the Senate will be voting the week of June 5th on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which will define marriage as between a man and a woman.
We need to organize, and present our case, and contact our senators.
We need to contact our Senators, and ask our families and friends who will support us to do the same.
Send out this link to whoever will support:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Let them know how you feel about this amendment.

Does anyone have a sample letter that we could use? 

I think friends and family would be more apt to take the time to send letters/emails if they had a form letter of some kind.  Many people can use the excuse of "not enough time to write".  Also, there are some very eloquent and articulate writers on this thread who have expressed excellent clear reasoning as to why we need to defeat (and redefine) this amendment, so I'd love to see what these people would write as a letter.

This week I'll send this form letter out to as many people as possible, asking them to send it to their senators.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Carissa on May 28, 2006, 06:20:32 PM
the Senate will be voting the week of June 5th on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which will define marriage as between a man and a woman.
We need to organize, and present our case, and contact our senators.
We need to contact our Senators, and ask our families and friends who will support us to do the same.
Send out this link to whoever will support:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Let them know how you feel about this amendment.

Does anyone have a sample letter that we could use? 

I think friends and family would be more apt to take the time to send letters/emails if they had a form letter of some kind.  Many people can use the excuse of "not enough time to write".  Also, there are some very eloquent and articulate writers on this thread who have expressed excellent clear reasoning as to why we need to defeat (and redefine) this amendment, so I'd love to see what these people would write as a letter.

This week I'll send this form letter out to as many people as possible, asking them to send it to their senators.
Here's something from HRC:  http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/mpa4061
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisW on May 30, 2006, 03:04:39 PM
Hello again CD
Thanks for highlighting this. For us in the UK, civil partnership ceremonies are the new black (as they say). My sister seems to be going to one every other weekend. I am completely convinced it is the only civilised way forward. So how can we UK residents help?
M.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: garyd on May 30, 2006, 05:13:47 PM
I was invited several months ago, by my Congressperson, to take part in a "think tank" and subsequent panel discussion regarding "gay marriage"  Several things came out of the exercise and subsequent report.  Here are a few of what I consider to have been the most interesting thoughts /ideas:

1. It should be left up to the individual states for a wide range of reasons; the most often mentioned of which was that no one desired to see the federal government usurp more power from the States.  Strong second opinion was that the federal level may have to step in in order to right and egregious wrong.  In this case legislation would be drafted similar to the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 and somehow justified by the Commerce Clause.  Problem is that the Commerce Clause argument has not been supported by the Supreme Court lately.

2. Marriage between two individuals should be allowed no matter the gender. 

3. The term for the union should be "marriage' because that term is the "gold standard" and using a different term (civil union for example) would be defacto discrimination.

4. Any person now licensed to perform marriages could still do so WITH this caveat.  Anyone licensed to perform marriages could not refuse to perform a marriage.  In other words, ministers, priests, rabbis, etc. would not be allowed to officiate a marriage unless they agreed to officiate for anyone who asked.  They could, of course, perform their own rituals but the union would not be recognized by the "state" unless the person officiated was licensed and that license would not be granted without the explicit understanding that no type of discrimination, including religious, would be allowed.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: goobles on May 31, 2006, 07:45:15 AM
Here's something from HRC:  http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/mpa4061

Carissa, thanks so much for this link.  It was verry helpful!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Carissa on May 31, 2006, 07:20:30 PM
You're welcome SSE. :)  If you send it from their site, it goes right to your Senators.

Gay couples take marriage fight to NY's top court
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060531/ts_nm/rights_marriage_dc
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: goobles on June 01, 2006, 05:48:59 AM
You're welcome SSE. :)  If you send it from their site, it goes right to your Senators.

Gay couples take marriage fight to NY's top court
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060531/ts_nm/rights_marriage_dc

Carissa,  that's super how they set it up so that letters go right to the Senators.  I love how easy it is.  I hope this will encourage even more people to take the small amount of time to send the letter. 
 
Thanks for the yahoo news link, too.   :-*
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisFewa on June 01, 2006, 02:33:41 PM
Two small points then I am shutting up, because this issue seriously offends me.

1.   Less then 50 years ago black and white couples were seen as unnatural or immoral.
2.   South Africa, as well as many other countries have legalized Gay Marriage. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 02, 2006, 08:06:53 AM

2.   South Africa, as well as many other countries have legalized Gay Marriage. 


..and south africa really was a surprise...still, it's just unbelievable how big the differences are within south africa. first, there's the -white- gay community, with it's "capital" cape town, presumably one of the world's largest gay communities. well, and then there's the -black- rural communities. even being suspected of being gay is a sure death sentence there.
when i lived in southern africa, the only time i saw a "real", "alive" black gay man was one guy who worked as bouncer at one club in the small town i lived close to. he resembled an elephant a lot more than i human...i think he simply was invincible  ;) but he also was very isolated and alone, being shunned by his own community.

still, if the south african government is ready to take such a step - why the f.... are there so many northern countries who didn't do it yet ?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 02, 2006, 03:39:21 PM
With the election of a new polictico in Ottawa Canada our Parliament intends to take the gay marriage situation in a new direction.
The buzz word describing our current sitting government is :strategists. How does this impact the rights with respect to gay marriage?
The current solicitor general Vic toews VOWED to ammend this decision on BEHALF of his constituents. I want to know what I can do to PREVENT any changes to our constitution. anyone suggest something. I am aware of EGALE.
Je souhaite savoir aider a empecher des changements au mariage gai pendant qu'il concerne la constitution canadienne. Y-a-t-il
des organismes que je peux entrer en contact a ce sujet?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 02, 2006, 04:13:20 PM
The Advocate's cover shows three male grooms, with the title "Polygamy & Gay Men."

http://advocate.com/ (they use a javascript, so i don't see any way to direct link. it's on the top right of their site, under "Current Issue.")

Family Research Council got wind of it ASAP. The lead item on its daily email alert today:

Quote
The Advocate bills itself as "the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine." Its June 6 cover story certainly should make news. The magazine depicts three identical male dolls wearing tuxes over the caption "Polygamy & Gay Men." The story features oh-so-sympathetic portraits of several groups of men who are living in arrangements it calls polyamorous. "We're as married as we could be," says one homosexual member of a San Diego trio, "we all have rings and have a day we celebrate [as] our anniversary." The challenge could not be more "in your face." Every argument, every emotional appeal for same-sex "marriage" is recapped in this air-brushed version of marital bliss for what the magazine editors call "Big Gay Love." This is what those senators who vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) next week will be voting for. Serious legal scholars like Jonathan Turley agree. Thoughtful columnists like Charles Krauthammer find it undeniable. Same-sex "marriage" means polygamy. So why not polyamory, too? This weekend is our last chance to share vital information with friends, family and members of your church. You can click on the link below and download our latest FRC fact sheet on the Marriage Protection Amendment. Please copy and distribute this vital material as widely as possible. June 6 is the day of the vote on the MPA in the Senate. Will marriage survive or will America move in the direction of "Big Gay Love?"


This is all we need. They have been dying to link gay marraige to other scare-tactic issues, and The Advocate is handing them the smoking gun.

What the hell were they thinking? Nice timing.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 02, 2006, 04:28:40 PM
ouch. that was NOT a good time. honestly, i personally think everybody has the right to live how he/she wants. and if they're happy as a triplet or quartett or whatever, it's fine by me. but there's 100 senators to convince, a part of them VERY conservative. and this is just another bit of ammunition to the "sodom & gomorrah" - argument. WHY do they have to overdo it that way ? are marriages REALLY that old-fashioned already ?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 02, 2006, 05:22:49 PM
the more i think about it, the more i get a bit angry on the advocate people. it is insensitive and un-diplomatic to put that up just now.
i spent half of my day writing e-mails to each and every senator about the amendment - and now i se that. not really a good backup  :(
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: dsmom on June 02, 2006, 06:28:38 PM
Especially considering how much people have been griping about the TV show "Big Love" that the article references...I mean if the right doesn't like polygamy when straight people do it...Jeez...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Garry_LH on June 02, 2006, 07:29:03 PM
Good Grief
What was the Advocate thinking?

I was just wondering what would happen if the wing nuts had to accept being gay had a direct genetic connection. From their warped perspective, the Creator that made them surly didn't make us as well. I sometimes think the fun is just beginning here in the land of the free.

For a country that has prided itself on freedom and liberty for all, we certainly have a long history of... you know... freedom is for folks that look and think just like we do. First you take the land from the folks that were living here when you got here. Then you pass laws stating if folks have even a drop of NDN blood, they can't even buy the land back from you. We were the last western civilization to make slavery illegal. In no small part do to minsters of that period preaching those passages from the Bible supporting slavery. And still, it took a shaking to the roots of our culture to begin to address the basic human dignity that should have been afforded the ancestors of former slaves; a hundred years after they were freed.  It wasn't until the twentieth century that women finally rose above the status of property of their husbands, and finally were recognized as citizens worthy of voting rights. We gay folks have been fighting an uphill battle for fifty years.  We seem to gain a bit here and lose a chunk there.

Why is it being a citizen of this country does not automatically infer the same rights as any other citizen? How is it anyone can believe they have the right to force their religious or bigoted views on anyone else? It is though we have had a long history of saying the Constitution applies to everyone, but those folks over there, cuze their different. I'm really beginning to believe the words human and intelligence have no connection. Too many of us are still willing to blindly believe what any nut case waving either the Flag, or their favorite passages from Bible, tells us. Gaaahhhhhh!!!!
I'll be ok.... really I will... just as soon as I find a country whose citizens believe being informed and thinking for themselves is the duty of every citizen.
Garry
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jam52 on June 02, 2006, 07:54:41 PM
the more i think about it, the more i get a bit angry on the advocate people. it is insensitive and un-diplomatic to put that up just now.
i spent half of my day writing e-mails to each and every senator about the amendment - and now i se that. not really a good backup  :(
I agree with these comments. I was furious to see the Advocate cover story on this inflammatory issue. I'm considering cancelling my subscription.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Carissa on June 02, 2006, 09:14:15 PM
Bush promoting ban on gay marriage
By Matt Spetalnick Fri Jun 2, 4:50 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060602/pl_nm/rights_gay_bush_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush will promote a constitutional ban on gay marriage on the eve of a Senate vote next week, weighing in on an issue that could rally his wavering conservative base in an election year.

Though the proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage stands little chance of passing, it is one of several hot-button causes Republicans are championing to appeal to right-wing voters ahead of November's congressional ballot.

m o r e . . . (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060602/pl_nm/rights_gay_bush_dc)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 02, 2006, 09:50:03 PM
Perhaps the absolute fury when Gene Shalit critized Brokeback Mountain needs to be directed NOW, did I say NOW ...at the ADVOCATE.
Call them, email them and DONOT buy their overpriced magazine until a retraction is made by the story's author and the powers that be that allowed this to be published.

The Canadian PM announced today that there will be a "free vote in the House of Commons" this fall regarding reopening the discussion of Gay Marriage.
The strategy here is bloody simple. The PM is waiting for the GOMERY report to come out and then call another gd election so as to gain a majority in Parliament and then revsit this constitutional ammendment  and attempt to change this in the constitution.
Boys and Girls the fight is on. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET INVOLVED.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 03, 2006, 05:23:47 AM
i've just read the article carissa referred to. thinking about it, what REALLY made me furious is that bush USES this matter to gain voters for the ballot in november. this is a quite "secure" matter: it will surely attract the conservative, but there's very slim chances to succeed so he doesn't have tzo fear any political/social ramifications. what a disgusting way of playing with the fates and lives of so many people !
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Redbrit on June 03, 2006, 01:28:09 PM
OK people - let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here - are we or are we not in favour of the proposition that people should live the way they chose? I think we have to establish that first off and not get too defensive regarding the right. The truth is, the right hate us WHATEVER we do and we should not be pulling the ladder up after us and saying - monogamous, straight-homophobe-friendly gay couples only. What strikes me as dubious about the Advocate article, which I have to say I'm commenting on sight-unseen - just going by what's been written here, is the comparison being made between gay 3-somes etc. with straight polygamy. Polygamy is a question of (usually a man) having his cake and eating it - he gets to have all the female partners he wants, but the assumption clearly is that 'his women' will be 'faithful' to him. Polyandry is a whole other issue and frankly exceedingly rare. Which brings me to the other point. In a working two-person relationship the magic has to happen that both partners are more-or-less equally attracted to one another. Once the numbers start to climb, surely the chances against a successful match that works equally for all involved just become astronomical? In that sense, threesomes (still more foursomes) are only ever going to be peripheral to the gay (or bi) experience. As such they are far from representative. In this sense, I agree with what people are saying. It seems that the Advocate are grubbing for sales by going for the circus-freak approach - oh my, look what we're able to get upto in this edition. It's cheap and rather degrading - but that doesn't mean that in a few rare cases these kinds of relationships don't actually come about and that they can't be as enduring and genuine as any twosome. I would worry if our advocacy of gay marriage started to degenerate into an argument along the lines - we're the good gays, very like you straight people and not at all like those other gays over there. That doesn't really strike me as very progressive.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 03, 2006, 04:02:11 PM
redbrit, i see your point. as i said in my first post, i'm okay with everything as long as nobody gets hurt. the only problem i see about the advocat article - and that's what i also understood from the other posts around here - is that this was a VERY BAD timing...
one day, the world might be ready for polygamous - polyandrous - and whatever else relationships and marriages. but right now, for a not so unsignificant part of the world's population, even such a simple thing as the marriage between two same-sex partners seems unthinkable. i'm always in favour of reaching for the stars...but sometimes that's just too far.


i think nobody wanted to start to publicly burn advocat issues...it was rather suggested to write letters. and i think that is a good idea. i mean, you guys are supposed to be the target group of this magazine. it is important that you use your voice as clients and say if you're unhappy with something the people there do.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Poohbunn on June 03, 2006, 05:42:07 PM
I think marriage means two people, period. Anything else is not marriage but polygamy.  I don't care if the marriage is between two men, two women or one of each.  Saying that multiple partners should be called marriage by any gay publication is shooting the movement in the foot. What were they thinking?  It's not a gay issue; polygamy among Mormons (for example) was outlawed.  Maybe they can call a multiple relationship something else, but it's not a marriage by definition.  That flies in the face of those who work hard on a monogamous relationship, gay or straight. 

I'm frankly nervous about the upcoming debate on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  Whatever chance we have of defeating this will fail if gay folks ask for more than the straight folks have.  Just look at the recent negative press received by heterosexual multiple partner arrangements, with statutory rape, child sexual abuse and such.  We don't need to associate with that stuff at this juncture.

Debi
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 03, 2006, 05:55:19 PM
you are right with the shooting in the foot thing. right here, at the moment, a two-person marriage is all we can hope for.

but let's keep our minds open. marriage was not alwas just a two-person thing. things change over time. so, i would not rule out that one day in the future, we might live in other living arrangements. we might consider a 5-persons-union "normal" and a two-person one strange.

but still, there's two things that we should not mix up:
1.) things as they are at the moment and the goal we're having right at the moment - which is achieving equal marriage rights for everybody.
2.) open-mindedness and future philosophies - those are the exciting ones !  ;)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 03, 2006, 06:33:43 PM
OK people - let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here - are we or are we not in favour of the proposition that people should live the way they chose? I think we have to establish that first off and not get too defensive regarding the right. The truth is, the right hate us WHATEVER we do and we should not be pulling the ladder up after us and saying - monogamous, straight-homophobe-friendly gay couples only.

i think desertrat said it very well: that i'm personally happy for people to find whatever kind of arrangement they choose. but . . .

but i'm sure as hell not going to ask for all those arrangements to be defined as marriage. that really would be asking for special rights. i don't feel entitled to ask for special rights, i'm just asking for the same damn rights they have.

if polygomists want to lobby for a truly radical restructuring of marriage to be more than two people (i.e., restructuring it from what it has generally been in this culture for quite awhile), they are free to do so, but that is not my fight just because i'm gay. i'm sure there are both straight and gay polygomists--let them fight for it. but widening the issue of gays demanding equal rights, that's just strategic suicide.

---

i have also seen the argument many times that you advance: "the right hate us WHATEVER we do and . . . "--i think that's highly falacious and extremely dangerous to get sucked in to, for two reasons:

- it's not the hateful far right we need to convince. yes, those people will hate us regardless, but that's looking right past our key audience and focusing on an irrelevant group. the people we need to talk to are the swayable middle. they do not hate us regardless, and those are the people we need to win over to win. considering the middle's reactions is not only necessary, it's crucial. and opening the door to polygomy can easily scare the crap out of them.

- the hateful right still matters as well. we're not going to win them over, but we sure as hell can antagonize them and energize them. the idea that we should write off their reactions to anything we do as unimportant is dangerous. when they are energized, they can deliver millions of voter guides on election day--or at services the sunday before--and they can get out the vote in extraordinary ways. they are extremely well organized. and they also have a huge/powerful communication system/platform that can/will operate over the longer term influencing the middle. they are not likely to roll over and play dead regardless. but there are many levels of enthusiasm. the more things we do to scare the shit out of them, to fire them up, and/or to hand them huge weapons to use against us on the middle . . . well all that makes a huge difference in the struggle. to say we're not going to win them over is to miss the point. they can/will do us a great deal of damage, and we have a choice in how much we force their hand, and what weapons we hand them.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: shawnpyfrom on June 03, 2006, 10:18:57 PM
Gays will never be allowed to marry in America, as long as americans choose to  elect misguided religious politicians.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Signal63 on June 03, 2006, 11:04:08 PM
- it's not the hateful far right we need to convince. yes, those people will hate us regardless, but that's looking right past our key audience and focusing on an irrelevant group. the people we need to talk to are the swayable middle. they do not hate us regardless, and those are the people we need to win over to win. considering the middle's reactions is not only necessary, it's crucial. and opening the door to polygomy can easily scare the crap out of them.

- the hateful right still matters as well. we're not going to win them over, but we sure as hell can antagonize them and energize them. the idea that we should write off their reactions to anything we do as unimportant is dangerous. when they are energized, they can deliver millions of voter guides on election day--or at services the sunday before--and they can get out the vote in extraordinary ways. they are extremely well organized. and they also have a huge/powerful communication system/platform that can/will operate over the longer term influencing the middle. they are not likely to roll over and play dead regardless. but there are many levels of enthusiasm. the more things we do to scare the shit out of them, to fire them up, and/or to hand them huge weapons to use against us on the middle . . . well all that makes a huge difference in the struggle. to say we're not going to win them over is to miss the point. they can/will do us a great deal of damage, and we have a choice in how much we force their hand, and what weapons we hand them.

The most recent long-term study of attitudes about gay marriage in the general population suggest a steady decline in opposition. It stands at 51% now, down considerably from the last few years. That rate falls even further the younger the age group surveyed. So you're correct to say that the real cause is with the middle (and left--remember those Hollywood "liberals") not the extreme right. The obvious political posturing of the Bush administration might even drive these numbers further south as the real reason becomes clearer to the mainstream. One of the researchers thought the drop in opposition might be due to its falling off the cultural radar recently, (it has always seemed to be very much on the radar to me) but I think the reason may be that some of the initial shock has worn off, the sky hasn't fallen, and the populice has grown weary and suspictous of political motivations and pandering (remember those gasoline refund checks?). I wouldn't, of course, count on them to mess it up themselves. I do think pointing out the political pandering might be an effective route.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on June 04, 2006, 05:09:33 AM
Who is following the breakdown of voices in the Senat?

Is there a chance they can get 2/3 on June, the 6th?? Which is the day after tomorrow.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 04, 2006, 06:34:26 AM
Who is following the breakdown of voices in the Senat?

Is there a chance they can get 2/3 on June, the 6th?? Which is the day after tomorrow.

as far as i read, chances are very slim. let's hope that's true. i'm trying to follow any news, but it is not so easy from here (europe).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: imennisshesjack on June 04, 2006, 10:27:36 AM
This is all we need. They have been dying to link gay marraige to other scare-tactic issues, and The Advocate is handing them the smoking gun.

What the hell were they thinking? Nice timing.

I thought the same thing. I thought the timing couldn't be worse, and why just hand them what they want on a silver platter???
Couldn't they have waited until after the amendment?

Sheesh.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: NVHiker on June 04, 2006, 11:16:48 AM
For arguments against the marriag amendment from the conservative side (and yes there are conservatives opposed to the amendment, see http://indegayforum.org (link below if my editing worked).

http://indegayforum.org/

See Jonathan Rauch, and the article from the Cato Institute for example. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 04, 2006, 02:01:12 PM
The Advocate should hear about this from us
(Just who are they advocating for, anyway?):

E-MAIL
letters@advocate.com

FAX
(323) 467-6805

MAIL
Letters to the Editor
The Advocate
P.O. Box 4371
Los Angeles, CA   90078

NOTE:  They say letters should be brief and to the point. 
They should include the name and address and phone number of the writer.


P.S.:  I just came back to say I sent my letter in.  Do the same, it only takes a second
for The Advocate to hear your voice...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 04, 2006, 02:09:14 PM
I suggest seeing the documentary shown on CBC's "The Passionate EYE" BY Michaelle Jean our new Govern General (Queen's Representative in Canada) called, "When one is not enough" It's about Canadian and American heterosexual couples swapping wives/husbands. The possibilities are endless.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 04, 2006, 02:15:02 PM
The point is,...... Focus on the Family will CHOOSE to IGNORE this documentary because they intend to invoke an endless debate on the lives on homosexuals.  FOF intends to destroy the lives of the gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered communities hell or high water.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 04, 2006, 02:19:13 PM
The point is,...... Focus on the Family will CHOOSE to IGNORE this documentary because they intend to invoke an endless debate on the lives on homosexuals.  FOF intends to destroy the lives of the gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered communities hell or high water.

Sure enough, but The Advocate should not be in the business of being ignorant about the ramifications of the timing of their cover article this week and should be called on it.  After all,
aren't we the ones they're supposed to be advocating for?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 04, 2006, 02:25:14 PM
I agree.... you would think the advocate would have figured that out. Alas,  It's part of their strategy to sell mags.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 04, 2006, 03:11:23 PM
 :)
If anyone out there is interested...
www.equal-marriage.ca
It lloks how that the overwhelming majority of canadians and business executives do not want this debate reopened. This begs the question...why then is this debate being reopened?
The simple answer is there are a few MP's (memeber's of parliament that intend to ignore the wishes of it's constituents mostly because of their own personal bigotry and ignorance.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 04, 2006, 03:21:25 PM
I believe it has circulated around the world that two Royal Canadian Mounted Policemen married legally in May 2006. The sitting Conservative Government's leaders FORBID it's MP's from discussing this issue publicly.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: David Dragon 3 on June 04, 2006, 11:53:42 PM
I HATE that Gay Marrage is being used as a political football.  Its a shame that the president and the republicans are using this as a way to divide the nation.  Real people are being victimized by this and the fact that it is not expected to pass shows the blatant attempt to pacify the Christian wrong by dehumanizing a minority of Americans.  It's just sad.

If you haven't signed the petition for Support Marriage Equality for ALL! I urge you to do so.
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: imennisshesjack on June 05, 2006, 07:32:04 AM
Who is following the breakdown of voices in the Senat?

Is there a chance they can get 2/3 on June, the 6th?? Which is the day after tomorrow.

I just read on Yahoo news that all the Democratic Senators, save one from Nebraska, are not voting for it, so it looks like
it will go down.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on June 05, 2006, 11:04:55 AM
Here is a very thoughful article from Philadelphia Inquirer. It's not only about the issue - but also about the state of GOP. A pretty pathetic state of GOP.

Highly recommended: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/14636649.htm
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: rnmina on June 05, 2006, 11:19:52 AM
Even President Bush's wife said that there is NO need for an amendment against  Gay marriage. This is unbelievable. 70% of the people in this country either don't want it or think it's not needed and still he will not stop.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on June 05, 2006, 11:35:40 AM
He made deal with religious rights in 2004.

And fundamentalists are people you can't leave easily.

It makes us to read "Faust" again, does it?  ::)

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 05, 2006, 02:17:08 PM
WHITE HOUSE (AP) - President Bush says "activist courts have left our country with no other choice" than amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Bush says marriage between a man and woman is one of the most fundamental and important of human institutions. Bush says it shouldn't be redefined by what he calls "activist judges."

At the White House, Bush told supporters of the amendment that he's "proud to stand with" them.

His comments come as the Senate starts three days of debate on the measure.

 :(
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 05, 2006, 02:29:12 PM
thanks for the philly inq link. i really liked the quote at the end of this paragraph:

Quote
GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said Friday: "We can't afford to alienate moderate voters any more than they are already alienated... . Issues have a shelf life. Gay marriage passed everywhere [on state ballots] in 2004, but today, a lot of people look at that issue and think, 'It is so over and done.' Our party base is already fracturing, and if we emphasize gay marriage now, it would create new divisions."

i think the "so over" is overstating it a little, but i do think/hope we're moving in that direction. and it's great to see those words from an R pollster, so it's not spin.

the interesting thing about the ongoing pew poll is that it show opposition to our marriage spiked in 2004 and then has receded dramatically. the spike came after the massacheusetts thing, and the brief SF marriages and all the ballot initiatives and so forth. i think it finally became real and scared the shit out of a lot of people initially, and then they got used to it. nothing happened, they're still ok, and they're no longer really afraid of it, and i'm sure more and more people are assuming it's inevitable, just a matter of time. more and more, i think they just don't care. which is victory for us.

this was definitely the best news i saw in that piece:

Quote
And the subject doesn't seem to register on the intensity scale, either. The latest Fox News poll, released Friday, listed the 20 issues that Americans are most concerned about, and gay marriage didn't even make the list.

once we get to the point where most people don't really give a shit about whether we marry, we'll be very close to winning. they won't stand in our way if they don't care. and democratic politicians--and even a huge number of Rs who secretly respect us and hate what is done to us--will come out of the closet to support us once they see it's safe. when nobody cares they can vote their conscience.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 05, 2006, 02:31:11 PM
HRC just sent out this email 16 minutes ago (while i was composing my last post, as luck would have it):

Quote
"This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment [Federal Marriage Amendment].  And I call on the Congress to pass this amendment ..." - June 5th, 2006, 1:45 p.m. EST, White House Press Conference
Dear David, 

Just minutes ago, President Bush addressed the nation and issued a slap in the face of every GLBT citizen in this country. Only hours before tomorrow's scheduled Senate debate, he called a press conference to demand the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) - an outrageously discriminatory constitutional ban on marriage and other relationships for same-sex couples.

His motivations are clear: With his administration on the ropes and far-right, anti-gay groups threatening revolt, President Bush is willing and eager to make GLBT Americans into second-class citizens if it will bring him political gain.

We must not take this attack sitting down - we need your help to fight back.

This week's vote could to be closer than the FMA vote in 2004, so it's even more critical that we act now. In the hours remaining before tomorrow's FMA debate and the Senate vote likely on Wednesday, we need your help to send a strong, overwhelming message to the Senate...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 05, 2006, 02:52:22 PM
as some of you might know, i wrote an e-mail to every single of the 100 senators last friday (tough work cause they all use web forms, so i do know how to type my name REALLY well now  :D). i received a couple of automatic replies with the usual "thanks for your input" thing. but i received a longer mail from senator lieberman today and i thought i should share it with you.

here it is:


Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about same-sex
marriages.  It is good to hear from you.

            Whether to enable same-sex couples in long-term, committed
relationships to assume some or all of the legal obligations and benefits
provided by marriage is an extraordinarily challenging and important
issue.  I believe that marriage is a time-honored sacred institution, to
be shared by one man and one woman, which is why I supported the Defense
of Marriage Act.  That legislation, signed into law by former President
Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as
a union between a man and a woman and makes clear that no state should
have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

            The most recent proposal regarding same-sex marriage is the
Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J.Res. 1), introduced by Senator Wayne
Allard (R-CO).  As you may know, this measure was introduced at the
beginning of the 109th Congress after the Federal Marriage Amendment was
defeated on a procedural motion on July 14, 2004, by a vote of 48-50,
during the last Congress.  Although I do not support gay marriage, I
believe that states have the right to adopt state laws that allow same-sex
unions, which is why I do not support the amendment as drafted since it
precludes states from adopting all such arrangements.

             I believe that same-sex couples in long-term, committed
relationships should have the option to assume some of the legal benefits
and obligations conferred by civil marriage.  This, in my view, is a
reflection of the basic American ideals of fairness and equality, which
demand that we take concrete steps to end discrimination against gay men
and lesbians.  That is why, during the 108th Congress, I cosponsored the
Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 1252), introduced by
Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN), which would extend job-related benefits such
as health insurance, retirement benefits, and life insurance to domestic
partners of federal employees.  I am also a long-time leading cosponsor of
the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (S. 1705), sponsored by Senator
Edward Kennedy (D-MA), which would outlaw workplace discrimination based
on sexual orientation.  I also believe that we must evaluate the numerous
benefits, rights, and privileges afforded to married couples under federal
law in order to determine whether to extend them to same-sex couples in
long-term, committed relationships.

My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that
provides access to constituent services, Connecticut-specific information,
and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the Senate
on behalf of Connecticut and the nation.  I am also pleased to let you
know that I have launched an email news update service through my web
site.  You can sign up for that service by visiting
http://lieberman.senate.gov and clicking on the "Subscribe Email News
Updates" button at the bottom of the home page.  I hope these are
informative and useful.

Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns.  Please
contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work
in Congress.

Sincerely,
JIL:




Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 05, 2006, 03:22:29 PM
you know, something just made my day.

on the same day, seeing a bunch of largely ancient old men in the congress whining about us being allowed to marry and a group of largely young men and women and boys and girls who vote in MTV polls picking our man-to-man kiss as the best romantic moment all year . . . that's really saying something.

the pew show always shows our biggest support among young people and biggest opposition by far among the very old. well, the harsh reality is that most of that demographic will be gone soon. i'm not prepared to sit around and wait, but it does offer a lot of hope about where we're headed.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: garyd on June 05, 2006, 03:23:55 PM
How revolting that Lieberman would use this tack in his reply to your email.

The Defense of Marriage Act was and is a piece of garbage that should have been struck down by the Supreme Court as blatantly unconstitutional.

It was supported by Democrats for many of the same reasons the current amendment issue has come up.  The Democrats were trying to figure out a way to take back control of Congress after the 1994 Republican coup and they thought this would help them in several "swing" races.

The current amendment is nothing more (or less) than the evil, but brilliant) machination of Karl Rove to once again prove the effectiveness of pandering to the Republican base in hopes that, once the measure fails in the Senate, that base will come out in full force in November and keep the Republicans in control of Congress.

All of the rest of the laws and acts he cites are just as disingenuous and would be unecessary if each state adopted its own marriage act and the federal level enacted legislation, based upon the interstate commerce act, forcing states to recognize individual state legislations as legitimate.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 05, 2006, 03:29:52 PM
as some of you might know, i wrote an e-mail to every single of the 100 senators last friday . . . but i received a longer mail from senator lieberman today and i thought i should share it with you.

wow, thanks for sending all those emails. and the lieberman thing.

the "marriage must be one man and one woman but . . ." thing is kind of infuriating, but i guess we have to swallow it from some of our so-called leaders for awhile.

i wish i could read their minds and determine how many of them really believe that first part--and why--and how many are just being spineless tools. i think a lot are the latter. i guess you could easily recast that as "politically practical"--that they would go down in flames if they supported us too soon, but it's still kind of a sickening business.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 05, 2006, 04:16:58 PM
harry reid's speech today:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Democratic_leader_enumerates_issues_gay_marriage_0605.html

the gist of it: yes we should be forbidden to marry, but no the senate should not be debating it, because a) they have bigger things to worry about, and b) the states are doing a fine job forbidding it.

nice. it's pretty disgusting that we have to swallow that kind of shit from "our" leadership as "support," but that's where we're at. democrats have not been known for their backbone for a few decades now, which i think has a lot to do with the fact that they've been squeezed further and further from power.

at least when james dobson stands up and makes a speech attacking me, i know where he really stands and have no doubt about it. bill frist, probably believes it, too. george w i think is backing the amendment just for political reasons, especially given his wife's comments--she knows when she needs to keep her mouth shut. he's not doing so well either though, is he.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 05, 2006, 04:43:03 PM
i wish i could read their minds *snip*

that's what i would REALLY wish for - behind all those phrases and memorized responses, what is really behind there ? and WHY would it be such a catastrophy to let people marry whom they want to marry ?
this question was part of the text i wrote in my e-mails: they say that this amendment should be done to protect straight marriage. from WHAT ? and what if i don't WANT my marriage to be protected ? how should my (straight) marriage be worth less just because somebody else is allowed to marry as well ?

as it appears, they don't have an answer to that anyway. how sad.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 05, 2006, 04:56:48 PM
i received another mail - this time it's even worse.

senator george allen:

Dear Martina:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of marriage and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate your concerns and want my position to be very clear.

On January 24, 2005 Senator Wayne Allard re-introduced a resolution, which I co-sponsored, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. This amendment declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Further, it prohibits the U.S. Constitution or any State constitution, or State or Federal law, from being construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

As I am sure you know, I support a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution because I believe that recent events and future court decisions indicate that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the traditional definition of marriage. I intend to continue to support the Marriage Amendment and the traditional, common sense definition of marriage in law as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

On a similar note, you may be interested to know that on July 14, 2004, I voted with 47 other Senators to bring a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution up for a vote on the Senate Floor. Unfortunately, the majority of Senators did not support bringing this Amendment to a vote. Sadly, this kind of obstructionism has prevented confirmation of judges and recorded votes on many of our nation’s most important issues. I believe the people have a right to know exactly where their elected officials stand.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website (http://allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family.

With warm regards, I remain


Sincerely,


Senator George Allen
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 05, 2006, 05:00:50 PM
another one. at least a bit more positive (i wonder now whether there is ONE senator who simply says: "yes, i want homosexuals to marry"  :()

unless i get an extremely outrageous or extremely positive one, i guess i will not post the others (unless you want them, but i don't want to unnecessarily fill up space here). but if you want them all, just pm me and i'll forward them to you.

anyway, this is senator richard j. durbin.

Thank you for your message about same sex marriage.  I appreciate hearing
from you.

I oppose discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation, race,
religion, age, gender, disability, color, or national origin.  I am a
cosponsor of the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA), designed to
prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.  In
addition, I am a cosponsor of the hate crimes bill, which would amend the
federal criminal code to establish or strengthen penalties for people who
intentionally cause bodily injury to another person because of actual or
perceived sexual orientation, disability, national origin, race, color,
religion, or gender.  I also have supported efforts to allow health,
family leave, and bereavement benefits to domestic partners.

Decisions about the legal status of marriage historically rest with state
and local authorities.  I do not support a Constitutional amendment either
recognizing or prohibiting same-sex marriages as a national standard.
While I do not support same-sex marriage, the Constitution has been
amended only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and this
issue does not rise to the level of constitutional necessity.

I appreciate knowing your thoughts about this matter and will keep your
concerns in mind as the issue is considered further.  Thank you again for
contacting me.  Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
                  Richard J. Durbin
                  United States Senator
Title: I'm married
Post by: letbe on June 05, 2006, 07:40:28 PM
Legally. In Massachusetts. Where the sky didn't fall. Been kinda rainy lately, but it's still there. As are we. Happily and legally married. And nothing is going to happen to change that. Just the two of us, I might add. This is Boston - Big Love doesn't play well here.

And I've been called a lot of things but "Pollyanna" ain't one of 'em. "Darlene" occasionally, but never "Pollyanna."

I trust our experience in Massachusetts is instructive because here, Roman Catholic conservative state reps who voted against us (the question being re: a ballot question overturning the State Supreme Court decision that allows same sex marriage) a year or two ago are now saying, in essence, what I just did: "the sky didn't fall", "we have bigger problems to deal with", "it is bigotry", "Massachusetts did not become the gay-marriage-Las-Vegas as our Mormon governor prophesied", "the Cardinal should shut up", etc.

Coupla things from the news today that bear repeating:

Even the right knows they are being pandered to.

Bush doesn't care, per an anonymous friend quoted in NEWSWEEK.

It's a cynical attempt to shore up the conservative Christian voters which will backfire.

The GOP is heading for a disaster in November and - hear me now and thank me later - they are terrified, terrified, that a Democratic majority in the House and Senate will impeach Bush. Not for a BJ, btw, but for what are called, in Constitutional language, "high crimes and misdemeanors" the list of which is too long to cover here. We could start with "lying" though, and take it from there. I mean, if "lying about a BJ, not the BJ itself" got Billy C in the shit, imagine where "lying about weapons of mass destruction and false intelligence findings which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's" could end up.

Given the budget deficit and nine trillion dollar national debt; the disaster still unfolding around Katrina - the lack of planning, the lack of engineering, the criminal neglect of the levee system, the utter lack of a timely response - as well as the racism, criminality, and corruption involved in the clean-up; the war in Iraq; the spread of nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea; the abandonment of our allies (and us by our allies); the cost of energy; the growing consequences of global warming; the way-outta-control cost of healthcare; immigration; education; stagnating wages...I could go on but the American people, ultimately and yes, very slowly, have come to know they are being hosed with three days of debate on this topic followed by a vote WHICH THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE KNOWS TODAY IT WILL LOSE.

Almost makes me cynical.

And here's the kicker: kids (which to me means anyone under 40) don't give a shit. Overwhelmingly younger people respond to pollsters and say they don't care - it's simply not an issue for them.

Dolly Parton was right: sooner or later straight people are going to realize that now we can be just as miserable as them.

P.T. Barnum was right too: There IS a sucker born every minute. It's just that they grow up and sooner or later, enough of 'em stop being suckers.

Finally, I think some of you weigh the ADVOCATE's influence a bit too heavily. Very few people, despite what I've read here, take them seriously. Fewer do so, I might add, on Capitol Hill.

Chill, people. History, not to mention demographics - on this one at least - is on our side.



 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: pylon101 on June 05, 2006, 10:01:25 PM
Letbe,

You definitely sound more articulated than infamous Kenneth Starr. And you would have better stuff to work with.

But having time while on vacation in Sharm El Shekh, a great diving resort on the Read Sea, I have read the HRC 540 pages memoirs!
 
Besides many other things worth of reading Hillary,  I concluded that the impeachment process makes all sides deeply hurt. This painful and dirty process makes administration incapable of doing anything. And it would be at the very time when the country badly needs management. 

I agree that BC is almost saint compared to BJ. But the chance to get impeachment would be hardly reachable: it wouldn't be possible to get 2/3 of the Senate anyway.

The time has come to see into the future! And it doesn't look all that bad.
Title: Re: I'm married
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 05, 2006, 11:06:35 PM
Finally, I think some of you weigh the ADVOCATE's influence a bit too heavily. Very few people, despite what I've read here, take them seriously. Fewer do so, I might add, on Capitol Hill.

I have never put a lot of stock in the advocate, but my take on them is not really the point. If the conservatives can hold up a magazine with that cover and say it's a major gay magazine--which they can credibly do--it hurts us. It really doesn't matter whether the audience has even heard of the advocate.

Not that I think it's the end of the world that the advocate did it, but it sure did annoy me. What an idiotic move, at just the wrong moment.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Nicole on June 06, 2006, 06:18:20 AM
Hi guys. I've been away for a while, but in lieu of recent events in Washington, I found myself enraged and disgusted, and decided to pay a visit to show some support. Just rest assured that many heterosexuals are as outraged as you are about this proposed amendment to the Constitution (can you say BIGOTS?)

I have written an e-mail to Congress expressing to them my disgust with this issue. I've also told them to use my hard earning money to keep me safe and other worthwhile causes and stop wasting time trying to write discrimination into the Constitution.

I am so angry with this administration about... EVERYTHING! But to risk people's happiness just to boost up their numbers shows a new moral low I couldn't think they could reach. They never seize to amaze me.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gboo on June 06, 2006, 08:40:03 AM
Yeah, that was really stupid timing by the Advocate.  Looks like they valued circulation numbers over the greater good.

A few months ago I remember seeing a couple of articles and op-eds raising the question, "if you support gay marriage, don't you have to support polygamy too?"  My answer was no, they're clearly different, but I couldn't articulate a good reason why I felt that way.  Then I saw this in Slate -- http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/.  Basically, it says that the issue is that marriage only works between two people, because one of its fundamental elements is the exclusivity of the relationship.  Polygamy doesn't work because of the jealousy factor.

I also think you could argue that marriage is basically an economic and legal relationship and the rules surrounding it were developed with the idea that it would involve two people.  For example, most states have inheritance laws requiring that half of a married person's estate go to the other spouse.  Same thing with property laws -- ownership rules regarding real estate were written to deal with a married couple.  Gay marriage doesn't interfere with those assumptions in any way.  No laws or regulations that depend on the definition of marriage would have to be changed if men were allowed to marry men and women could marry women.  But if people could have multiple spouses, legally there would be havoc.

Of course, that probably won't take care of the issue for people who are just looking for reasons to oppose gay marriage.  But at least it satisfies my personal question of why I think gay marriage and polygamy are different.

The good news: (1) the constitutional amendment is not going to pass.  It still infuriates me that it came up in the first place, but at least we won't have to deal with it as a reality. (2) I am certain deep in my bones that by the time my 3-year-old is ready to get married, if his chosen partner is another man, they will be allowed to get married.  As someone point out up-thread, gay marriage is accepted by those under 40 at a much higher rate.  People who are in their twenties and younger are growing up seeing committed gay couples all around them.  My 6-year-old niece and nephew (twins) recently attended a gay wedding (in Mass. so it was even legal!!) and my nephew is currently telling everyone about his plans to marry his best (male) friend when they grow up and none of their playmates have questioned it.  Within 20 years, the majority of voters in this country are going to be people for whom gay relationships are ordinary and the real question about gay marriage will be "what was the fuss about?"
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on June 06, 2006, 09:50:51 AM
are we or are we not in favour of the proposition that people should live the way they chose?

People should be able to live as they choose, and as long as all particpants are of legal age of consent, then cool.

However, if you have a fear of commitment, or don't want to settle down, don't try to pass off your "consecutive multiple relationships" as a marriage.

Marriage is between two people, and if you don't want just one person in your life, then don't get married.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 06, 2006, 10:45:36 AM
David Buckel, Marriage Project director of Lambda Legal, a national organization working to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and others, said the amendment would be damaging to the lives of same-sex couples and families, which raise millions of children.

“It would brand lesbian and gay men as legally inferior individuals,” he said. “It would write into the supreme law of the land that this group of people are inferior, and when it’s the law, it’s a message to everyone else in society that they have license to discriminate.”

 :(
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 06, 2006, 11:05:35 AM
Australia's PM John Howard is now pursuing a constitutional ammendment to ensure that marriage is defined exclusively as being between a man and a woman. There has to be considerable effort to have these so called leaders removed from office. enough is enough.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: JohnJay on June 06, 2006, 01:08:02 PM
I thought I'd check in on this thread what with the events in the news of late.  It really is infuriating wasting the Senate's time for a hate-induced bill that doesn't have a chance of passing... all for the purpose of GOP politics bolstering the right-wing vote in time for the November election.  They can say... "see, we tried to do this for you".  Right.

The whole "protecting the sanctity of marriage" argument is pure BS, and strikes me as incredibly hollow every time I hear it.  If they were truly wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage, here's a proposition of my own to tack onto the amendment:  Make divorce illegal to obtain for parents with children under the age of 18. (the ONLY exceptions would be for emotional or physical abuse, and the perpetrator of the abuse would have to stand trial... so as to avoid "staged" fake consensual divorces).  This should show how committed the right wing is to stand up for the REAL problem with the family today.  Of course, my "modest proposal" is tongue in cheek...  since children growing up in a forced loveless marriage is hell, too... just like divorce.  However, if the right wing wants to go to extremes and restrict people's lives for the purpose of protecting marriage.... why not pretend to be *really* sincere and go to the full extreme and accept my proposal!  At least with it, they won't look like the one-track, anti-gay bigots that they really are.
 


Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 06, 2006, 02:18:27 PM
Salon just posted an interesting cover story on the Senate debate. The lede:

http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/06/gay_marriage/

Quote
June 6, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- There is something queer about this week's Senate crusade to outlaw gay marriage. If you listen closely, the leaders who oppose single-sex unions refuse to talk about gay people. They talk about activist judges, welfare rolls, the rights of voters and the birthrate of single mothers in Scandinavia. But there is not a gay man, a lesbian woman or a bisexual teenager in the mix.


This section was interesting too:

Quote
Daniels, who describes himself as the child of a single welfare mother, had gathered black pastors, Hispanic leaders, rabbis and a Mormon elder to make the case against lasting homosexual bonds. But rather than talk about gay marriage, a dozen speakers, including Colorado GOP Sen. Wayne Allard, took turns expounding on the importance of loving, two-parent homes for children. They talked about the damage done by deadbeat dads in the inner city, and the importance of family in minority communities. As the Rev. Eve Nunez, an Arizona pastor put it, "America has been wandering in a wilderness of social problems caused by family disintegration."

The press corps who had gathered for the event appeared universally baffled by the argument being made from behind the microphones. "How would outlawing gay marriage encourage heterosexual fathers to stick around?" asked the first wire service reporter to be called on for questions. "Why not outlaw divorce?" another scribe asked Allard later.

It's nice to see the journalists are asking the obvious questions for once. I haven't seen the rest of the coverage yet. Hopefully they're citing this preposterous gap, but I doubt it.
Title: Hypocrisy Watch, Part Three
Post by: letbe on June 06, 2006, 02:18:33 PM
From "Politics at the Altar" in the current online edition of Newsweek - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/?GT1=8211

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush.

The transparency of this fraud - the contempt in which the Bushies hold their supporters, let alone what they think of us - is driving the sane people away from the Republican party in droves. They have been taken over by a kind of Christian Taliban and it scares the bejesus out of the principled right.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: MellorSJ on June 06, 2006, 02:26:54 PM
Australia's PM John Howard is now pursuing a constitutional ammendment to ensure that marriage is defined exclusively as being between a man and a woman. There has to be considerable effort to have these so called leaders removed from office. enough is enough.
He (and his lackeys) also rescinded the new law in the ACT legalizing marriage.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: 1224butternut on June 06, 2006, 02:43:06 PM
The basic question on banning gay marriage: "How would you feel if your president proposed a constitutional ammendment designed specifically to descriminate against you?"  We are only political pawns...goddamn, when is it going to stop?  Just when we think we have gotten somewhere, we are shown, we have gained so little.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 06, 2006, 08:34:14 PM
i started physical therapy on my knees today and on the intake form, i didn't chicken out and made an extra box under "marital status" and checked it: "not allowed to marry."

sometimes i just don't feel like making an issue out of it with strangers, even though most of the public still feels no remorse about making an issue out of it with me. it's kind of preposterous that they would even take the stance that i'm making an issue out of it when it means almost nothing to them and could mean the world to me (if i ever meet a husband).

usually i do it now, though last week, when i went to the knee doctor, i chickened out.

i just think it's important to point it out to everyone we can every time we can, particularly when they ask us, routinely on a form, what's your status--oh, none of those, actually, i'm not allowed.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: letbe on June 06, 2006, 09:41:37 PM
i started physical therapy on my knees today and on the intake form, i didn't chicken out and made an extra box under "marital status" and checked it: "not allowed to marry."

Ahh, c'mon, Dave: at least you didn't write "Yes" next to the box marked "Sex?" Urban legend has it that a Pan Am stewardess applicant once did, way back when... 8)

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: letbe on June 06, 2006, 10:18:13 PM
But the chance to get impeachment would be hardly reachable: it wouldn't be possible to get 2/3 of the Senate anyway.

Nick

Small FYI: while indeed you're correct that a two-thirds majority vote by members of the Senate to remove the President would be unlikely, (unless the Dems get luckier than even I think they will - or even could - come November. Of course, if Bush starts drinking again, in which case even the Republicans might think twice, all bets are off...) the term "impeachment" refers to the bringing of charges, much like an indictment in a criminal matter, not the "conviction" and subsequent removal from office a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate (acting, in essence, as the jury) would effect. As such a vote would mean Dick Cheney would have to come out of hiding AND put down his gun, I don't think it's something the Dem's would expect - or even want - to win.

"Impeachment" requires a simple majority vote in the House of Representives, so that initial step is entirely possible and is, in fact if not neccesarily in reality - they differ, lots, in both DC and Moscow, as you no doubt know - the basis of the Republican fund-raising campaign that's begun in advance of the mid-term Congressional elections. In essence their message to the faithful is "either give us lots (more) money so we don't lose control of the House or they'll impeach Bush."

None of this has much to do with gay marriage except to note, in passing, how much things have changed for the Bushies and how low he and they will stoop in an effort to stem their losses. I suggest to you it won't work.



Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Carissa on June 06, 2006, 11:44:29 PM
Gay marriage is "eclipse of God": Vatican
By Philip Pullella Tue Jun 6, 9:46 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060606/ts_nm/pope_gays_dc

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday that gay marriage, abortion, lesbians wanting to bear children and a host of other practices it sees as threats to the traditional family were signs of "the eclipse of God."

A 60-page document, called "Family and Human Procreation," was issued just days after President Bush urged the Senate to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

m o r e . . . (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060606/ts_nm/pope_gays_dc)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Marge_Innavera on June 07, 2006, 06:08:03 AM
another one. at least a bit more positive (i wonder now whether there is ONE senator who simply says: "yes, i want homosexuals to marry"  :()
anyway, this is senator richard j. durbin.

Thank you for your message about same sex marriage.  I appreciate hearing
from you.

I oppose discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation, race,
religion, age, gender, disability, color, or national origin.  [etc.]

I hope we hear more on this from Sen. Durbin!

Lieberman's response is a pretty good indication of what kind of President he would be.  All lip service but cave in like a thrift shop card table when it comes right down to it.  He reminds me of the "statesmen" during the Civil Rights era who would slyly assent to the status quo but would bleat like buggered sheep whenever there was some act of violence and they wanted to dissociate from it. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Ellen (tellyouwhat) on June 07, 2006, 07:04:28 AM
But the chance to get impeachment would be hardly reachable: it wouldn't be possible to get 2/3 of the Senate anyway.

Nick

Small FYI: while indeed you're correct that a two-thirds majority vote by members of the Senate to remove the President would be unlikely, (unless the Dems get luckier than even I think they will - or even could - come November. Of course, if Bush starts drinking again, in which case even the Republicans might think twice, all bets are off...) the term "impeachment" refers to the bringing of charges, much like an indictment in a criminal matter, not the "conviction" and subsequent removal from office a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate (acting, in essence, as the jury) would effect. As such a vote would mean Dick Cheney would have to come out of hiding AND put down his gun, I don't think it's something the Dem's would expect - or even want - to win.

"Impeachment" requires a simple majority vote in the House of Representives, so that initial step is entirely possible and is, in fact if not neccesarily in reality - they differ, lots, in both DC and Moscow, as you no doubt know - the basis of the Republican fund-raising campaign that's begun in advance of the mid-term Congressional elections. In essence their message to the faithful is "either give us lots (more) money so we don't lose control of the House or they'll impeach Bush."

None of this has much to do with gay marriage except to note, in passing, how much things have changed for the Bushies and how low he and they will stoop in an effort to stem their losses. I suggest to you it won't work.



Sorry, I looked back through the threads a little and couldn't figure out on what grounds you think Bush should be impeached.  If it was due to Scooter Libby's leak and/or Plamegate, maybe we could get rid of Cheney too.  IMO he should go first.  Remember the good old days when the worst VP we could imagine was Agnew?  If Agnew was Cheney he would have been forced to resign by now.  In my dreams --

Yes it's outrageous how the GOP is currently politicizing the gay marriage issue, but a thought came to me last night after receiving an activist e-mail from Dems about the net-neutrality issue, which is also up for vote this week, supposedly tomorrow (Thursday).  The Bush administration has a long history of keeping divisive issues (like gay marriage) in the headlines while quietly passing legislation that allows more pollution,more logging, more corporate welfare, on and on - so maybe we ought to pay attention to this net- neutrality issue.  I admit, I'm not sure if it has a chance of passing, but that is why it's scary.  How come I have heard that the gay marriage ban probably won't pass, but I can't find info on the vote breakdown on net neutrality?  The internet affects us all.

In a nutshell, this is my best understanding.  Corporations are trying to influence laws so they could charge extra internet fees and slow down web access for users who are not willing to pay.  If you wish to sign a petition against this, here is a link:
http://oneamericacommittee.com/action/sign-petitions/email/openinternet

(but you would have to do it today, Wednesday, if it's true the vote is tomorrow.)

I hope this isn't too much off topic, but in a way I think it's on-topic, due to the shrill nature of Bush politics this week.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: cms on June 07, 2006, 07:44:44 AM
Here's Jon Stewart picking apart Bill Bennett on the gay marriage issue.  You can see how the conservative argument completely falls apart when faced with tough questions.   By the end, it becomes clear to anyone watching that the MPA is a total sham, a desperation move (well, we won't know that until midterms) to rile up their base.  "Base" being the core 30% or so who still adore Bush and who also believe their ancestors rode dinosaurs to church...(from SNL). 

Scroll down to second post...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gboo on June 07, 2006, 07:50:48 AM
John Stewart blasted Bill Bennett on gay marriage yesterday.  This site has partial video  http://www.crooksandliars.com/, and the episode should re-run tonight at 8:00

Here is an excerpt:

Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?

Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families...

Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink)

Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters..

Stewart: So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling.

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

        * * * * * * * * * * *

Bennett: The question of this debate is how do you define marriage, where do you draw the line. Immediately on the heels of this debate-

Stewart: Don’t go slippery slope on me because that’s ridiculous

Bennett: No it isn’t. What do you say to the polygamists? What do you say to the polygamists?

Stewart: You don’t say anything to the polygamists. That is a choice to get three or four wives. That is not a biological condition that I gots to get laid by three or 4 women that I’m married to. That’s a choice. Being gay is part of the human condition. There’s a huge difference.

How come I have heard that the gay marriage ban probably won't pass, but I can't find info on the vote breakdown on net neutrality?

tellyouwhat -- www.dailykos.com is following the net neutrality issue closely and should be a good place to get the latest news.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisFewa on June 07, 2006, 08:15:25 AM
It really is sad, that such religious holy people can be so mean spirited.  I pity them all so much.

One thing always makes me smile, as much as they want to you cannot stop the wheels of change, and they are rolling. 

Give it time, people die and people learn and always always those wheels keep on rollin.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: letbe on June 07, 2006, 08:54:07 AM

Sorry, I looked back through the threads a little and couldn't figure out on what grounds you think Bush should be impeached. 


Um, how 'bout we start with general principles? Not to mention lying, the smirk, faking the intelligence (if that it can be called...) used to justify starting the ongoing war that's so far claimed more than 2600 American and God knows how many Iraqi lives; Abu Ghraib prison while we're on the subject, extraordinary rendition, torture; then move on to appointing Rumsfeld, appointing Gonzalez, wiretapping, electoral fraud times two, political abuse of the IRS and just about every other agency of the federal government, Jack Abramoff (see "lying", above); the price of oil, the weather, gutting Medicaid, the sham drug program for seniors, putting God back into politics, supporting "intelligent design" - the name alone of which, btw, is a howler; sucking up to Putin, ignoring the clear intent of Congress over and over again, Teri Schiavo...shall I go on?

And that's before we get to his latest - but surely, not last - hypocritical and meaningless attempt to enshrine bigotry into the US Constitution to which this thread is devoted.

Seriously, I'm not at all certain he will be, even if a Democratic majority in the House results from the November elections.

That doesn't mean I don't think he should be.

I totally agree with you on net neutrality (the corporate shysters' attempts to abrogate being just one more example of the overwhelming power of money in our political - and hence economic and social and even intellectual and cultural systems) and sometimes despair that electoral politics is so often no longer an effective agent for change. But it's all we've got and letting the bastards win isn't the answer either. It's just that they seem so far ahead most days.

I'm confident, though, that we're on the winning side (which is to say, by not losing) on this one. Age has given me a longer view and reading history a longer one still: stuff changes, not always by legislation even if that's an important part of making change happen. In my half-century of more or less conscious life, I've seen changes in the world around me that - in retrospect - blow my socks off. I've no reason to think progress - in fits and starts, sure, and seldom perfect or complete - will stop.

Before I die (I'm hoping for another 20 years or so) I fully expect same sex marriage will be the law - maybe not always the practice in some benighted places, but the law - of the land.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisFewa on June 07, 2006, 09:08:16 AM
Rock on, gay marriage it's the law!
Title: The Senate Voted
Post by: letbe on June 07, 2006, 09:39:39 AM
And the attempt failed - 49 for, 48 against, 60 votes needed to send to the full Senate where a two thirds majority would be required so "Bingo" and clear the board.

Word to US Senate: now go do something useful.

FYI: MSN poll (admittedly not scientific but hey, pimping here) found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147350  (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147350) currently says 37% for (an attempt to ban gay marriage via amendment) and 61% opposed. 71,000 responses so far...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 07, 2006, 12:02:13 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: kaboyz on June 07, 2006, 12:34:08 PM
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Not Voting
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Not Voting
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: kaboyz on June 07, 2006, 12:38:58 PM
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced

So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 07, 2006, 01:09:38 PM
thanks for the vote-list, and the divorce-list kaboyz.

does anyone know why hagel didn't vote? was he out of town? (purposely?) i was hoping he'd be on our side.

much thanks to the Rs who were with us.

i'm very glad it failed to get a majority, though it's annoying it got even a tiny plurality. stilll, wasn't it almost the same vote in (04?), with several more Ds in the senate? if so, that's an improvement.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 07, 2006, 01:24:24 PM
nyt story on the vote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/washington/07cnd-cong.html?hp&ex=1149739200&en=0dd25258523c857c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Quote
Supporters of the ban gained one vote from the last time the Senate considered the issue prior to the 2004 election. But they still were unable to break the symbolic 50-vote threshold despite an increase in the Republican majority. Two Republicans who sided with them the last time, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, voted against limiting debate.

i'd say that's a gain for us. we peeled two more off their side. a very small gain, but in the right direction. and two in two years is actually not a bad rate.

and here are the good guys and the traitors:

Quote
Along with Mr. Specter and Mr. Gregg, the Republican senators who voted against cloture were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and John E Sununu of New Hampshire.

James E. Jeffords, independent of Vermont, also joined 40 Democrats in opposing cloture.

The 47 Republicans favoring cloture were joined by two Democrats, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Not voting were two Democrats, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, and one Republican, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

so that old codger byrd is still a bigot? am i getting him confused, or wasn't he around for the civil rights movement and also against it initially?

well, he'll be gone soon. (though the Rs seem to be taking over that old D stronghold.)

i found this math interesting:

Quote
"We have 45 states that have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman," said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas. "Since the last time we voted in the Senate, we've seen a total of 14 states take this issue up on the ballot. And you've got another seven set for this fall. So we are making progress."

doesn't that make 52 states? and counting--still "making progress." clearly the 45 figure is some sort of trumped up bs. why would the times print something so plainly flawed? anyone know what the 45 represents, and/or how many states actually have firm laws?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Nicole on June 07, 2006, 01:26:44 PM
Quote
And the attempt failed - 49 for, 48 against, 60 votes needed


That was close! How come so many educated people (I'm assuming to make it to Congress you need to have at least some brains) can be so idiotic and bigoted on this subject? Aren't they ashamed of themselves? Is it really all a political game to them? Have they no conscience?

I applaud all those who had the balls to vote with their heart.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 07, 2006, 01:29:19 PM
It can be done!


Canada legalises gay marriage
Thu Jul 21 2005


Canada has became the fourth country in the world to legalise gay marriage.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to adopt the legislation despite fierce opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

The bill grants same-sex couples legal rights equal to those in traditional marriages between a man and a woman.

The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain are the only other nations that allow gay marriage nationally, although a number of Canadian provinces have been allowing such legal unions for some time.

Opponents fear churches and religious officials could be sued for refusing to carry out same sex marriages.

But while the legislation grants gays and lesbians the right to full civil marriages, it makes clear that religious officials would not be obliged to marry same-sex couples.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Boris on June 07, 2006, 01:35:14 PM
Dave

I think Brownback was intentionally vague. 45 states have DOMA and/or constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The last vote was in 2004 and since then 14 states have voted for constitutional amendments.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Nicole on June 07, 2006, 01:40:16 PM
It is amazing what a long way Spain has come. When I was born Franco had just died, and the country had been submerged in forty years of extreme conservatism and religious ideology. Censorship and shame were common themes when my parents were growing up. Fear and bigotry where rampant. Then, once the bastard died, the pendulum swang completely the other way and Spain became one of the most liberal, progressive countries in Europe. Today they stand against the almighty Catholic Church that had them under a thumb for so many years, and blatantly defy it by allowing gay marriage, and I APPLAUD them!

Maybe the Bush administration is what the US needed to move forward (scary thought, I know). Maybe reasonable people who see what's going on will finally wake up and make a stance against this bullshit.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: twtplanner on June 07, 2006, 01:58:56 PM
I noted too that ole' coot Byrd is still kicking. The man somehow manages to hang on.  sitting here shaking my head.

terry
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: kaboyz on June 07, 2006, 02:43:50 PM
This morning, the Senate defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment by a 49-48 cloture vote.

The bad news: 49 senators voted in favor of discrimination.

The good news: They failed to get the 60 votes needed to end the debate and move to a vote on the actual amendment.

Anyway, now that this vote is behind us, maybe they will stop wasting our tax dollars on ridiculous non-issues like this one and move on to something important.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: cms on June 07, 2006, 02:55:04 PM
Anyway, now that this vote is behind us, maybe they will stop wasting our tax dollars on ridiculous non-issues like this one and move on to something important.

One would hope, but...
The House majority leader says he plans to introduce the amendment on the House floor next month. 
As for the Senate, next up is the flag burning amendment and permanent repeal of the estate tax,
both of which are expected to fail as well.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: He dare not speak its name
Post by: lauren on June 07, 2006, 03:07:48 PM
I thought you'd like to see this excellent op-ed piece in the Times today. I'm posting all of it here because I believe you need to register at the Times site to see it. 

He dares not speak its name

In avoiding the word 'gay,' the president defines same-sex marriage as only a hetero issue.
By David Link, DAVID LINK is a writer in Sacramento and a member of the Independent Gay Forum, where some of his articles can be found online.
June 7, 2006                Los Angeles Times

LISTENING TO President Bush, you'd never know that the nation is having a debate over gay marriage. His Saturday radio address to the nation had no mention of gay couples — or even homosexual individuals. Instead, we hear such things as "Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith … the commitment of a husband and a wife."

Apparently, for the president, this is an argument of heterosexuals, by heterosexuals and for heterosexuals.

But heterosexuals already have marriage. The reason this debate is going on is because homosexuals do not — and, for the first time, have made the argument that they should.

There is certainly room for disagreement on that point. But to carry on the discussion without even mentioning one entire side is to conduct half an argument.

In this, at least, the president's Christianist supporters — those who use their religion as a political tool — are honest. They do not like homosexuals. Or, when they are being charitable, do not like homosexual "activity."

Their attitude toward lesbians and gay men ranges from hostility to mere condescension. But at least they acknowledge the debate is about homosexuality.

Compare them to the president. He has now addressed this issue publicly in a State of the Union address, in his reelection campaign and in the context of congressional debates over two proposed constitutional amendments that would bar same-sex marriage. But he has yet to address any comments directly to same-sex couples.

The closest he comes to it is to invoke "activist" courts and judges. In a speech Monday, he said that "an amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice."

But they are "activist" precisely and only to the extent that they have ruled in favor of same-sex couples. In the contorted politics of this issue, courts are subjected to attacks on their good faith and credibility because politicians are not willing to say they do not believe that lesbians and gay men are entitled to equality.

But the irony gets thick when the president purports to be evenhanded in conducting this half-debate. Bush said this in his most recent address on the issue: "As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

What Americans is he talking about? The ones he consciously never named in his speech? Does he seriously think lesbians and gay men are being treated with "civility and decency" — much less "tolerance" or "respect" — when he will not meet publicly with a gay or lesbian group on this issue and will not even mention that the debate over same-sex marriage is about them?

It is beyond laughable at this point for the president to say that "all people deserve to have their voices heard" when he is the chief person who will not hear those voices.

If homosexual Americans are not entitled to equal protection, then an honest president would say so and explain why.

We are, perhaps, beyond believing this president to be honest. But if he is to be congratulated by the Christianists for bowing to their wishes, shouldn't they, at least, require him to say what he means?

The answer, apparently, is no. They know exactly what he means and exactly who he is talking about. And if he is less manifest in his dismissal of gays and lesbians than they, his may be the greater insult for being so much more indifferent.

For decades now, lesbians and gay men have been open about our sexual orientation. But the president's message to his supporters is that we should just stick with what worked for so long — at least for heterosexuals. If lesbians and gay men won't go back in the closet, he will do what he can to impose one.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 07, 2006, 03:43:38 PM
lauren well said...it appears that the government wants to discuss the lives of the GBLT community endlessly through misinformation. misrepresentation. and bigotry.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Ellen (tellyouwhat) on June 07, 2006, 04:06:39 PM
Anyway, now that this vote is behind us, maybe they will stop wasting our tax dollars on ridiculous non-issues like this one and move on to something important.

One would hope, but...
The House majority leader says he plans to introduce the amendment on the House floor next month
As for the Senate, next up is the flag burning amendment and permanent repeal of the estate tax,
both of which are expected to fail as well
.


Frist is such a duffus!  If it's true as they say he hopes to run for Prez wow -- he tries to look sincere and he never does!  Like sure, he really believed Terry Shiavo might recover some day -- and yes, it's important to bring this vote up AGAIN! 

Well, the good news is, they aren't passing any legislation.  The bad news is, they have already done so much damage.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Ellen (tellyouwhat) on June 07, 2006, 04:11:04 PM

Sorry, I looked back through the threads a little and couldn't figure out on what grounds you think Bush should be impeached. 


Um, how 'bout we start with general principles? Not to mention lying, the smirk, faking the intelligence (if that it can be called...) used to justify starting the ongoing war that's so far claimed more than 2600 American and God knows how many Iraqi lives; Abu Ghraib prison while we're on the subject, extraordinary rendition, torture; then move on to appointing Rumsfeld, appointing Gonzalez, wiretapping, electoral fraud times two, political abuse of the IRS and just about every other agency of the federal government, Jack Abramoff (see "lying", above); the price of oil, the weather, gutting Medicaid, the sham drug program for seniors, putting God back into politics, supporting "intelligent design" - the name alone of which, btw, is a howler; sucking up to Putin, ignoring the clear intent of Congress over and over again, Teri Schiavo...shall I go on?


Oh, believe me, I know that was a multiple choice question! LOLOL-- and also how much more illegal most of his activities are than having sex with a consenting intern.  I was just thinking the Dick Cheney as poison-pill defense should be neutralized first.

nuff said -- back to our moment of celebration!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 07, 2006, 04:53:33 PM
Quote
And the attempt failed - 49 for, 48 against, 60 votes needed
That was close!

fyi, it wasn't. they needed 67 to pass it, just in that chamber. then same 2/3 in the house and then (is it 3/5?) of the state legislatures.

the state legislatures they could prolly pull off though, since they only need a majority in each.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 07, 2006, 05:30:59 PM
Gay marriage is "eclipse of God": Vatican
By Philip Pullella Tue Jun 6, 9:46 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060606/ts_nm/pope_gays_dc

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday that gay marriage, abortion, lesbians wanting to bear children and a host of other practices it sees as threats to the traditional family were signs of "the eclipse of God."

it's so refreshing to know we can always count on the vatican, isn't it?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: MellorSJ on June 07, 2006, 05:33:02 PM
Quote
And the attempt failed - 49 for, 48 against, 60 votes needed
That was close!

fyi, it wasn't. they needed 67 to pass it, just in that chamber. then same 2/3 in the house and then (is it 3/5?) of the state legislatures.

the state legislatures they could prolly pull off though, since they only need a majority in each.
3/4, I believe, which means 38 states.

Wikipedia sez:

"Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.

The first option must begin in Congress which, by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum) in each house, may initiate an amendment. Alternatively, the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments. To date, all amendments have been proposed by Congress; although state legislatures have on occasion requested the calling of a convention, no such request has yet received the concurrence required for such a convention.

In either case, amendments must have the approval of the legislatures or of smaller ratifying conventions within three-fourths of the states before becoming part of the Constitution. All amendments save one have been submitted to the state legislatures for ratification; only the 21st Amendment was ratified by individual conventions in the states."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 07, 2006, 05:39:40 PM
John Stewart blasted Bill Bennett on gay marriage yesterday.  This site has partial video  http://www.crooksandliars.com/, and the episode should re-run tonight at 8:00

Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families...

Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink)

Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters..

Stewart: So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling.


i just watched. wow. so much even better than i expected. i've never seen bennett lose a debate that badly.

jon really is a treasure.

and i loved that unlike most of our weasely Dem senators, jon just came right out and said the whole thing is about whether you treat gays like any other people: it's a basic fairness issue, no two ways about it. how freaking refreshing.

and how great for jon to pull dick cheney in and to get bennett to say that dick is a hardcore conservative, but not on this because of his daughter.

and he had the best answer yet when bennett talked about marriage being crucial to our society's stability: then why not invite gay people into that to spread the stability?

nice.

the gay ceiling was also perfect, and hysterical.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: KJ on June 07, 2006, 08:34:37 PM
It still amazes me that you can have two people who are the dregs of humanity and as long as they are a man and a woman their right to be together is celebrated. Yet if the couple is both of the same sex, law prohibits recognizing their commitment to each other.  Same sex couples are more likely to have a higher level of commitment, considering all the extra obstacles they have had to face just to be together that  straight couples haven't.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: He dare not speak its name
Post by: imennisshesjack on June 08, 2006, 07:30:50 AM
I thought you'd like to see this excellent op-ed piece in the Times today. I'm posting all of it here because I believe you need to register at the Times site to see it. 

He dares not speak its name

In avoiding the word 'gay,' the president defines same-sex marriage as only a hetero issue.
By David Link, DAVID LINK is a writer in Sacramento and a member of the Independent Gay Forum, where some of his articles can be found online.
June 7, 2006                Los Angeles Times

LISTENING TO President Bush, you'd never know that the nation is having a debate over gay marriage. His Saturday radio address to the nation had no mention of gay couples — or even homosexual individuals. Instead, we hear such things as "Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith … the commitment of a husband and a wife."


Wow, Lauren-- thanks for posting that.

It really defines everything that is wrong with this President, and how he speaks out of both sides of his mouth-- esp. the part about how every American desrerves to be treated with tolerance and respect--but he won't even acknowledge homosexuals by using the words to describe them. I guess you only get tolerance and respect if you're not gay.
Excuse my French, but he's an asshole.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Gonzo on June 08, 2006, 09:29:41 AM
RE: Bush impeachment.

Be careful of what you wish for.  If Bush is knocked out of office we get Cheney (unless they impeach him and then we get Denny Hastert, ugh).  If this change happens within 2 years of the original expiration of that term, that person is still eligible for two, count 'em, two full terms.  This could mean that whoever it is runs a very real possibility of holding that office for just under 10 full years.  I don't think I could stand another neocon Republican for 10 full years.  We need an emoticon representing vomiting, right now.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 08, 2006, 09:44:54 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/07/watch-jon-stewart-slam-co_n_22479.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Gonzo on June 08, 2006, 10:01:29 AM
Yet another fabulous post by Lolita.  Jon Stewart is a real mensch.  Thanks!

A little yiddish lesson.  Mensch=good guy.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Boris on June 08, 2006, 10:24:18 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/07/watch-jon-stewart-slam-co_n_22479.html

Jon Stewart is my hero.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Elevation on June 08, 2006, 10:49:46 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/07/watch-jon-stewart-slam-co_n_22479.html

Jon Stewart is my hero.
Mine too, Boris, mine too. My god, this was good, thanks Lola for the link! (I actually watched the Oscars mainly for Jon's sake - hmmm thing is, I didn't know Heath from Jake at the time :o :-[ but I learned very quickly, though. ;D)


Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Phantom on June 08, 2006, 10:51:53 AM
It still amazes me that you can have two people who are the dregs of humanity and as long as they are a man and a woman their right to be together is celebrated. Yet if the couple is both of the same sex, law prohibits recognizing their commitment to each other.  Same sex couples are more likely to have a higher level of commitment, considering all the extra obstacles they have had to face just to be together that  straight couples haven't.


**cough** AMEN!

going on 8 years...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 08, 2006, 10:54:04 AM
Same sex couples are more likely to have a higher level of commitment, considering all the extra obstacles they have had to face just to be together that  straight couples haven't.

Well I can't agree with that necessarily.   28 years of marriage this year!  :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Three of Nineteen on June 08, 2006, 11:23:03 AM
I saw that Daily Show episode this morning and truly, Jon is a wonderful ally to have against far right (and left) nutjobs like Bennet. He is just such a wonderful levelheaded person, I wish he'd form his own party and become president to rid the US of all that nonsense once and for all.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 08, 2006, 12:22:50 PM
I'm Canadian, I don't know this Bennet guy, boy! his arguments where so lame it's a wonder he'd accept being interviewed AND try to defend...what...how stupid and unprepared he was? All he had to say are clichés one hears here and there in the media. I am totally dumbfounded.
Who is this guy? Does he have political weight? A preacher? A Martian? (sorry Martians)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 08, 2006, 12:54:04 PM
I am Canadian as well, so I didn't know he was either, but he wasn't very imprerssive that is for sure! lol
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: cms on June 08, 2006, 01:55:43 PM
I'm Canadian, I don't know this Bennet guy, boy! his arguments where so lame it's a wonder he'd accept being interviewed AND try to defend...what...how stupid and unprepared he was? All he had to say are clichés one hears here and there in the media.

Bennett was the Secretary of Education under the first Bush.  He's a pretty well known "family values" conservative  - wrote The Book of Virtues and lots of other books on values and morality, and also a diatribe against Clinton.  Interestingly, his brother was Clinton's personal lawyer during impeachment.  A few years back, it was revealed that he was a serious gambler (lost several million dollars in Vegas).  In his own defense, he said that gambling was not one of the vices he spoke out against.  He also considered suing the Vegas casinos who released the information for false advertising - the "whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".  For real.

I think he sounds stupid and unprepared because he's not used to being grilled (although how intelligent can you sound when your position can't be defended logically...).   No one calls these guys on their bullshit because they either (1) agree with the ideas (e.g., Fox News) or (2) are under the impression that objective journalism means never acting as a filter (e.g., Swift Boat Vets).

I love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.   These fake news guys put some real ones to shame.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 08, 2006, 01:59:21 PM
I'm Canadian, I don't know this Bennet guy, boy! his arguments where so lame it's a wonder he'd accept being interviewed AND try to defend...what...how stupid and unprepared he was? All he had to say are clichés one hears here and there in the media. I am totally dumbfounded.
Who is this guy? Does he have political weight? A preacher? A Martian? (sorry Martians)

that was the big surprise. bennet is a damn smart guy, and quick on his feet, usually gets the better of his verbal opponents.

he was education secretary (under reagan?), which is normally a pretty minor post since it's virtually all run at the state/local level here, but he used it as a platform to wage war on the current system--which does have a lot of problems--and got a lot of attention. that launched him into the public eye, where he has written a series of bestsellers and remained prominent as a right-winger thinker. very moralistic school-marn crap like "The Book Of Virtues." (Yes, he actually titled a book that--condescension is his middle name.)

i believe he comes from a scholarly background, but i'm not sure. yes, he carries a lot of clout, but not in a traditional way. he's carved out a fairly unusual path to achieving/maintaining it. he's deeply respected by right-wingers, and i think even lefties tend to respect his intellect. and sometimes his candor. he can be really mule-headed but sometimes he'll be surprisingly honest about some of his sides failings. sometimes.

oddly enough, his brother is a hardcore dem, and one of washington's top lawyers. he was bill clinton's lawyer--i think his personal lawyer when he was president. somehow these two boys grew up in opposite directions. but they're both smart as a whip, don't ever underestimate either.

that's why it was really so shocking to see. i don't think i've ever seen bennett whipped around like that. i bet it's been a long time since he has. a bet he is in a rage right now.

(he's prolly also pissed that rather than discuss his book, the whole thing was gay marriage. i'm sure he's used to it coming up at some point, but i think jon caught him by surprise opening with it. not that it should have mattered much, since he argues about it all the time. the tradeoff was that instead of a single segment, bennett got to be 'no offense--the whole back end' of the show.' hehehe. one of jon's many great one-off lines.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 08, 2006, 02:07:50 PM
I love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.   These fake news guys put some real ones to shame.

i was writing at the same time as you, so i duplicated some of the stuff, and your memory was better.

i couldn't agree more with your last line (above). the part gets me is that these two are supposedly extremely popular among the mainstream media, and yet they keep doing the "news" exactly the same. i guess they feel trapped in their boxes and see no way out. i hate to say this, but journos--especially daily journos--tend not to be the most creative types. they tend not see.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 08, 2006, 02:13:31 PM
This just came in today's FRC email (they are a spinoff of Focus On The Family, and one of the biggest backers of the ban on gay marriage). (And FYI for non-Americans, Promise Keepers is also an ultra-right christian organization for men--the "promise" is to be good christian dad's or something similar):

Quote
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sneers that defenders of marriage are bigots "pure and simple." Such talk is giving aid and comfort to others who publicly mock marriage. We've reported on the Truro, Mass., fire engineer who was fired because he signed a pro-marriage petition. Now we learn that in Florida, police harassed and ridiculed petition gatherers. The police officers in Sunrise, Fla., ordered Nathan Dunn to stop circulating a petition for signatures to put marriage on the ballot in the Sunshine State. Dunn is Vice President of the Florida Family Policy Council. Two of the male officers mocked the petition drive by publicly kissing each other. Worse, this incident took place at a Promise Keepers gathering. The petition effort had been approved by PK leaders. Sergeant Stephen Allen, it quickly became clear, is a backer of gay marriage. FRC is looking into these actions and will seek an appropriate legal and legislative remedy. The right of petition is fundamental. Harassment such as we've seen in Massachusetts and Florida give the lie to Ted Kennedy's slander. There is bigotry in this debate--and it's all coming from his side. Does Kennedy think his fellow Democrats in the Pennsylvania state legislature are bigots? While Mr. Kennedy was engaged in hate speech on the Senate floor against supporters of marriage, the Democratic-controlled House in Pennsylvania approved a marriage protection amendment for the Keystone State. The vote was 136-61. Michael Geer and the Pennsylvania Family Institute are to be congratulated for this important victory.


I'm just astounded to hear that we have reached the point where two (straight?) men will kiss as a joke at Promise Keeper's rally. Especially to mock someone trying to ban gay marriage.

We have come a long, long way.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 08, 2006, 02:20:09 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/07/watch-jon-stewart-slam-co_n_22479.html

Jon Stewart is my hero.
Mine too, Boris, mine too. My god, this was good, thanks Lola for the link! (I actually watched the Oscars mainly for Jon's sake - hmmm thing is, I didn't know Heath from Jake at the time :o :-[ but I learned very quickly, though. ;D)


You are welcome guys!  ;)

I thought Jon did a great job at the Oscars as well, I like him!   And I like what he has to say and how he says it.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Gonzo on June 08, 2006, 02:58:29 PM
A few years back, it was revealed that he was a serious gambler (lost several million dollars in Vegas).  In his own defense, he said that gambling was not one of the vices he spoke out against.

This is my stereotype of the right.  Our vices are okay, yours aren't.  I know all conservatives aren't like this but it sure seems like it.   :P :P
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 08, 2006, 03:08:17 PM
A few years back, it was revealed that he was a serious gambler (lost several million dollars in Vegas).  In his own defense, he said that gambling was not one of the vices he spoke out against.

This is my stereotype of the right.  Our vices are okay, yours aren't.  I know all conservatives aren't like this but it sure seems like it.   :P :P

Someone on that link (for the video) said Jon should have asked him about the sin of gluttoney!  :P

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: rnmina on June 08, 2006, 04:22:41 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/07/watch-jon-stewart-slam-co_n_22479.html
Thanks for sharing this clip.
Bill  never ceases to amaze me.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: KJ on June 08, 2006, 04:44:34 PM
Same sex couples are more likely to have a higher level of commitment, considering all the extra obstacles they have had to face just to be together that  straight couples haven't.

Well I can't agree with that necessarily.   28 years of marriage this year!  :)

Hi Lola,
 Maybe i should of said something like " Same sex couples are OFTEN more likely".  I'm all for love in it's purest form no matter gay or straight. You ask what i mean by "purest form"? Well good example of unpure would be someone marrying for money......such as my stepmother( the Queen of QVC). And she won't even fix him dinner after he is at work all day earning cash so she can sit home and powershop via the internet >:(.  I'm sure most Stepmothers are wonderful people. :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Gonzo on June 08, 2006, 04:55:10 PM
Same sex couples are more likely to have a higher level of commitment, considering all the extra obstacles they have had to face just to be together that  straight couples haven't.
Well I can't agree with that necessarily.   28 years of marriage this year!  :)
Hi Lola,
Maybe i should of said something like " Same sex couples are OFTEN more likely".  I'm all for love in it's purest form no matter gay or straight. You ask what i mean by "purest form"? Well good example of unpure would be someone marrying for money......such as my stepmother( the Queen of QVC). And she won't even fix him dinner after he is at work all day earning cash so she can sit home and powershop via the internet >:(.  I'm sure most Stepmothers are wonderful people. :)
How about this possibility.  A gay couple with the same degree of commitment as a straight couple might seem to be more committed when you factor in the additional emotional, societal baggage.  Plus, there is probably a greater percentage of straight, committed couples than gay, committed couples.  This might make the gay, committed couples seem rarer, hence, their partnerships more committed than they actually are.  Is that maybe a little finessing where both of you could be right?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: NWWaguy on June 08, 2006, 05:42:52 PM
To quote Dave above:  'I'm just astounded to hear that we have reached the point where two (straight?) men will kiss as a joke at Promise Keeper's rally. Especially to mock someone trying to ban gay marriage.

We have come a long, long way'

Amen, brother!!

Sorry for a rather long post, but I'm trying to speak to several issues.   Note:  My wife and I have been married since 1968 ... committed, yuppers!  Quick notes on the issues involved in the question on this thread:  Does anyone remember the 'Purple Pamphlet' published by the Johns Committee (no pun intended) of the State of Florida?  It was meant to demean and destroy the gay community ... however, it listed all the hot gay places, even glory holes and even defined what that meant in a comprehensive glossary.  My wife as a reporter for the Miami News at the time, got several copies of the hot item for her gay friends.   BTW: her best friend was committed to his lover for some 35 years until his death.

We lived through and helped knock off Anita Bryant's career, in two ways ... a boycott of orange juice and the bank she was doing ads for.  Very effective tactic.

The ongoing fight includes her run for office here in the State of Washington and now this week's victory as we (not just the two of us, of course))sucessfully fought down a petition drive to put our newly minted gay rights legislation on the ballot.  By working within the system, we managed to keep 'em from getting nearly enough petitions signed.

I notice rude name calling on the thread here and I don't think that's the way to keep the ball rolling for the rights we deserve.  No one I know is a one-issue voter, and with the untold hours of labor and huge numbers of dollars spent on our ads and the upcoming book designed to get people to come to the site and become part of our family, I hope we can tone down the urge to be a bit nasty when expressing ourselves.

Thanks for sticking with me.  In the spirit of BBM and the forum, let's smother 'em with honey!!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 08, 2006, 06:44:42 PM
I am wondering if anyone on this thread can tell me why, I, as a bisexual man, should not also be allowed equal rights to
marry both the man and the woman I have loved and been in a committed relationships with for many years--just as two
same-sex people are demanding equal rights to marry?  Or, at the very least, why I should not be permitted to make a legal
arrangement by which my partners and any children we might share could be covered and protected as much upon my
death as any marriage allows for?

I don't mean to be playing Devil's advocate here at all.  I'm dead serious about this, as I'm sure are many other bisexual
people who find themselves in deeply committed relationships with at least one man and one woman and feel they need
that commitment for their lives to be truly complete and fulfilled.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 08, 2006, 06:57:30 PM
Hi Lola,
 Maybe i should of said something like " Same sex couples are OFTEN more likely".  I'm all for love in it's purest form no matter gay or straight. You ask what i mean by "purest form"? Well good example of unpure would be someone marrying for money......such as my stepmother( the Queen of QVC). And she won't even fix him dinner after he is at work all day earning cash so she can sit home and powershop via the internet >:(.  I'm sure most Stepmothers are wonderful people. :)

Yes and I am sure those nasty unions (so sorry about your step mom, that is just not right) exist in same sex unions as well.

How about this possibility.  A gay couple with the same degree of commitment as a straight couple might seem to be more committed when you factor in the additional emotional, societal baggage.  Plus, there is probably a greater percentage of straight, committed couples than gay, committed couples.  This might make the gay, committed couples seem rarer, hence, their partnerships more committed than they actually are.  Is that maybe a little finessing where both of you could be right?

Maybe Twistedboy, I am just not sure.  Don't forget I live in Ontario and the gay couples I know are in long term, decades, committed relationships, and honestly they have not had it that bad.  Full support of family, neighbours, friends, employer etc.   In fact they are all well off and good looking, they have good lives! lol   They can marry and adopt.........it's all good.

I am wondering if anyone on this thread can tell me why, I, as a bisexual man, should not also be allowed equal rights to
marry both the man and the woman I have loved and been in a committed relationships with for many years--just as two
same-sex people are demanding equal rights to marry?  Or, at the very least, why I should not be permitted to make a legal
arrangement by which my partners and any children we might share could be covered and protected as much upon my
death as any marriage allows for?

I don't mean to be playing Devil's advocate here at all.  I'm dead serious about this, as I'm sure are many other bisexual
people who find themselves in deeply committed relationships with at least one man and one woman and feel they need
that commitment for their lives to be truly complete and fulfilled.

You can make arrangements for that to happen.  You can put provisions into your will that they are both (all) cared for.

As a wife of a business owner though, I can honestly say I would not pay an employees coverage on TWO spouses!   :-\

I also think a marriage, has to be between two people, not three or four or five.........that is kind of where the polygamy argument comes in to play. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ImEnnisShesJack on June 09, 2006, 05:02:39 AM
It still amazes me that you can have two people who are the dregs of humanity and as long as they are a man and a woman their right to be together is celebrated. Yet if the couple is both of the same sex, law prohibits recognizing their commitment to each other.  Same sex couples are more likely to have a higher level of commitment, considering all the extra obstacles they have had to face just to be together that  straight couples haven't.

Worse than that - those same to dregs can LIVE together for seven years and be recognized as legal partners.  They don't even have to go to church, believe in [a] god, or go down to the courthouse to the J. of the P. 

I am willing to remove the religiosity from the argument and let "marriage" be a church-recognized union between a man and a woman but allow same-sex couples the legal union of a civil ceremony that grants them the same rights afforded to het couples.  Including divorce.  Make it legal if not for the sanctity of the relationship, then for the rest of the rights afforded therein:  Insurance, wills, taxes, medical care...Give the gays & lesbians the same chance at failure as we do the straights.

(not to be fatalistic, but it really frosts my biscuit that one of the primary arguments against gay marriage is that we will somehow detract from the holy sacrament of marriage.  Seems to me like the sacrament is in enough trouble on its own.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Nax on June 09, 2006, 06:10:57 AM
It still amazes me that you can have two people who are the dregs of humanity and as long as they are a man and a woman their right to be together is celebrated. Yet if the couple is both of the same sex, law prohibits recognizing their commitment to each other.  Same sex couples are more likely to have a higher level of commitment, considering all the extra obstacles they have had to face just to be together that  straight couples haven't.

Worse than that - those same to dregs can LIVE together for seven years and be recognized as legal partners.  They don't even have to go to church, believe in [a] god, or go down to the courthouse to the J. of the P. 

I am willing to remove the religiosity from the argument and let "marriage" be a church-recognized union between a man and a woman but allow same-sex couples the legal union of a civil ceremony that grants them the same rights afforded to het couples.  Including divorce.  Make it legal if not for the sanctity of the relationship, then for the rest of the rights afforded therein:  Insurance, wills, taxes, medical care...Give the gays & lesbians the same chance at failure as we do the straights.

(not to be fatalistic, but it really frosts my biscuit that one of the primary arguments against gay marriage is that we will somehow detract from the holy sacrament of marriage.  Seems to me like the sacrament is in enough trouble on its own.)

We're getting there, to deny a civil standing is to deny civil rights.  To not recognise nature is to be unnatural.  To force the free will of another is not freedom at all - In the land of the free I expect more.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Gonzo on June 09, 2006, 07:36:15 AM
Worse than that - those same to dregs can LIVE together for seven years and be recognized as legal partners.  They don't even have to go to church, believe in [a] god, or go down to the courthouse to the J. of the P. 

I am willing to remove the religiosity from the argument and let "marriage" be a church-recognized union between a man and a woman but allow same-sex couples the legal union of a civil ceremony that grants them the same rights afforded to het couples.  Including divorce.  Make it legal if not for the sanctity of the relationship, then for the rest of the rights afforded therein:  Insurance, wills, taxes, medical care...Give the gays & lesbians the same chance at failure as we do the straights.

(not to be fatalistic, but it really frosts my biscuit that one of the primary arguments against gay marriage is that we will somehow detract from the holy sacrament of marriage.  Seems to me like the sacrament is in enough trouble on its own.)

Amen sistuh!  I'm from Cuba and I used to look at the wedding photos my parents brought with us from Cuba.  There were two sets of photos commemorating two separate ceremonies.  One set was for the second ceremony which was at the church w/ a reception etc.  The other set of photos was of the civil ceremony where the actual legal marriage was performed.  My parents and grandparents were in the photos all dressed to the nines for the event (no wedding dress or tux, but nicely dressed).  The fact that photos were taken seems to indicate that in some ways the civil ceremony was very nearly as important socially as the religious ceremony.  Remember, this is in the 1950s in an overwhelmingly Catholic country.  I see absolutely no reason we can't separate them like that.  Have a civil ceremony and then go to any "church" you want and have the "uncivil" ceremony.  LOL.  No offense to anyone, you know what I mean.   ;) ;)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 09, 2006, 07:42:00 AM
I knew there was a reason I liked you.  I love Cuba, I have been there a few times and plan to go back soon!  ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 09, 2006, 08:48:18 AM
I am wondering if anyone on this thread can tell me why, I, as a bisexual man, should not also be allowed equal rights to
marry both the man and the woman I have loved and been in a committed relationships with for many years--just as two
same-sex people are demanding equal rights to marry?  Or, at the very least, why I should not be permitted to make a legal
arrangement by which my partners and any children we might share could be covered and protected as much upon my
death as any marriage allows for?

I don't mean to be playing Devil's advocate here at all.  I'm dead serious about this, as I'm sure are many other bisexual
people who find themselves in deeply committed relationships with at least one man and one woman and feel they need
that commitment for their lives to be truly complete and fulfilled.

You can make arrangements for that to happen.  You can put provisions into your will that they are both (all) cared for.

As a wife of a business owner though, I can honestly say I would not pay an employees coverage on TWO spouses!   :-\

I also think a marriage, has to be between two people, not three or four or five.........that is kind of where the polygamy argument comes in to play. 

Thanks Lola,

But can you tell me why you think marriage has to be between only two people?  It's hard for me to see that the reasoning
has to stop there, just for the purpose of including only same-sex marriage or civil unions.  It seems to me if people are
really going to base their position on "equal rights" they have to go all the way or nothing at all.

I personally don't like the idea of "polygamy" (especially when it's with just one man and a number of women), nor do I
like the idea of incest being sanctioned, but, as a columnist in my city whom I usually disagree with pointed out, if you
open the debate it ultimately must include everyone.  To argue for same-sex marriage on the basis of "equality" just
doesn't cut it for me.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 09, 2006, 09:24:19 AM
Well they don't have to go all the way or nothing.  I live in Canada and we define marriage as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others"  that is to me the way it should be.  Some other countries have done the same.  We didn't consider polygamy, or incest, nor should we have.

And to even start to debate those things, won't do much for gay rights.   :-\
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: aceygirl on June 09, 2006, 09:30:40 AM
I saw the Jon Stewart interview and adore him now more than ever. I love how he ended the interview saying, "You were the backside of this debate."  ;D

It to me is utterly pathetic how the anti-gay-marriage folks persist in the lame argument that allowing two people of the same gender to marry will open up the floodgates to polygamy, incest, bestiality, blah blah blah blah. I do mean polygamy in the sense of a man and his many women who are of unequal status to him, sanctioned by a minority in the overall culture and a specific type of religion.

It seems to me there is a crucial point the right-wingers refuse to acknowledge: that we are talking about ADULTS--tax-paying, responsible citizens who want to form a stable household for themselves and any children they may raise. Not a man and his hapless goat. Not an adult and a child. Not an arrangement wherein one partner is dominant over the others.

Joeboston, I certainly admire your impassioned arguments, even if I'm not so sure personally about the legal and economic implications of polyamory on the marriage debate. (Ever hear of the commune on Staten Island? It actually sounded like a reasonable arrangement, crazy shooting lady notwithstanding--CONSENTING adults, with the right to pick and choose their partners. However, that arrangement, it seems to me, doesn't really need a court-approved, let alone church-approved, approval).

I do believe we are all in agreement about the basic right of law-abiding, sane, responsible adults having the right to enjoy the same benefits bestowed upon heterosexual marriages in their own same-sex partnerships.

One of Jon's many zingers was saying, "Is it really about marriages, or is it about whether one believes being gay is a 'fetish' or a part of the human condition?" (sic). That's a key point--some folks, for all their righteous "I don't hate gay people" proclamations, nurse a sense that being gay is unnatural and therefore gay people are somehow "lesser" than straights. Their attitudes and arguments are bullcrap, IMO.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: cms on June 09, 2006, 09:50:29 AM
I personally don't like the idea of "polygamy" (especially when it's with just one man and a number of women), nor do I
like the idea of incest being sanctioned, but, as a columnist in my city whom I usually disagree with pointed out, if you
open the debate it ultimately must include everyone.  To argue for same-sex marriage on the basis of "equality" just
doesn't cut it for me.

The argument for the one man & one woman marriage is that it provides stability to society.  Just using that argument,
it is absolutely an equality issue if gays are not allowed the same two–person union and the benefits that flow from that -  
because they are being discriminated against based on an immutable characteristic. 

Polygamy, incest - and I have to include bestiality (since people always bring that up in their slippery slope argument) -  
These are things our society has determined to be harmful and in fact has made them illegal.  People may disagree
with this and believe anything goes, but that's not an equality argument.

The only way for your columnist's argument to work is to believe that homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 09, 2006, 10:24:48 AM
But can you tell me why you think marriage has to be between only two people?  It's hard for me to see that the reasoning
has to stop there, just for the purpose of including only same-sex marriage or civil unions.  It seems to me if people are
really going to base their position on "equal rights" they have to go all the way or nothing at all.

I personally don't like the idea of "polygamy" (especially when it's with just one man and a number of women), nor do I
like the idea of incest being sanctioned, but, as a columnist in my city whom I usually disagree with pointed out, if you
open the debate it ultimately must include everyone.  To argue for same-sex marriage on the basis of "equality" just
doesn't cut it for me.

the gay marriage implies polygomy argument seems like a farce to me. did interracial marriage suggest polygomy? did marriage between nobility and commoners? between landowners and serfs or slaves?

all of these groups demanded and got equality--which meant gaining the same ability as the priveledged group got: the right to marry across the forbidden lines.

polygamy has been sanctioned in many societies over time, and outlawed in others, including most today (though it's alive and well in many of the arab states, for example.) when groups demanded the ability to marry anyone they wanted, in polygamous societies, this gave them the right to marry multiple people, and in monogymous societies, it gave them the right to marry one. that is, it gave them the SAME rights as the priviledged group--no more, no less.

gays are asking for the same rights as straights: to marry anyone they want. and since straights only have the right to marry one person, they only owe us the same.

whether we or they should be allowed to marry multiple people is an entirely separate question. you can debate the pros and cons of it all you want, but it is a different question, and gaining our right in no way implies it. to tie the two together as if one implied the other is a falacious slippery slope argument designed to scare people from granting gay rights because they're afraid it will "open the door" to all sorts of other things.

---

i realize this may put a small number of bi people in a bind. i say small because most of the bi's i have ever known have defined themselves as being open to sex with either gender, and that they could be happy with either. i have not heard of many who say they needed both.

if you really feel you need both, that does sound like a problem for you, but a different kind of problem. it sounds like you are saying you require something more than straight people currently have: the ability to marry two people. you can argue that you have a special need, so you deserve a special right, but that's very different from arguing that you want an equal right to what they have: the right to marry one person. they are specifically forbidden the right to marry two--they have tried that and outlawed it, i guess because of what it did to women.

and i think straight people might argue that a lot of them only feel they would be satisified if they had two different kinds of spouses: a black one and an asian one, perhaps or a blond and a brunette, though that seems a lot more shallow. you are talking about two fundamentally different types of people, a man and a woman. but what about someone who needs both a very effeminate woman and a very hard-ass butch one? or an artistic/intellectual man and a tough blue collar man? or one for money and one for love?

in the end, though, these are all questions in the polygamy debate: why we should or should not be free to have multiple spouses. why some people want multiple spouses and a certain subset of bisexuals may need them. and there is the question of whether only bisexuals who need them should be granted them. all tough questions, but they are completely different questions from the one-spouse question, and whether the current one-spouse arrangement be opened up to everyone.

good luck with your fight. i think it's just a very different fight from the one we're discussing here.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 09, 2006, 12:04:56 PM
Hey Dave are you sitting down?   ;)  I agree with every word you said, very well said by the way, good stuff!
Title: Compare and Contrast
Post by: letbe on June 09, 2006, 12:55:19 PM
Lola

How come Canadians are so - not just smart - but mellow too?

Excerpt from today's Halifax Chronicle Herald  re: the marriage of two (same sex) Mounties, in uniform, on Canada Day, with a Mountie honor guard?

..."Nobody seems to be upset by the marriage, say two Nova Scotia Tory MPs.

"Not a word," said South Shore-St. Margarets Bay MP Gerald Keddy this week. "Not a whimper. Not an e-mail, not a phone call, nothing. It’s a non-issue."

Mr. Keddy was one of only four Tory MPs who voted for the same-sex marriage bill last year. But he had no comment on the upcoming wedding.

"I really haven’t given it any thought," he said. "It’s just not been an issue. It’s easy for me to leave it in Mr. Day’s hands."

Bill Casey, the MP for Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, who voted against the bill, hasn’t heard much from constituents about the marriage either.

"I don’t think it’s a big issue," he said. "It’s the reality of the law of the land now, and it makes for interesting reading."

Mr. Casey said the change in the law doesn’t seem to have had negative effects, and people are slowly adjusting to it.
...

The full story - and pictures of two very cute Mounties - can be found at http://www.herald.ca/Search/505919.html

Proving once again - but in a whole new way - that these Mounties can not only get their man, but keep him too...









 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 09, 2006, 01:00:08 PM
(http://www.herald.ca/photos/xlarge/DP051706RCMP_Provincial_05-26-06_P42L0O8.jpg)

Awww look how cute they are, I wish them all the happiness in the world.   :-*

I don't know how smart we are, but we are a pretty mellow bunch for the most part, they make jokes about how mellow we are! lol


Actually there was a post not to long ago about Entertainment Tonight Canada, they did a bit on Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac, he was on their with his significant other and they were talking about love and life and that they were engaged and they showed their rings, and then Ashley turned to him and gave him a big fat kiss..........one of the posters here said "ONLY in Canada"  :D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 09, 2006, 01:51:16 PM
I'm from Quebec and I'm sooo proud of ourselves. My best friend just married his boyfriend. I cried rivers at the wedding. :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: NWWaguy on June 09, 2006, 03:18:34 PM
Back in the day when my wife and I had an 18th Century theatre group in Saint Augustine, FL, the first play we performed by torchlight in the colonial city was 'El Juez de los Divorcios' by Cervantes ... a real shocker to some, when they considered we were representing Spanish Catholics!  Divorce???

Yes, and the point on this thread?  There was no 'divorce' of church-sanctioned marriage in Cervantes' Spain BUT (and it's a great big BUT)  There were civil unions which could legally be undone  ... thus the divorces under question in the short play!  And now, post-Franco Spain recognizes same-sex marriage!  Ole!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gebt on June 09, 2006, 03:30:48 PM
Unfortunately our US neghbours peobaly no nothing of former TORY MP Elsie Wayne, she's fred phelps with a dress. It's important to know who your enemies are.
www.egale.ca for those interested in the samesex marriage fight north of the 49th.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 09, 2006, 04:32:49 PM
Hey Dave are you sitting down?   ;)  I agree with every word you said, very well said by the way, good stuff!

hahaha. thanks, lola.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 09, 2006, 04:36:20 PM
from today's FRC email:

Quote
It's been an up-and-down week in Washington. First, we suffered a tragic defeat in the fight to protect marriage in the Senate. Next, the Senate failed to break a liberal filibuster against repealing the Death Tax. (They really don't like the family, folks!)


now i sorta get why they are so against homos, because a few mentions in the bible may tell them so, if the many generations of translations got it right.

but how in the hell does a supposed pro-family organization justify lobbying for the biggest possible tax break exclusively for the wealthiest people in the country, repeal of the estate tax? they lose all cred as a Christian organization when they start lobbying for the rich and against the lower and middle class. somehow, i don't remember jesus being focused on helping the rich folks and screwing the poor.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Gonzo on June 09, 2006, 04:39:22 PM
from today's FRC email:

Quote
It's been an up-and-down week in Washington. First, we suffered a tragic defeat in the fight to protect marriage in the Senate. Next, the Senate failed to break a liberal filibuster against repealing the Death Tax. (They really don't like the family, folks!)


now i sorta get why they are so against homos, because a few mentions in the bible may tell them so, if the many generations of translations got it right.

but how in the hell does a supposed pro-family organization justify lobbying for the biggest possible tax break exclusively for the wealthiest people in the country, repeal of the estate tax? they lose all cred as a Christian organization when they start lobbying for the rich and against the lower and middle class. somehow, i don't remember jesus being focused on helping the rich folks and screwing the poor.

He did in fact (supposedly) say "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 09, 2006, 04:45:02 PM
He did in fact (supposedly) say "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."

but there is a W in George W. Bush and not a C.....
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: NWWaguy on June 09, 2006, 05:44:20 PM
2 bitty thoughts:  The translation I like:  'Pay to Caesar what is due to Caesar, and give back to God that which is God's' ... I read it in this context sorta:  we may owe taxes to assorted governments, but our souls and our rights 'belong' to God.  (and the taxes on the top income earners has been raised a multitude of times and not the lower or middle-earners ... so, rollling back some is not innately unfair) No, I am not in the top ... LOL

About 'mentions' in the Bible as translated and edited and handed down to us:  the modern concept of 'homosexuality' was not known until invented in the late 19th century by a couple Austrian psychologists ... so, I maintain, the 'Bible' could not be referring to that concept at all.  Bosworth is a very fine read on all the ins and outs of the question.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: All4one on June 09, 2006, 05:47:55 PM
I am wondering if anyone on this thread can tell me why, I, as a bisexual man, should not also be allowed equal rights to
marry both the man and the woman I have loved and been in a committed relationships with for many years--just as two
same-sex people are demanding equal rights to marry?  Or, at the very least, why I should not be permitted to make a legal
arrangement by which my partners and any children we might share could be covered and protected as much upon my
death as any marriage allows for?

I don't mean to be playing Devil's advocate here at all.  I'm dead serious about this, as I'm sure are many other bisexual
people who find themselves in deeply committed relationships with at least one man and one woman and feel they need
that commitment for their lives to be truly complete and fulfilled.

Joe, I understand your question comes from a sincere place, but I agree with every word of Dave's post.
It's not the bisexuality in potential or in practice I would cite, but the concept of a marriage of more than two is, even to me, counterintuitive, and more important than that, counterproductive to the current debate about same-sex marriage.

Could you elaborate on the perceived benefits of marriage to both? I just left the forum, went to my friend's place for some swimming and wine and conversation. ( Had 2 of the 3 ! ) She's an attorney. We talked about the 'why bother' and now  I would be interested in your comments. :) 

BTW I still plan to read Out of Africa. And where is our buddy, SYC? :))
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 09, 2006, 05:49:54 PM
He did in fact (supposedly) say "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."

give to Caesar what is Caesar's is a lot different than: Work your ass off to make sure Caesar takes less from the rich and more from the poor.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 09, 2006, 05:53:00 PM
(and the taxes on the top income earners has been raised a multitude of times and not the lower or middle-earners ... so, rollling back some is not innately unfair) No, I am not in the top ... LOL

not the estate tax--though inflation had pushed it higher.

but they don't just want to lower it, they want to abolish it. (and have done so temporarily. it will be gone completely by 2010 under current legislation, but returns in 2011, because the initial legislation to destroy it was not permanent. what they want now is to end it permanently.)

and how they have the balls to pretend that's "pro-family" is beyond me.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Gonzo on June 09, 2006, 05:55:40 PM
He did in fact (supposedly) say "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."

give to Caesar what is Caesar's is a lot different than: Work your ass off to make sure Caesar takes less from the rich and more from the poor.

I'm in complete agreement.  Maybe I should've been clearer.  I meant that as a short way of saying "Shut up, and pay your share and then some cuz you benefit from this society and the resources that flow through it alot more than some of us."  Hell, I'm a freakin' communist, practically, certainly a socialist.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 09, 2006, 05:58:36 PM
the modern concept of 'homosexuality' was not known until invented in the late 19th century by a couple Austrian psychologists

maybe there is a whole lot tied up in that phrase "the modern concept of," but when i studied anthropology, we were taught that virtually every culture known has had homos. didn't a lot of native american tribes refer to them as "two spirits," . . .

i find the idea that it was invented 150 years ago hard to swallow.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: NWWaguy on June 09, 2006, 07:35:13 PM
I agree there has been what we call 'homosexual' behaviour probably forever, but the definition was codified as 'we' get it in the 19th century.  HEHEHE they even had to do an abomination of combining Greek and Latin to get their word for what has been happening forever.

(I didn't say the behaviour was invented, only the modern concept of it ... )   ;)

I believe every culture had/has a 'word' for it ... which defines their concept of it.  The mentions in the Bible refer to being ritually clean preparing for animal sacrifice and not having sex with one's father and all that sort of thing.  Kinda like 'witchcraft' suddenly pops in the notorious King James's version of the 'word'.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 09, 2006, 09:40:30 PM
Here is a current scorecard on Gay Marriage in the U.S.:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2629&ncid=2629&e=4&u=/ap/20060605/ap_on_go_pr_wh/gay_marriage_states_1
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 09, 2006, 09:49:52 PM
I am wondering if anyone on this thread can tell me why, I, as a bisexual man, should not also be allowed equal rights to
marry both the man and the woman I have loved and been in a committed relationships with for many years--just as two
same-sex people are demanding equal rights to marry?  Or, at the very least, why I should not be permitted to make a legal
arrangement by which my partners and any children we might share could be covered and protected as much upon my
death as any marriage allows for?

I don't mean to be playing Devil's advocate here at all.  I'm dead serious about this, as I'm sure are many other bisexual
people who find themselves in deeply committed relationships with at least one man and one woman and feel they need
that commitment for their lives to be truly complete and fulfilled.

Joe, I understand your question comes from a sincere place, but I agree with every word of Dave's post.
It's not the bisexuality in potential or in practice I would cite, but the concept of a marriage of more than two is, even to me, counterintuitive, and more important than that, counterproductive to the current debate about same-sex marriage.

Could you elaborate on the perceived benefits of marriage to both? I just left the forum, went to my friend's place for some swimming and wine and conversation. ( Had 2 of the 3 ! ) She's an attorney. We talked about the 'why bother' and now  I would be interested in your comments. :)

Thanks All4one,

I agree that it's hard to argue with Dave's points.  And, truth be told, I'm not really the one to be trying to do it at all, because, as
you remember from my posts on the bisexuals respond thread, I, personally, really have no use for the convention of marriage at all--
be it the religiously sanctioned or legally sanctioned kind.  In fact, what I really feel is that the whole debate should be about
marriage itself, and it should include an overview, as Dave did, by looking at it in our American society in contrast to other societies
so that we don't keep fooling ourselves into believing that "it's only supposed to be one way forever--if any way at all."

My really queasy feeling about the whole issue, and the motivation behind my original query here, is that it seems that the
"platform," essentially led by the "gay community" is somehow conveniently not mentioning bisexual people.  Whereas, during
their more ardent years of bringing the AIDS crisis to the fore they so willingly mentioned bisexual and transgendered people
BECAUSE they included homosexuality.  Now bisexuals seem pose a threat to the platform because they include both
heterosexuality and homosexuality--and therefore, as Dave so astutely points out, can sooner or later bring up the issue
of marriage between more than two.

Maybe marriage between more than two IS a separate question, and does need to be addressed separately as Dave says,
but I think it is nevertheless "begged."  And not to acknowledge that it is begged seems to me to be the really
fallacious thing in the whole debate.  And because that is likely so and the gay community activists who are leading the
"fight" are turning a blind eye to the question being begged, unfortunately I think that these offensive columnists
that I cited before and others like him are going to be able to bring it forth, as they obviously already have started to,
and really wreak havoc with the whole thing.  Please don't blame it on me though if and when it happens though.  I
really have no wish to push the issue any further than I already have here.  I'm thoroughly content with my
marriageless existence, and have no regret whatsover that I never entered into holy matrimony with anyone--male or
female (even though I do regret from time to time not having children, but THAT's entirely separate issue as far
as I'm concerned).  Nor do I regret that I've never gone through the many painful, expensive, and prolonged divorces
that many of my friends and close family members have--in some cases several times for each.  Those are equal
rights that I have no need of whatsoever!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 09, 2006, 10:26:10 PM
the modern concept of 'homosexuality' was not known until invented in the late 19th century by a couple Austrian psychologists

maybe there is a whole lot tied up in that phrase "the modern concept of," but when i studied anthropology, we were taught that virtually every culture known has had homos. didn't a lot of native American tribes refer to them as "two spirits," . . .

i find the idea that it was invented 150 years ago hard to swallow.

Dave,

It seems like this is where it's important to be careful in distinguishing "homos" from "homosexuality."  From the anthropological
perspective that you mention, as far as I've gathered from readings, etc., "homosexuality" has existed in virtually every culture
know, but those who engaged in it weren't necessarily all "homos" or "exclusively homosexual" or "preferred sex with their
same gender" or "gay," as we might call certain people today.

In some south seas cultures, as someone wrote very eloquently on another thread, boys were segregated from girls and lived
with adult males who gave them their first sexual experiences . . . as part of their education toward becoming husbands
to women.

Then I think mainly of Walter Williams' illuminating book THE SPIRIT AND THE FLESH: SEXUAL DIVERSITY IN AMERICAN INDIAN
CULTURE where he makes a big distinction between the male "Berdaches" who were men who basically functioned
as more feminine shamans and even wives (sometimes one of several) to other men.  And then there was homosexuality between
men who were married to women, as a taken-for-granted thing, but rarely mentioned around whites who would have surely
used it as another excuse to declare them savages, etc.  These married men I don't think would have considered themselves
in any way to be "homos" even though they sometimes engaged in homosexuality, nor would the Berdaches have considered themselves
"homos" or "gay" either, in our present use of the terms--whenever those words came into our vocabulary or "classification structure."

It seems like I also remember reading that "homosexual" was originally coined in the 1800s to refer to men (mainly in France, I think) who
were essentially pedophiles, or only interested in having sex with very young boys--hence the French term "pede" [with acute
accents over both e's] that's still used to refer to "homosexual" there a lot, I think.

And when you go back to Alexander the Great, for instance, however accurate the records actually are, it seems clear that
he had sexual and passionate relationships with both Hephastion and Roxanne.  Many would still call him "gay" or "homo" for
that, but I wouldn't.

Then, of course, there's dear old Walt because he obviously espouses "homsexuality" in his poetry . . . but that's a whole
world of conversation to have some other time.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 10, 2006, 01:34:04 AM
maybe there is a whole lot tied up in that phrase "the modern concept of," but when i studied anthropology, we were taught that virtually every culture known has had homos. didn't a lot of native american tribes refer to them as "two spirits," . . .

i find the idea that it was invented 150 years ago hard to swallow.

Here are a few sources that seem like they might be helpful in this current discussion.  Pardon me for popping in on the middle of it.  Some of these are a little dated (which has more to do with when I was reading this sort of thing more than anything else) but you might find one or two interesting.  Enjoy (I hope)!

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679751645/qid=1149923778/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4837180-9165740?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

The Many Faces of Homosexuality: Anthropological Approaches to Homosexual Behavior edited by Evelyn Blackwood

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0918393205/qid=1149923866/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4837180-9165740?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China by Bret Hinsch

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520078691/qid=1149924034/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4837180-9165740?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Comrade Loves of the Samurai: Songs of the Geishas - Saikaku Ihara

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804810249/qid=1149924190/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4837180-9165740?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature by Stephen O. Murray, Will Roscoe et al

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814774687/ref=pd_sim_b_3/102-4837180-9165740?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

Keep the River on Your Right by Tobias Schneebaum

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802131336/qid=1149924462/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-4837180-9165740?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth-Century Caribbean by Barry R. Burg

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814712355/qid=1149924742/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4837180-9165740?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: divina on June 10, 2006, 01:40:44 AM
I really feel these issues should be kept separate. People can debate the issue of polygamy separately with all its complications but it should, in my opinion, be left out of the gay marriage debate. Polygamy has traditionally been the right of a straight man to more than one woman in societies where women have unequal status. Except for a few exceptions, women have not been allowed more than one husband, consequently, the legalization of polygamy would in many ways detract from womens right to equal treatment under the law. Now one could argue that allowing women more than one husband (and allowing gays/bis more than one partner) would resolve this inequality but in reality the vast majority of these group marriages would still be one heterosexual man with multiple women because that is a pattern that many cultures/religions have instilled and because women are still in many ways unequal in economic and cultural power to men. Legalizing polygamy would also give some people more benefits than others through extra tax breaks etc for multiple spouses. So, if the argument for legalizing gay marriage is equality, that we should all have the same rights and be entitled to the same benefits as others, then polygamy should not be tied together with a quest for equal rights because it is inconsistent with this principle.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 10, 2006, 01:39:37 PM

gays are asking for the same rights as straights: to marry anyone they want. and since straights only have the right to marry one person, they only owe us the same.

whether we or they should be allowed to marry multiple people is an entirely separate question. you can debate the pros and cons of it all you want, but it is a different question, and gaining our right in no way implies it. to tie the two together as if one implied the other is a falacious slippery slope argument designed to scare people from granting gay rights because they're afraid it will "open the door" to all sorts of other things.
---
i realize this may put a small number of bi people in a bind. i say small because most of the bi's i have ever known have defined themselves as being open to sex with either gender, and that they could be happy with either. i have not heard of many who say they needed both.

in the end, though, these are all questions in the polygamy debate: why we should or should not be free to have multiple spouses. why some people want multiple spouses and a certain subset of bisexuals may need them. and there is the question of whether only bisexuals who need them should be granted them. all tough questions, but they are completely different questions from the one-spouse question, and whether the current one-spouse arrangement be opened up to everyone.

I fully realize that I might have disqualified myself permanently from this thread last night by declaring my aversion to marriage in general.  However, I'm certainly not averse to equal rights and would always wish to promote them in any way I can.  So I'm hoping maybe that I'll be allowed to say a few more words here--even if it only helps to clear things up in my own mind by composing them and having people respond if they care to.

Dave, I must admit that I was 99.9%, if not 100%, convinced of the rightness of your reasoning about why bisexuals' issues of non-monogamy (polyamory, polygamy, etc.) were not relevant to the proposal to alter the law which only pertains to marriage between two people.  But that little .1% woke me up in the middle of the night nagging at me to find out if I in fact do completely agree.

What came up was the simple fact that, however you look at it, this proposal to change the marriage law entails a change in the DEFINITION of marriage, even though it seems quite a small change to many people.  And if you're going to consider changing the definition of marriage AT ALL, even if it's from only applying to two opposite-sex people to include two same-sex people, I think you also must be wiling to consider that the definition could be changed to include other configurations than those--whether or not those other changes be implemented now or sometime in the future.  I don't see at all that the "further changes" necessarily need to be relegated to being separate questions or separate issues
entirely--a "different problem" for bisexuals like me, or for those of other natures.

To draw on the "race analogy" a little here, as you did--when the marriage laws were revised to allow for interracial couples to marry, there was no restriction, to my knowledge, as to which races may or may not marry--even though the revision was accomplished under the general understanding that it would basically allow black and white Americans the right to marry.  i feel we should be able to make a parallel here with the issue of the "number" a marriage can be made up of too.

In this case then, to admit that we're deciding to stick to the number two "for now," with the possibility of it being considered as part of an ongoing examination of the definition of marriage in general, seems more reasonable than simply casting non-monogamy as a separate issue entirely.

But, of course, politics often have very little to do with "reasonableness," or "fairness," or even "full equality for all"--even though they would profess to, and even though "reasonableness" seems to be the main line of appeal  among those who are only trying to get the "two" element of the marriage definition altered ever so slightly.

But I really do appreciate your impersonal approach to delineating the issue, Dave, from the standpoint of looking at it merely as making a change by keeping the number--"two"--that's already firmly there, rather than saying things like so many others do about how they believe marriage should only be between two people because that's the most natural way, because God meant it to be, because society will fall apart if it isn't, etc.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: NWWaguy on June 10, 2006, 09:44:16 PM
I don't see any reason for being 'disqualified' ... and I'm really intrigued and enjoying your arguments ... I have never, ever even thought about it and you're makin' me think now.  Thank you!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 11, 2006, 04:29:33 PM
i realize this may put a small number of bi people in a bind. i say small because most of the bi's i have ever known have defined themselves as being open to sex with either gender, and that they could be happy with either. i have not heard of many who say they needed both.
Quote

I just wanted also to add something to this point of Dave's.  I don't feel that I speak from my own personal situation at all.  Over the
years I've attended quite a number of conferences on bisexuality--a large regional one here at Northeastern U., a very large one here
at Harvard, quite a number of smaller one's for men only held in very private rural settings for anonymity because many of the men coming to them were extremely high profile in their communities all across N. America (doctors, lawyers, ministers, priests, psychologists, etc.), and a weekly series at the local gay health center.  There were many at all these meetings who mainly stuck with monogamy, serially that is.  But there
was a much larger number, I'd say, who really were involved in double relationships--mainly married people who had a same-sex partner/lover
in addition to that.  Many of them adored being married and deeply loved their wives and families and would not trade them for anything in the world, but--particularly after their families were well along in years and secure--they also felt that they needed to fulfill the "other side" of themselves too.  Many of the men were in a quandary because they hadn't ever told their wives and were so afraid that it would ruin their marriages and families if they did. And there was no way that most of them would consider themselves "gay."

The unfortunate thing is that many of these people are so very deeply in the closet that that they would never dream of coming forward to discuss publicly the marriage issue as we are here.  However, there are a few bi-activist people I know who are very "out," and who realize all I've said above.  I'm not sure what their position is exactly on the marriage issue, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are poised to put in their ten cents worth at a crucial moment.

The real truth is, I think, that bisexuality is far, far more prevalent than most people have any idea.  It's just not heard of because so many are in the closet.  They don't feel comfortable "coming out" into the gay community, because they don't consider themselves gay.  And until there's a substantial, public bi community (that's not just a tag-along to the gay community (LGBT) or a part of the "anything that moves" branch, the real facts and figures probably won't be known.  Unfortunately, that doesn't do much for balancing out the debate about the marriage issue, etc.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: All4one on June 11, 2006, 06:42:43 PM
joeboston,
I appreciate the way you are always 'present' to respond to questions and comments, and the congenial attitude with which you do it. And your bits of humor - "the anything-that-moves branch"  sort of phrases - make me smile.

Your experience is valuable; your insight is welcome. Your self described marriage-averse status doesn't disqualify you.
Should it?  ;)

You say this:
 But there was a much larger number, I'd say, who really were involved in double relationships--mainly married people who had a same-sex partner/lover
in addition to that.  Many of them adored being married and deeply loved their wives and families and would not trade them for anything in the world, but--particularly after their families were well along in years and secure--they also felt that they needed to fulfill the "other side" of themselves too.  Many of the men were in a quandary because they hadn't ever told their wives and were so afraid that it would ruin their marriages and families if they did. And there was no way that most of them would consider themselves "gay."
 

Is it your opinion that a a redefinition of marriage would change this?  Or is what was really needed in the lives of those men an early and unremarkable option to marry the person of choice ?



Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gboo on June 11, 2006, 07:04:28 PM
To draw on the "race analogy" a little here, as you did--when the marriage laws were revised to allow for interracial couples to marry, there was no restriction, to my knowledge, as to which races may or may not marry--even though the revision was accomplished under the general understanding that it would basically allow black and white Americans the right to marry.  i feel we should be able to make a parallel here with the issue of the "number" a marriage can be made up of too.

In this case then, to admit that we're deciding to stick to the number two "for now," with the possibility of it being considered as part of an ongoing examination of the definition of marriage in general, seems more reasonable than simply casting non-monogamy as a separate issue entirely.

Joeboston, maybe people should be allowed to marry multiple partners if they want.  But that is a whole different question than gay marriage.  And limiting marriage to two people is not discriminatory in the same way that limiting marriage to straight couples is.  Here is why:

I know people look at marriage very emotionally, and one of the best arguments for gay marriage is that we should officially validate the love between gay partners the same way we do between straight partners.  But the fact of the matter is, that is not really what the legal institution of marriage is all about.  As much as we like to romanticize it, marriage is a contractual, economic relationship.  It's pretty well known that idea of "romantic" marriage is quite recent (say, the last couple of hundred years), and it's still the exception rather than the rule in some cultures.  Very simply, marriage was developed as a way to organize and protect the transfer of property from one generation to another.  That's still the essence of marriage, but over time we've broadened it a bit and we can say that it's a framework through which two people can contract to take on the responsibility of forming a legal union, and through which they are granted certain privileges for forming that union.

There are many, many legal consequences of marriage.  For example, the right to make decisions (such as medical) on behalf of a spouse, the right to share property without the need for special legal documents, the right to inherit property, the responsibility to provide for your spouse financially (for example, in a divorce), etc.  And these rights and responsibilities are governed by numerous laws.  For the purposes of this discussion, the most important thing to keep in mind is that these laws all presume that marriage is between two people.

That is the most important thing because it means that we could allow gay men and lesbians to marry and there will be no effect on the legal consequences of marriage.  Since a gay marriage would involve two people (and since we long ago got rid of all gender differences relating to the rights of marriage partners), we could keep all of the same inheritance laws, the same decision-making laws, the same property laws.  The only thing we might have to change is the terminology "husband" and "wife," but that would only be an issue in areas where we use them to mean "one spouse and the other spouse" -- for example, say, a loan document with signature lines designated "husband" and "wife".  But that would be easy to take care of -- maybe the signers could write the number "1" after "husband" and cross out "wife" and write "husband 2."  Or we could use gender neutral terms like "spouse1" and "spouse2."  My son's preschool uses "parent 1" and "parent 2" on all forms so it's not like people aren't already finding easy ways to accommodate "non-traditional" families.

But none of this applies when you're talking about multiple-party marriages.  MPMs (I'll use that as shorthand for multiple-party marriages) would cause problems unless we made significant changes to the laws relating to marriage.  Here are some examples:

* Medical Decision Making: now, if a spouse is incapacitated, his/her next of kin -- spouse -- is authorized to make decisions.  With gay marraige, no changes needed.  But in a MPM, who is the next of kin?  And what if the multiple spouses disagree about medical care -- whose wishes would prevail?

* Inheritance: when a spouse dies, the survivor is entitled to a certain portion of the estate, no matter what the will says (meaning a spouse could leave 100% of his/her estate to a charity, but unless there was a prenup or some other valid waiver by the survivor allowing this, the survivor could challenge it and would win).  Gay marriage, no changes.  In the case of MPM, you could make new laws changing the percentage that has to go to the surviving spouses depending on how many spouses there are, but this necessarily means changes in existing law, which gay marriage would not require.

So the bottom line is that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is discriminatory because they could be allowed to marry with no need for any changes to the current legal system surrounding marriage.  They only reason people don't want them to marry is because they don't like the idea of a relationship between two men or two women having legal significance.  But there are valid reasons for denying multiple party marriages -- it would require a fundamental alteration of what marriage is legally.  Gay and lesbian couples could start getting married tomorrow and the transition would be seamless (right, Massachusetts?), but you can't say the same for MPM.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 11, 2006, 08:42:31 PM
joeboston,

You say this:
 But there was a much larger number, I'd say, who really were involved in double relationships--mainly married people who had a same-sex partner/lover
in addition to that.  Many of them adored being married and deeply loved their wives and families and would not trade them for anything in the world, but--particularly after their families were well along in years and secure--they also felt that they needed to fulfill the "other side" of themselves too.  Many of the men were in a quandary because they hadn't ever told their wives and were so afraid that it would ruin their marriages and families if they did. And there was no way that most of them would consider themselves "gay."
 

Is it your opinion that a a redefinition of marriage would change this?  Or is what was really needed in the lives of those men an early and unremarkable option to marry the person of choice ?

Thanks for your kind thoughts All4one.  I really appreciate them.

To answer your question, yes!, in many cases, I really do think.  If there were a redefinition of marriage that allowed people who loved at least
one other person of each sex to marry both of them--especially if it existed for long enough to give people the sense that they didn't have to
opt only for marrying one or the other of them, then they could possibly be relieved from the huge conflict of their two relationships having
to be considered somehow "unequal" by law and the whole rest of society.  With opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage encompassing
only two people in a marriage, in the case of bisexual people who love two others deeply they will still be forced to leave one of those
relationships as the "lesser."  In my case, one of the big reasons I decided initially NOT to marry my female partner was exactly because of
this--because i couldn't bear making my male partner feel that he was in any way less than, secondary to, less important than, less significant
than her in any realm of our lives (this was way before there was any idea whatsoever that same-sex marriage would ever be considered a
possibility, although, of course, it's now legal in my state).  Before that time, I had also whimsically thought that if there were "some way"
that I could stand up before the world and declare my love to both of these people at the same time--as equal loves and as equal eternal commitments--then that might serve as something coming close to the truth of how I felt about the situation.  But it was good enough, I think,
that they knew of that commitment in my heart and believed it.  After all, that's the main thing that should matter any way, I think.  To stand up and promise in words that you'll  love someone forever, "forsaking all others," etc. seems to me almost to imply that maybe you don't actually
know if you love them that way and that there might actually be a chance that you'd forsake them for someone else.  If I love someone truly
and deeply, the promise is automatically made then and there.  I've lost track of the times I've sat through weddings of family and friends
who've taken these vows before God and everyone, and then sooner or later they mean nothing.  So I swear I'll never to another wedding
and sit through listening to people promise this and expect me to believe it.

Back to your questions though, All4one.  I certainly do think that some of the bisexual people I know, and probably others, WOULD have chosen differently if their only options had been marriage with either sex.  But I do also think there are just as many, if not more, who would be greatly relieved from conflict it they could choose to marry both partners.  I think some might also take a lot longer to decide and be much more wise about choosing both spouses and not rush into things just because "marriage is the thing everyone does when they grow up."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 11, 2006, 09:20:04 PM
Joeboston, maybe people should be allowed to marry multiple partners if they want.  But that is a whole different question than gay marriage.  And limiting marriage to two people is not discriminatory in the same way that limiting marriage to straight couples is.  Here is why:

There are many, many legal consequences of marriage.  For example, the right to make decisions (such as medical) on behalf of a spouse, the right to share property without the need for special legal documents, the right to inherit property, the responsibility to provide for your spouse financially (for example, in a divorce), etc.  And these rights and responsibilities are governed by numerous laws.  For the purposes of this discussion, the most important thing to keep in mind is that these laws all presume that marriage is between two people.

But none of this applies when you're talking about multiple-party marriages.  MPMs (I'll use that as shorthand for multiple-party marriages) would cause problems unless we made significant changes to the laws relating to marriage.  Here are some examples:

* Medical Decision Making: now, if a spouse is incapacitated, his/her next of kin -- spouse -- is authorized to make decisions.  With gay marriage, no changes needed.  But in a MPM, who is the next of kin?  And what if the multiple spouses disagree about medical care -- whose wishes would prevail?

* Inheritance: when a spouse dies, the survivor is entitled to a certain portion of the estate, no matter what the will says (meaning a spouse could leave 100% of his/her estate to a charity, but unless there was a prenup or some other valid waiver by the survivor allowing this, the survivor could challenge it and would win).  Gay marriage, no changes.  In the case of MPM, you could make new laws changing the percentage that has to go to the surviving spouses depending on how many spouses there are, but this necessarily means changes in existing law, which gay marriage would not require.

So the bottom line is that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is discriminatory because they could be allowed to marry with no need for any changes to the current legal system surrounding marriage. 

 But there are valid reasons for denying multiple party marriages -- it would require a fundamental alteration of what marriage is legally.  Gay and lesbian couples could start getting married tomorrow and the transition would be seamless (right, Massachusetts?), but you can't say the same for MPM.

Thanks gboo.

I of course admit that it would be much more complicated if MPM's were added to the law.  And, honestly, I would have no suggestions as to how it could be carried out.  But if "for legal simplicity's sake" is the only, or main, reason for avoiding adding MPM's, then I really do feel that it would be truly discriminatory too.  Again, if we just say "it would just be too complicated RIGHT NOW to work out the legal elements, but over time we should be able to do it so that we could include MPM's"--that would be one thing, and I could consider saying, "OK, I understand that we need to take this simple step first, and I think I can wait in that case."  But just because it would be too complicated RIGHT NOW doesn't justify saying, as i can see some people doing who agree with your position, that MPM's are not a valid part of the issue, and therefore should NEVER be addressed as such.

And then your points about the various legal entitlements that are granted to married people, etc. bring me back to something someone said to me on an earlier post about how even now I, as a mulitple partner person [MPP!], could easily make legal arrangements for each of my partners to be allowed all those privileges that you list above that legalizing two-party [TPM] same-sex marriage would ensure.  And the fact of that present availability of legal arrangement of entitlements would seem to me actually to render the "legal simplicity" argument for adding ONLY same-sex TPM's to the law much less significant--particularly in the eyes of the "defense of marriage" people.

Now I really kind of feel that I am becoming "devil's advocate."  I'm sorry if it seems so!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 11, 2006, 10:16:19 PM

Dave,

It seems like this is where it's important to be careful in distinguishing "homos" from "homosexuality."

i realize there is a difference between 1) men how have sex with men, and 2) homosexuals (homos for short)--ie, men who are primarily attracted to men. i don't believe either are new.

I agree there has been what we call 'homosexual' behaviour probably forever, but the definition was codified as 'we' get it in the 19th century.  HEHEHE they even had to do an abomination of combining Greek and Latin to get their word for what has been happening forever.

(I didn't say the behaviour was invented, only the modern concept of it ... )   ;)

I believe every culture had/has a 'word' for it ... which defines their concept of it. 

if there have always been homos--men primarily attracted to men--and every culture had a word for it, then i'm not really getting what was invented in the 1800s? our word for it?

god, i hate to think i'm coming down in favor of the bible being against homosexuality. i don't know nearly enough about it to say. but i find this argument unconvincing. if there have always been men primarily attracted to men--and presumably most/all cultures/langauges had a term for these people, even if it was a slang or code like fag or sissy, then why could the bible not have referred to such people?

i don't know that it did or did not, i'm just having trouble with the idea that it could not because there was no word to describe them.

i'm stilll struggling with with "the modern concept of it" is -- how is the modern concept different from earlier concepts?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 11, 2006, 10:25:57 PM
maybe there is a whole lot tied up in that phrase "the modern concept of," but when i studied anthropology, we were taught that virtually every culture known has had homos. didn't a lot of native american tribes refer to them as "two spirits," . . .

i find the idea that it was invented 150 years ago hard to swallow.

Here are a few sources that seem like they might be helpful in this current discussion.  Pardon me for popping in on the middle of it.  Some of these are a little dated (which has more to do with when I was reading this sort of thing more than anything else) but you might find one or two interesting.  Enjoy (I hope)!

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679751645/qid=1149923778/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4837180-9165740?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

wow. thanks. that's pretty helpful -- except that now we'll have to actually read them. hahaha. i think i've got that first one on one of my bookshelves, but i still haven't found the time. has anyone? i'm actually curious about how the conceptions of homosexuality have varied over time. i'm sure they have varied greatly in different times and places. but was the general public aware in most cultures that such people existed, or was it often mostly known just by the secretive homos?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: dsmom on June 11, 2006, 10:53:33 PM
Ok sticking my nose in here...Not an  expert on anything...but do know this...polygamy to me is a bunch of old men who marry girls...look at the news right now...polygamists marry little girls who have no choice in the matter...and throw the teenage boys out of the orders so they have no competition for the young girls...the girls then get pregnant and apply for welfare...

I am at a gut level NOT in support of legitimizing this...JoeBoston...I understand you are not advocating this...but it is out there...and if you tie gay marriage to this?? You have a snowballs chance in HELL of getting any sympathy from middle America...and like it or not they are who you have to convince...if you can get gay marriage approved you can choose either sex to marry but you do have to choose...just like the rest of us...

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: brian on June 11, 2006, 10:54:46 PM
I have not been following this thread but you may be aware the Australian Capital Territory has legalise gay civil unions. However this law will be soon overturned by the Federal Government which can do this in territories but not states. Our Prime Minister obviously gets all his orsers from his mate Bush.
Anyway this excellent letter was published in the Sydney Morning herald this morning. It was the lead letter.
A pillar of society, but without full membership

June 12, 2006

As a 41-year-old, I can vote in state and federal elections. As someone lucky enough to have an income, I pay my share of tax. As a partner in a business, I can provide jobs and income for others. As a qualified nurse, I am often the first person the public sees in an emergency - and often the only one available to provide care. I have never been convicted of a criminal offence. I am monogamous and I don't text.

Despite being able to vote, pay tax, provide jobs and care for people in life-threatening situations, there is one thing I cannot do. It is something that, unless they are like me in this one aspect, any other person in this country can do regardless of their background, ability, contribution to society or who they vote for. It is something the worst criminal, including terrorists, can do, and it is something any person can do with a very short time of reflection (although we haven't quite yet lowered ourselves to Las Vegas standards).

I cannot express and publicly confirm my love, respect and relationship with the person I care for. I cannot have that relationship, recognised and validated in law. I cannot even ensure under law that, should I be admitted to hospital, my partner is involved in decisions about my treatment.

Our relationship goes unrecognised, not because of national security, not because it may constitute a threat to the fabric of society, in fact, it's not even because we may have written nasty letters to the Herald about John Howard.

It's because my partner, like me, is male.

For those who believe same-sex relationships should be banned because various religious entities say they should be banned, please study history and recognise that religion has been wrong (not to mention persecutory) before.

For those who believe same-sex relationships will destroy the institute of marriage, please look at your own marriage and come up with a reason why that may be the case.

For those who, for whatever reason, believe gays should not exist, please accept that we do and the next time you're in hospital one of us might be the person you depend on for life. I for one, will not judge you. Will you judge me? Will you even know?

Rob Eager Rockdale
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: brian on June 11, 2006, 10:57:02 PM
I have not been following this thread but you may be aware the Australian Capital Territory has legalise gay civil unions. However this law will be soon overturned by the Federal Government which can do this in territories but not states. Our Prime Minister obviously gets all his orsers from his mate Bush.
Anyway this excellent letter was published in the Sydney Morning herald this morning. It was the lead letter.
A pillar of society, but without full membership

June 12, 2006

As a 41-year-old, I can vote in state and federal elections. As someone lucky enough to have an income, I pay my share of tax. As a partner in a business, I can provide jobs and income for others. As a qualified nurse, I am often the first person the public sees in an emergency - and often the only one available to provide care. I have never been convicted of a criminal offence. I am monogamous and I don't text.

Despite being able to vote, pay tax, provide jobs and care for people in life-threatening situations, there is one thing I cannot do. It is something that, unless they are like me in this one aspect, any other person in this country can do regardless of their background, ability, contribution to society or who they vote for. It is something the worst criminal, including terrorists, can do, and it is something any person can do with a very short time of reflection (although we haven't quite yet lowered ourselves to Las Vegas standards).

I cannot express and publicly confirm my love, respect and relationship with the person I care for. I cannot have that relationship, recognised and validated in law. I cannot even ensure under law that, should I be admitted to hospital, my partner is involved in decisions about my treatment.

Our relationship goes unrecognised, not because of national security, not because it may constitute a threat to the fabric of society, in fact, it's not even because we may have written nasty letters to the Herald about John Howard.

It's because my partner, like me, is male.

For those who believe same-sex relationships should be banned because various religious entities say they should be banned, please study history and recognise that religion has been wrong (not to mention persecutory) before.

For those who believe same-sex relationships will destroy the institute of marriage, please look at your own marriage and come up with a reason why that may be the case.

For those who, for whatever reason, believe gays should not exist, please accept that we do and the next time you're in hospital one of us might be the person you depend on for life. I for one, will not judge you. Will you judge me? Will you even know?

Rob Eager Rockdale
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Signal63 on June 12, 2006, 12:20:21 AM
the modern concept of 'homosexuality' was not known until invented in the late 19th century by a couple Austrian psychologists

maybe there is a whole lot tied up in that phrase "the modern concept of," but when i studied anthropology, we were taught that virtually every culture known has had homos. didn't a lot of native american tribes refer to them as "two spirits," . . .

i find the idea that it was invented 150 years ago hard to swallow.

There is a difference between practices and identities, which is at the crux of the confusion I believe. Same sex practices have been evidenced in many different cultures across history. The identity ASSIGNED to those engaging in same sex practices from the late 19th century onward was "homosexual." A term loaded with clinical connotations that were premised on deviancy and pathology--deviating from an a presumed norm--whether social or psychological. That is why the term "homosexual" is widely rejected as derogatory and preferred by the religious righteous. For even more historical confusion there is a whole legacy of sodomy, where depending on the position one assumed in the act determined whether one was homosexual or not!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Signal63 on June 12, 2006, 12:54:19 AM
Just wanted to post a note in this thread that I married my partner of six years this weekend in Canada. We are both US citizens, but we took advantage of Canada's non-residency requirements. Why did we do this? Certainly for many of the same reasons straight couples get married. Of course, you don't do these things in a vacuum. It was the same week that the US Senate failed to incorporate discrimination into the Constitution and the anniversary of Canada's decision to legalize same-sex marriages. But the best unselfish reason to do this I think is the fact that it makes very "normal" what so many people want to believe is abnormal. When did things start getting better for gay men and women? When they decided to make themselves visible. Creating an identity for oneself often means accentuating your differences from others. I recently came across the phrase "radical assimilationist" in connection with certain aspects of gay life, whether it means marriage, parenting, adoption, or simply living openly outside of the gay ghetto. I thought of BBM when I came across this phrase and why it has stirred such antipathy from both gay and straight worlds. It dared make "natural" what so many think is "unnatural." It made the love between two men seem so "normal." It showed the devastation of homophobia in both gay AND straight lives. And it was created by straight people. Unbelievable. Despite years, even decades, of proclaiming queer difference, it was demonstrating a human sameness. Tolerating the differences of others is fine for a while, but the real test is acceptance into their world. Marriage is one of those lines separating worlds. Separate but (un)equal is a remnant for another era.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lonewolf on June 12, 2006, 01:50:19 AM
Well, i guess ill give a response from a youth perspective.

As an 18 year old homosexual male living in Kentucky i have had my share of uncomfortable backwoods instances of intolerance and bigotry, Ive come to expect it really, but by no means do i condone this behavior. In any case, one would expect that family would be a sanctuary for one to put their mind at ease, as often as this occurs there are cases where boundaries are unnecessarily broken. Around the sunday dinner table as my family comes together we discuss various things from stereotypes to the creation of Styrofoam, the conversation can be engaging but on some occasions when sexual preference is brought up homosexuality is always seen as a negative, Ive stood it for so long I'm near used to it. This was up until about a year ago. My aunt of 40, who has just recently been married ( yeah its a late one) during a homosexual topic, back when the marriage debate was a hot topic, said something I may never be able to forgive or comprehend fully for that matter. I love the woman to death, don't get me wrong, but she stated, and she meant this, she asked "Why do gay people want to get married anyways?". I was floored, absolutely stunned. Now the woman in question is a teacher, an American with a masters degree, now how could something dripping profusely with ignorance slip past those well educated lips of hers is beyond me.

I thought about that for like two weeks in a row... and I was like why? would you like me to tell you why gay people want to marry? To celebrate, to recognize unity between to people who love one another, for the legal benefits, and every positive reason under the sun. I lost a lot of respect for her after that, sadly, but the generational gap in the household exceeds an average 20+ years so i get the fact that our values may differ but id never think of something that incoherently dumb come out of any of their mouths.

Thus I must seek indirect revenge, its what my life plan was but when i come back from my planned successes with my MAN holding my hand ill come again to tell her why we wanted to get married... The same reason you did! Then i may or may not flaunt my exceedingly larger income, and lifestyle, not to mention sex life which I'm sure will be exponentially superior to theirs, and ill smile inside all the while they dine on each and every dehumanizing cut that was thrown at me and my kind and see just exactly how alike we really are.

As for the marriage difficulties, i expected as much, this is coming from a room of fat rich white men making decisions for us, we cant expect too much. But my true concern goes out for the gay youth out there who have to deal with this soon, like myself i do hope to find that special someone and spend the rest of my days with whoever that may be, but id rather not have to battle for something that should already be available to whoever seeks it. But, by then i hope marriage is just marriage, i really don't want to send my mom an invitation saying: You Are Invited To My Civil Union, come share with me and my Legal Life Partner!!  I'm just gonna marry my soon to be husband, its faster that way.

By the time im 25 this better be fixed, they think Iraq is bad, ill show you a war....

theres my 2 cents, might add more later
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gboo on June 12, 2006, 07:26:41 AM
Just wanted to post a note in this thread that I married my partner of six years this weekend in Canada.

Mazel Tov!  And here's hoping that your marriage will be legally recognized in this country sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Gonzo on June 12, 2006, 08:23:39 AM
Thus I must seek indirect revenge,

You strike me as a wise 18 year old.  I will share a saying I know of, but you seem to already know it.  "The best revenge is to live well."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 12, 2006, 11:55:26 AM

Dave,

It seems like this is where it's important to be careful in distinguishing "homos" from "homosexuality."

i realize there is a difference between 1) men how have sex with men, and 2) homosexuals (homos for short)--ie, men who are primarily attracted to men. i don't believe either are new.

i'm stilll struggling with with "the modern concept of it" is -- how is the modern concept different from earlier concepts?

Dave,

I guess my point in distinguishing "homos" from "homosexuality"--particularly historically speaking--is to allow for the fact that maybe a very great deal of homosexuality in earlier times took place within the context of bisexuality as well as in the context of "men who are primarily attracted to men (and women to women, e.g. Sappho).  Somehow, what seems to happen so often is that ANY example of homosexuality from ancient--or even fairly modern history--gets translated over these days in terms of those people being "homos," "gay," or "primarily attracted to men or women," and the possibility that they very well might have been bisexual--e.g. Alexander the Great, as I mentioned earlier--is completely avoided.

I don't mind people saying that MAYBE Alexander or Walt Whitman were "gay" or "primarily attracted to men," but I would like them also to
say that MAYBE they were also attracted to both men and women more equally.  I believe Whitman's poetry--the unexpurgated versions--uphold that position, even if you read the Calamus poems and then read "O Hymen, O Hymenee!"

I just keep feeling that there's this almost concerted effort to avoid the possibility of considering bisexuality historically (and even contemporaneously in other cultures and countries like Europe where it's so much more taken for granted, I think).  And I would even venture to guess that the people historically who were identified by a word that was the equivalent of "homo" or "gay" were probably not the people who were "primarily attracted to their same sex" but the people who were exclusively attracted to their same sex and who probably also exhibited the gender reversal traits that have been so commonly associated with homosexuality in recent times and were assigned the name "queer" in the lasts century in America by the majority of the population.

Of course, with a broader appreciation of bisexuality historically, this would also make consideration of marriage now for bisexuals in committed multiple partner relationships (at least three people) more palatable than it seems to most.  Still damning polygamy, of course--but I still don't feel I have a right to do that even.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lonewolf on June 12, 2006, 01:04:37 PM
Thus I must seek indirect revenge,

You strike me as a wise 18 year old.  I will share a saying I know of, but you seem to already know it.  "The best revenge is to live well."

Why thatnk you, and yes I concur with that philosphy. Theres more anger and sarcasm in that post than i had originaly intended, but it was a spur of the moment anger type of thing, happens to the best of us i suppose, i might reform my opinion with a paradox later on in this debate when i get the time to.

after i finish this game of course.... i am still young after all lol. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: claudew on June 12, 2006, 06:08:42 PM
I’ve been a lurker for some time and have been meaning to introduce myself in the New Members forum but haven’t found the time. I am a big fan of both Brokeback Mountain (tonight at the Castro Theatre will make the 10th time I’ve seen it in a theater) and this site as you can see on my website (http://www.claudesplace.com). As a gay man involved in a polyamorous relationship and a former gay activist in the 70s and 80s, I have some thoughts I would like to share.

I was a little put off by Dave’s original comments about the Advocate article. First of all, the FMA had zero chance of getting 67 votes in the Senate. The idea that this article could have any effect on the outcome is ludicrous.  Secondly, if you actually read the article you would see that no one was calling for legal recognition of multiple marriages. I think even joeboston here realizes that this isn’t something likely to happen in this country in the foreseeable future. The intro to the article is online (http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w_ektid31132.asp):

Quote
While there are grassroots efforts by straight people to legalize polygamy, there has been no noteworthy effort by LGBT activists to bring polyamory into the fight for marriage equality. “We’ve been very involved in work for same-sex marriage rights,” says Chvany. “Even if we aren’t interested in using them ourselves, they are important to our community as a whole and to people we care about.”

Indeed, the other gay polyamorous families interviewed for this story agreed. It’s hard enough fighting for acceptance from family members and friends, they say, without having to ask for legal recognition from the government.
As for timing of the article, would there ever be a “right time”? After all, there are state amendments on the ballot in November. The Family Research Council could always use it against us in a future campaign. If we’re going to let them decide what we do or what we publish then they have already won.

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend lately, inspired partly by the push for same-sex marriage and even, sadly, by Brokeback Mountain – the demonizing of gay men whose characteristics or lifestyles might not be acceptable to mainstream society. The article in that edition of the Advocate that I found disturbing was the one by a straight supporter of gay rights, Michael Levine (an “A-list publicist”), about how Pride Parades are bad PR for the gay movement. It is reprinted here (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=6933). The fact is that we have been winning the battle for public opinion on every issue except gay marriage and even there the trend is on our side. We are too small a community to let them divide us between the good gays versus the bad gays. Gay marriage wouldn’t even be on the table if it weren’t for all the drag queens, leathermen, butch lesbians, sluts, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Libertarians and other socially and politically unconventional people who helped to forge the gay movement in the 70s. We faced resistance from many of the more “normal” gays and lesbians at every turn who were often afraid to do anything which might hurt their career. It took AIDS to get the majority of gay men to come out of the closet, either because they had it or were afraid of getting it. Suddenly losing a job was no longer the worst thing that could happen.

I’m all for making room at the table for more conventional gays who want marriage, 2.2 children and the house in the suburbs with a white picket fence. But if you try to remove some of the people who helped to build the damn table in the first place, be prepared for a fight.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: LSky94 on June 13, 2006, 12:51:07 AM
the modern concept of 'homosexuality' was not known until invented in the late 19th century by a couple Austrian psychologists

maybe there is a whole lot tied up in that phrase "the modern concept of," but when i studied anthropology, we were taught that virtually every culture known has had homos. didn't a lot of native american tribes refer to them as "two spirits," . . .

i find the idea that it was invented 150 years ago hard to swallow.

How interesting.  I never paid much attention to this thread before.  To answer Dave's question about Native tribes, the answer is yes, though the term "two spirit" is a new one coined in the 1990's by Indigenous gay people as a "pan-Indian" or multi-tribal term that is used for convenience.  It recognizes the belief of many tribes that homosexuality, and the roles taken by many "homosexual" members of tribes, had a spiritual or religious foundation or basis.  There are specific names in nearly every tribe for what we now call gay people, and the use of the term "two spirit" was/is an attempt to reflect the cultural and spiritual understandings inherent in the various tribal names for gay people.  In other words, the traditional tribal names for gay people recognized more than just same sex behavior, or the sexual act itself.

Interesting it is that many of the freedoms we are now fighting for including gay rights, women's rights, and others were alive and well on this continent and only began to disappear after the arrival of Columbus in 1492.   I find it rather amusing when I hear people talk about how America is the "first" country to have the most individual freedoms and liberties; as if such things as the right to speak freely, property rights, freedom of religion, women's rights, and the right to have your voice heard in a representative government never existed before on this continent.   Actually, we now live in a rather oppressive society in my view.     Too bad for everyone that the very people who came here seeking "freedom" actually nearly wiped out these very freedoms, and then some, in the process of seeking their own.     And for some of us, all of this led up to the anguish illustrated in Brokeback Mountain.    So unnecessary, but this is what happens when one group of people has the military might to force its worldview upon another group of people, or social might, in the case of gay marriage. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jim ... on June 13, 2006, 05:42:41 AM
I’ve been a lurker for some time and have been meaning to introduce myself in the New Members forum but haven’t found the time. I am a big fan of both Brokeback Mountain (tonight at the Castro Theatre will make the 10th time I’ve seen it in a theater) and this site as you can see on my website (http://www.claudesplace.com). As a gay man involved in a polyamorous relationship and a former gay activist in the 70s and 80s, I have some thoughts I would like to share.


welcome claudew!  I'd encourage you to intoduce yourself in the New Memebers forum when you get a chance. We'll look forward to hearing more from you.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 13, 2006, 06:56:42 AM
Gay marriage wouldn’t even be on the table if it weren’t for all the drag queens, leathermen, butch lesbians, sluts, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Libertarians and other socially and politically unconventional people who helped to forge the gay movement in the 70s. We faced resistance from many of the more “normal” gays and lesbians at every turn who were often afraid to do anything which might hurt their career. It took AIDS to get the majority of gay men to come out of the closet, either because they had it or were afraid of getting it. Suddenly losing a job was no longer the worst thing that could happen.

I’m all for making room at the table for more conventional gays who want marriage, 2.2 children and the house in the suburbs with a white picket fence. But if you try to remove some of the people who helped to build the damn table in the first place, be prepared for a fight.

Thanks Claudew,

I just wanted to add one thing.  As I've read about the development of "gay rights" over the years, it seems like I remember reading that one of the main attitudes behind liberating homosexuality and bringing it to the fore in the 60s and 70s was the fact that many men found a same-sex oriented life-style a LIBERATION FROM the convention of marriage and all the tied-down, habitual things that implies.  If that's the case, it seems
to have taken a complete about face now.  I think much of my attitude about marriage comes from those years, because it wasn't just the same-sex oriented crowd that railed against the convention of marriage, it was many people everywhere.  But, alas, those were the incredible 70s!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: kaboyz on June 13, 2006, 09:36:29 PM
New York high court hears case for same-sex marriage

http://advocate.com/news_detail.asp?id=31663
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: DeTina on June 14, 2006, 07:04:19 AM
Did you all see this exchange between Bill Bennett and fool slayer Jon Stewart? :)

Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?

Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families...

Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink)

Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters..

Stewart: So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling.

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gboo on June 14, 2006, 10:47:56 AM
Check out this wedding announcement from the New York Times.  I knew the NYT was publishing announcements of commitment ceremonies, and this is probably not the first gay wedding they've covered, but I don't read the wedding pages regularly so it's the first one I've seen.  It just struck me as really cool that this announcement of a legal gay marriage was treated in the NYT like any other wedding announcement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/fashion/weddings/11wrig.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: aceygirl on June 14, 2006, 10:55:50 AM
I, like Lola, agreed 100% (200%!) with Dave Cullen's argument about gay marriage, equality versus special rights, etc.

I really enjoy all the civilized discourse here. You all are so thoughtful and good debaters.
I'm bi, I'm monogamous and my boyfriend and I, after initial "what does marriage really matter anyway?" discussions, are now pretty set on marriage eventually. We both support gay marriage 100 percent.

This is what I think: Whatever our individual beliefs about the sanctity, or uselessness, or whatever, of marriage, we DO live in this society, we pay its taxes, we are its citizens. The way I see it, I have choices *within* the framework of the U.S. When and if those choices start to disappear, I must then decide whether the benefits of living in the U.S. still are worth it. I can choose to fight for those choices, leave, suck it up.

Sure, marriage is a constructed institution, it often fails, it can be a farce. But as an American, by getting married I choose to partake of the benefits afforded by American society as a result. I understand that if I were to want to establish relationships with multiple partners, well, I'm free to do that, but I understand it's not going to have the same social status, financial benefits or legal acknowledgement as monogamous marriage. I also understand that if I, as a bisexual woman, had wanted to marry a woman, that it would be flat out a denial of my rights as an  American, law-abiding, taxpaying citizen who as Jon Stewart said, just wants to join in the society-accepted framework for stable families as defined by my society. The institution  ain't perfect, but I have little doubt that a home made up of two committed partners who chose to be with each other and dedicate their lives to a family unit is still a pretty good option over non-marriage. Thus, marriage in this context makes sense. If they want to break up, they can't just unravel the home at will in the heat of bitterness or other negativity because of the legal binding and contractual nature. Could a home of multiple committed partners benefit as well? Sure, but the way I see it, let's take it one step at a time--remedy the inequality that exists in our established framework before trying to expand the definition of that framework.

How many gay men and lesbians do I know who are conservative, God-fearing, want the American dream of nice home and 2.5 kids...who have far more in common with the heterosexual counterparts who want to deny them the same common set of rights? It makes NO sense. Of course, msot of my friends, gay or straight, are spiritual rather than religious, Blue-in-the-face liberal and artsy fartsy. But they want to get married when they find the right one because they agree that the idea of marriage for its connotations of family, commitment to providing as best an environment for the future generations as possible and other benefits make sense. For me and my atheist bf, it's about "sanctioning" our commitment in a ritual and celebrating it with loved ones--then getting the tax break and maybe some fun gifts! ;) Why shouldn't that have been the case even if we were of the same gender?

That particular European model of: "We're not sure we want to go all the way and get married, but we're sort of committed and should get sort-of rights accordingly" that I've heard about is interesting. Civil unions would be great if they were essentially recognized as "marriage" in terms of recognition and benefits. If so, I'm sure we'd choose to have a "civil union."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: aceygirl on June 14, 2006, 10:57:09 AM
Check out this wedding announcement from the New York Times.  I knew the NYT was publishing announcements of commitment ceremonies, and this is probably not the first gay wedding they've covered, but I don't read the wedding pages regularly so it's the first one I've seen.  It just struck me as really cool that this announcement of a legal gay marriage was treated in the NYT like any other wedding announcement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/fashion/weddings/11wrig.html

The Times has been doing that for a while, it's the best and maybe only reason to read the  Sunday Style section!  :D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: gnash on June 14, 2006, 11:12:17 AM
i was going to post this in rants and raves but that's in the lighter side, and this isn't that funny. i imagine one of the reasons that gay marriage is tough for some people to grasp is the way it's viewed by society, and with cartoons like this in "liberal' big city newspapers, it's no wonder that the concept of gay marriage is seen as a joke. i'm sick of these stereotypical portrayals of gay men, and combined with the serious subject of equality and fairness, this type of political satire really sends the wrong message out to the public. sure, laughter is the best medicine, but this isn't fair, or funny.  "mud bone" is right up there with "fudgepacker."  ...mr. fish can go jump in a lake.

(http://taxine.com/fullerspicer/fish_cartoon.jpg)

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: aceygirl on June 14, 2006, 11:23:03 AM
I agree, Gnash. The majority of political "humor" regarding anything gay seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of inane "butt sex" jokes, ala Bill Maher is one particularly annoying example. He's usually a good comedian, I know he can do better but I swear there were about 6 episodes of  Real Time in a row where he kept making "Brokeback Mountain" jokes about "Number One" and "coming from behind."  ::) Sorry I know I keep complaining about it but it's SO prevalent. Hello?!

I asked my BF recently what the big deal was about men getting a prostrate exam, because I was hearing gasp-in-horror jokes about it. He said, "It's just part of the hyped up paranoia straight men seem to have about getting a finger up their ass." Is there some sort of mass anxiety among hetero American men about anything to do with the anus in a sexual way?
 ???
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Phantom on June 14, 2006, 11:29:41 PM
i was going to post this in rants and raves but that's in the lighter side, and this isn't that funny. i imagine one of the reasons that gay marriage is tough for some people to grasp is the way it's viewed by society, and with cartoons like this in "liberal' big city newspapers, it's no wonder that the concept of gay marriage is seen as a joke. i'm sick of these stereotypical portrayals of gay men, and combined with the serious subject of equality and fairness, this type of political satire really sends the wrong message out to the public. sure, laughter is the best medicine, but this isn't fair, or funny.  "mud bone" is right up there with "fudgepacker."  ...mr. fish can go jump in a lake.

(http://taxine.com/fullerspicer/fish_cartoon.jpg)



Love the cartoon!!  ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 15, 2006, 09:00:29 AM
This is what I think: Whatever our individual beliefs about the sanctity, or uselessness, or whatever, of marriage, we DO live in this society, we pay its taxes, we are its citizens. The way I see it, I have choices *within* the framework of the U.S. When and if those choices start to disappear, I must then decide whether the benefits of living in the U.S. still are worth it. I can choose to fight for those choices, leave, suck it up.

Sure, marriage is a constructed institution, it often fails, it can be a farce. But as an American, by getting married I choose to partake of the benefits afforded by American society as a result. I understand that if I were to want to establish relationships with multiple partners, well, I'm free to do that, but I understand it's not going to have the same social status, financial benefits or legal acknowledgement as monogamous marriage.

Thanks Acey,

It was good to ready your whole stance.  It seems like most really sensible people feel the same way as you do and would make their choices in the current debate as you have.

I guess why I feel compelled to challenge any of those choices is not because i see that they are necessarily wrong--actually, I don't think they are, as far as they go--but because I see this occasion as an opportunity to finally look at our society and marriage as a "constructed institution," as
you agree it is, in a much bigger, more general way and find out the reasons for some of the very, very great hindrances to our development as a country.  Particularly in terms of raising children to be secure, balanced, responsible, and loving adults--which the present set-up so often woefully fails to do, I'm sorry to say.

I think we are confronted with more "choices" than we realize in this issue of changing the definition of marriage--even to merely including two same-sex partners--and if we don't take this opportunity to address those choices too, maybe it will be lost for a very long time to come.  An appearance of simply maintaining the "status quo" will be kept, but so many of the really serious underlying problems will go on eating away at society as a whole because they go on being ignored.

It would be especially interesting to have Dave's take on this, because of his obvious research in to the tragedy of kids lives involved in Columbine and the possible reasons for it.  I can't see it as anything but having a huge amount to say about the lack of effectiveness of today's parenting, and therefore implying something further perhaps about the failings of modern marriage to meet the needs of society as a whole as it tries to progress toward a more humane and compassionate mode of existence.  Dave?  (Would be most grateful for your input here!)

Sometime soon I want to add a thought I had several years ago about how I thought we should actually have "Marriage I" and "Marriage II."  "I" for any people who merely want to have their relationship legalized, and "II" for those who want to raise children, wherein they would be required to do all sorts of preparatory things (take "Child-rearing/Parenting" 101 - 116, etc.) in order to be as fully prepared and informed about what the demands are for a child to grow up healthily and securely in this world.  But maybe that's enough said about it right there!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: aceygirl on June 15, 2006, 12:14:20 PM
You make great points too, Joe. :)

It reminded me of what I've read about in native Hawaiian culture...okay, full confession, basically I read James Michener's "Hawaii" but he does do a lot of research for his "historical fiction"! One of the striking things about it was that no matter what the family structure or how the child came to be (often via a dalliance with a sailor or other visitor), that child is taken in and raised without hesitation by a Hawaiian family, because the idea of loving and raising children is totally separate from committed relationships. The same cultural trait was apparent in other South Pacific isles. Of course, in today's U.S. society, that just ain't gonna happen.

I can't wait for studies to start emerging in earnest about the children raised by married/committed gay/lesbian couples--somehow I am confident that the majority of these kids will refute the right-wing paranoid claims: most of them will be hetero (but probably not homophobic!)--or perhaps even more open and accepting of whatever their self-proclaimed sexuality is--successful, and in all ways typical products of loving stable homes. Gee, you think? ::) ;)

Did anyone see the Lewis Black HBO concert? He skewers the right-wing paranoia about gay sex "bringing down" the fabric of American culture with this hilarious fantasy description of men dressed ala KKK (but ever so stylishly), rampaging through a neighborhood, ringing someone's doorbell and having sex with each other right on the doorstep. "And lo and behold, another American family is ruined!"   :P
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 15, 2006, 12:37:56 PM
. . . because I see this occasion as an opportunity to finally look at our society and marriage as a "constructed institution," as
you agree it is, in a much bigger, more general way and find out the reasons for some of the very, very great hindrances to our development as a country. 

So we are finally getting the country to at least address the fact that they have excluded us homos from legalized monogomous coupling--ie, marriage--for ages now in Western culture.

I can understand why polygomysts would see that as a great opportunity to take the discussion a giant step further, and debate whether we should abandon the idea of monogymous coupling as a central definition altogether and redefine it as something very different, ie, multiple couplings.

I can definitely see why the moment of discussion is a key opportunity for your cause, but hopefully you can see how framing the discussion that way is an equally dangerous development for the gay rights cause. It will already be a hell of a fight for straights to grant us equality, and one of the chief tactics used against us is the scare tactic that if they give us this equality, then they will have to then change the very nature of the idea of monogomous coupling.

I can appreciate your desire for your case to be heard. Marriage is of course a social construct, and can be changed. Not many people want to change it to what you want, so it's hard for you to even get it discussed. But it's a fundamentally different idea than we're discussing, and piggybacking it onto our equality fight would be a disaster for us, so I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for that.

And tactically, is it really in your best interest either? Are you trying to feed them way more than they can swallow at one time?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 15, 2006, 12:41:41 PM
How interesting.  I never paid much attention to this thread before.  To answer Dave's question about Native tribes, the answer is yes, though the term "two spirit" is a new one coined in the 1990's by Indigenous gay people as a "pan-Indian" or multi-tribal term that is used for convenience.  It recognizes the belief of many tribes that homosexuality, and the roles taken by many "homosexual" members of tribes, had a spiritual or religious foundation or basis.  There are specific names in nearly every tribe for what we now call gay people, and the use of the term "two spirit" was/is an attempt to reflect the cultural and spiritual understandings inherent in the various tribal names for gay people.  In other words, the traditional tribal names for gay people recognized more than just same sex behavior, or the sexual act itself.

Interesting it is that many of the freedoms we are now fighting for including gay rights, women's rights, and others were alive and well on this continent and only began to disappear after the arrival of Columbus in 1492. 

thanks very much for that lsky. living out in The West -- but not having grown up here -- i hear a lot about the two spirit stuff. and they always have a presence in our denver gay pride parade, because it's the largest in the Interior West, so we get crowds from all over the mountain and Great Plains regions. but i was pretty fuzzy on the real roots of it.

and yes, it is incredibly ironic that this land was free in those areas 500 years ago and we're just now getting around to reclaiming them.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 15, 2006, 01:10:10 PM
I was a little put off by Dave’s original comments about the Advocate article. First of all, the FMA had zero chance of getting 67 votes in the Senate. The idea that this article could have any effect on the outcome is ludicrous.  Secondly, if you actually read the article you would see that no one was calling for legal recognition of multiple marriages. . . . As for timing of the article, would there ever be a “right time”? After all, there are state amendments on the ballot in November. The Family Research Council could always use it against us in a future campaign. If we’re going to let them decide what we do or what we publish then they have already won.

of course this debate had nothing to do about winning or losing that particular vote. what the vote did--for all sides involved--was to open a brief window of opportunity, where the issue was hotly discussed in virtually every major media in the country for a week, right down to a well-publicized debate between jon stewart and bill bennett on The Daily Show. now the media will grow largely silent about it for awhile.

that's the reality of how our media works. it's all about a "news peg," and we have our brief windows where our issue is disscussed, and much longer periods where it ruminates in the public psyche--where groups and individuals are slowly, silently hashing over the latest in their brains and creeping gently in one direction or the other, or staying put.

this was a key window for us, and a really shitty moment for them to be thrusting that idea into the middle of it, in my opinion. (particularly a publication that goes by the name advocate.)

as for timing, of course there will be no "right" time, but that's a false dichotomy: your implication is that there are two possible choices of times: "right" and "wrong," and since we will never have "right," all are equal, so it doesn't matter. nonsense. there is a full spectrum of politically better and worse times, and this was one of the worst. (at the very least, it was not anywhere near the "better" end of the spectrum.)

to your second point, begining, "if you actually read the article you would see that . . ."--i'm afraid that phrase misses the point entirely. there are (at least) two very different issues here: 1) the ideas presented in the article, 2) the positioning of this issue by the magazine. i was/am discussing #2, which is largely unrelated to #1. i beleive the advocate has a circulation of under 100,000, and most subscribers don't read every issue of any magazine, let alone every story. certainly, the folks at Focus or FRC couldn't care less what was in the article--unless it had juicy passages to use against us. my point was that Advocate ran a COVER that was made to order to be used against us. it was the cover that was seen by many times more people than read the story--and the cover is a work of art in itself, with a very powerful message of its own. they created a provocative, incendiary cover that could have been custom-designed by gay-haters and ran it at a crucial moment. that was my beef with them. the merits of the attached story are another issue entirely.

and i really shudder at that last notion: that if we are politically astute about how and/or when we thrust incendiary arguments into the political discourse our opponents "have already won." to me this sounds like a victimist mentality, and it is the kind of political ineptitude that dems/liberals have suffered from for so long. yes, i want to talk about whatever i want, whenever i want, too. but if i'm going to run a magazine that claims a political role advocating for a particular group, it would be wise to show a little discipline and political skill when choosing when to advance what arguments. acting politically astute on hot-button political issues is not losing, it's being smart about how to win.


I’ve noticed a disturbing trend lately, inspired partly by the push for same-sex marriage and even, sadly, by Brokeback Mountain – the demonizing of gay men whose characteristics or lifestyles might not be acceptable to mainstream society.  . . .

I’m all for making room at the table for more conventional gays who want marriage, 2.2 children and the house in the suburbs with a white picket fence. . . .

That's interesting. I've heard that from a few people now, but I have not seen evidence of it. What have you seen?

I do find it ironic that you talk about demonizing of less mainstream gays, and end with a putdown of those more mainstream. Reaping, sowing?

(And yes, I think we all know that the 2.2 etc. is a putdown. And it's pretty misplaced, imo. The majority of people--gay or straight--do seem to have a yearning for a partner in life, and this includes people right in the center of the mainstream and way out on the fringes. Most of my friends are writers and artists of some sort, and tend to be outliers, and a long fucking way from the 2.2 kids/suburbs/picket fences. Yet they want somebody to be with. I think that your equating the two is misguided as well as being the very thing you're complaining about.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 15, 2006, 01:48:27 PM
am i getting too aggressive?

sorry if i am.

i do have strong opinions about this. (and claudew's direct response was pretty derisive, which tends to get my hackles up.)

everybody is entitled to their opinions here. but mine seem to be entrenching.

they have shifted quite a bit, tactically in the past few years though.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Signal63 on June 16, 2006, 12:24:46 AM
am i getting too aggressive?

Not in my opinion. I had the same reactions to those posts. It seems like there can be no coordinated strategy on anything from the political left and we are left to wonder why nothing changes. Yes, gay culture is diverse. No one is suggesting that everyone in it needs to partake of marriage or living in the suburbs or raising kids. The quest is for the same priviledges and rights that other heterosexual citizens hold. It is this struggle for "sameness" that runs counter to the decades of promoting cultural difference in gay communities. I would go as far as to say that the priority on asserting difference has passed or evolved beyond questions of identity and group affliation (what makes me and others like me different from other people) and has entered into areas (marriage, adoption, etc.) which were previously out-of-bounds (made so by both gay and straight people). Marriage is threatening because it disrupts the stereotype of gay=sex with gay=love just as surely as BBM confounds notions of masculinity and being gay. Difference means distance and therefore categorical safety. Sameness closes that distance and is ultimately more threatening because the categorical exclusion (on both sides) is diminished or lost. Yesterday's radicals claimed difference, perhaps today's radicals are the assimilationists.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Marge_Innavera on June 16, 2006, 06:42:57 AM
I am willing to remove the religiosity from the argument and let "marriage" be a church-recognized union between a man and a woman but allow same-sex couples the legal union of a civil ceremony that grants them the same rights afforded to het couples. 

So where would that leave religious groups that are supportive of gay marriage and who currently conduct commitment ceremonies? Do they not qualify as "religious"?

For that matter, where would that leave gay couples for whom religion is important and might not want a civil ceremony?  I'm not sure that installing a creative new edition of  Jim Crow for weddings would be all that helpful.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Marge_Innavera on June 16, 2006, 06:52:06 AM
Ok sticking my nose in here...Not an  expert on anything...but do know this...polygamy to me is a bunch of old men who marry girls...look at the news right now...polygamists marry little girls who have no choice in the matter...and throw the teenage boys out of the orders so they have no competition for the young girls...the girls then get pregnant and apply for welfare...

IMO it wouldn't be productive to piggyback gay marriage with multiple marriage; there doesn't even seem to be a significant amount of interest in the latter at present and it would just double the controversy.

However, I don't think the view of multiple marriage as the province of horny old men and people looking for welfare scams is fair. And what about polyandry? Presumably that would be allowed too if multiple marriage became legal.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lonewolf on June 18, 2006, 01:27:12 AM
I'll tell you one thing, im absolutely sick of GAY being tagged in front of everything homosexually involved. if they tag "straight" in front of everything hetero, people would see how dumb it sounds...

descriptive, yes. necessary, no.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 18, 2006, 07:05:36 PM
I am willing to remove the religiosity from the argument and let "marriage" be a church-recognized union between a man and a woman but allow same-sex couples the legal union of a civil ceremony that grants them the same rights afforded to het couples. 

i am really bothered by that conflation of religious with the word marriage. i think that's a trap we get sucked into.

there are several concepts in play here. marriage has traditionally been both a religious and a secular institution. in our culture, we have formal separated the bestowal of the the religious and the legal arrangement. (you need a minister to grant you the church's recognition if you want it, you need to do the city/county paperwork and abide by their rules if you want the legal rights in civil society.)

then there is the name issue. in our culture, we use the same "marriage" label for both the religious and legal aspects. (and i think most people would agree that the legal takes precedence. ask a hundred people if a couple married by a judge 20 years ago is married, and most will say yes. or really, they won't ever ask who did the ceremony. if a couple moves in and they are "legally married," vitually all of us would agree they were and would never ask them who officiated.)

so when the religious claim the word as they're own, i think they're laying claim to something way beyond their provence. marriages exist all the time without religion.

i will grant each religion the right to decide whether they will bless gay marriages, but i'm sure as hell not giving them custody of the word.

the label is an entirely different matter, and i think it's huge. too long to go into in this post, but if you refuse me the same title you give to everyone else, you're implicity branding me inferior and unworthy, and everyone will sense it. if you were at an all-boys school where the boys were granted the title of mr. when they turned 16, but then you said, "oh, the gay ones, we'll call you something different. it will be the same, just a different word. it doesn't matter." yeah, right.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 18, 2006, 07:38:30 PM
Not in my opinion. I had the same reactions to those posts. It seems like there can be no coordinated strategy on anything from the political left and we are left to wonder why nothing changes. Yes, gay culture is diverse. No one is suggesting that everyone in it needs to partake of marriage or living in the suburbs or raising kids. The quest is for the same priviledges and rights that other heterosexual citizens hold. It is this struggle for "sameness" that runs counter to the decades of promoting cultural difference in gay communities. I would go as far as to say that the priority on asserting difference has passed or evolved beyond questions of identity and group affliation (what makes me and others like me different from other people) and has entered into areas (marriage, adoption, etc.) which were previously out-of-bounds (made so by both gay and straight people). Marriage is threatening because it disrupts the stereotype of gay=sex with gay=love just as surely as BBM confounds notions of masculinity and being gay. Difference means distance and therefore categorical safety. Sameness closes that distance and is ultimately more threatening because the categorical exclusion (on both sides) is diminished or lost. Yesterday's radicals claimed difference, perhaps today's radicals are the assimilationists.

wow, what an insightful post. i feel like an iditiot that i never made that connection that i bolded. i have been feeling something like that for ages, but unable to grasp it.

i have to say that i've sensed a real uneasiness with a lot of gay people for some time now, especially those he enjoy being distinctively different from straights. and i've heard a lot of them say that they feel attacked or use other similar language, when i have not seen any such attacks. i think a more accurate word might be that they feel threatened. as you point out, our identity as gay = different -- which was so scary before we came out (for most of us), but can be liberating and cool afterward -- is now threatened a bit.

if we assimilate in some ways, adopt some straight ways like getting married or going into the army, we may lose a bit of our distincitiveness. i don't think there's really much risk that we'll ever blend in completely and be just like the straight people, but our conception of ourselves as dramatically different may shrink dramatically.

i think this is a really interesting idea (the bold line again), that we have gotten so used to running in one direction: embracing and revelling in our differentness, that something feels wrong about pushing in the other direction--on an instictive level, it can feel like backsliding. we're going the wrong way!

instincts are powerful and precious sometimes, but they can also be dead wrong, and they require a bit of examination.

this is really just a subset of the classic problem of any type of revolutionary, whether is revolting against a government or a cultural institution or just cultural ideas. revolutionaries who overthrow governments are famous for getting in trouble once they win. both the character of many of their leaders, and the general momentum they have built up--the feeling in their ranks of what is right--is to revolt. except now they have to govern, not knock things over. it's a very different task, and if they can't make the transition, they don't last.

we've seen it in recent cultural revolutions, too. it was kind of sad watching many of the leaders of the women's movement sidelined after a few decades. many of them didn't figure out that they had won some of their battles, women were in a very different place, and more importantly, MEN were in a very different place. men viewed them differently now, and a lot of the tactics that worked so well in the 60s made no sense now. some of the leaders got it an adapted, a lot didn't and were replaced by a new generation of leaders who did.

i see the gay rights movement as lagging probably 20 years behind the women's movement. (of course exact comparisons don't work. what is stonewall equivalent to? women winning the sufferage movement? in that case we're about 50 years behind.) there was all sorts of groundwork done for decades both before and after stonewall, but the gay rights movement didn't really start to gain a lot of traction with large numbers of the straight people until the 90s. we're still in our infancy.

and i think we're sort of getting to that point where some of the hard-liners who we owe a debt of gratitute to are nevertheless locked in a mindset of a world that has changed. we have won over a great number of straight people, and yeah, it is time to re-evaluate things like gay pride parades. what are we getting out of them? what is the purpose, what's the value, and what's the cost?

in the beginning we had to scream at them and march just to get their attention. they wouldn't even listen to us. now we're having a conversation with most of the straight public. shrill only works for a little while. we're way past that point. we don't have to announce that we exist anymore, demanding that we're here, we're queer . . . they get it. they accept we exist, by and large. now it's time to quit shouting at them and win them over, win their hearts and minds.

and i think a lot of us have also realized this internally. we've quit flashing our rainbow colors to show how different we are, to stand up to be recognized, and said, "hmmmmmm. ok, now that i'm recognized, what is that i want, exactly?" and a lot of us want a lot of the same things straight people have, and a husband or a wife is a pretty damn basic thing a lot of people want. so we're focusing on that.

just because they have the same thing, doesn't mean we're trying to be like them. it means we're admitting that in a lot of ways we are like them. it's not like we're a different species or something. we're all human beings, and it's pretty natural that a lot of our basic drives are the same: not just for food and shelter, but for laughter, joy, stability, adventure, accomplishment, and yes, companionship and love. and a lot of people of all sexual orientations are drawn toward a unique bond with just one other individual. really not that surprising at all.

gay people should never be afraid of being different from staight people. if we feel different, live different; don't let straight people convince you to be the same. and we should be just as wary of our fear of being the same. if we feel the same, we should live the same; don't let gay convince you to be different. either way is an equal betrayal of who we are.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 18, 2006, 07:45:40 PM
I'll tell you one thing, im absolutely sick of GAY being tagged in front of everything homosexually involved.

i know what you mean. sometimes, it's necessary during a debate, to identify exactly what you mean. but much of the time, it's very existence suggests the speaker doesn't quite accept its existence without the adjective. i don't want a gay marriage, i just want a marriage. (should i ever find an acceptable husband. hehehe.)

the related one that is TOTALLY outlived its usefulness in my opinion is "openly gay." i find that so insulting. it still sounds as if the person is surprised: not just gay, but OPENLY gay. and isn't it redundant? i mean, if you're printing that he's gay in Newsweek, or saying it on Meet The Press, he's pretty much out in the open regarless now, isn't he?

or even using it in conversation: if you're talking about it as if it were common knowledge that the person is gay, isn't it assumed he's out. i'd say we can switch to the default being gay, and using "closeted gay" in the exception. (and since gay people almost never use the phrase, we can assume it's probably a straight person saying it, so this isn't just someone known in gay circles anyway.)

i was sick of this about ten years ago. when is it going away? why do they think they need it?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Signal63 on June 18, 2006, 10:57:33 PM
Not in my opinion. I had the same reactions to those posts. It seems like there can be no coordinated strategy on anything from the political left and we are left to wonder why nothing changes. Yes, gay culture is diverse. No one is suggesting that everyone in it needs to partake of marriage or living in the suburbs or raising kids. The quest is for the same priviledges and rights that other heterosexual citizens hold. It is this struggle for "sameness" that runs counter to the decades of promoting cultural difference in gay communities. I would go as far as to say that the priority on asserting difference has passed or evolved beyond questions of identity and group affliation (what makes me and others like me different from other people) and has entered into areas (marriage, adoption, etc.) which were previously out-of-bounds (made so by both gay and straight people). Marriage is threatening because it disrupts the stereotype of gay=sex with gay=love just as surely as BBM confounds notions of masculinity and being gay. Difference means distance and therefore categorical safety. Sameness closes that distance and is ultimately more threatening because the categorical exclusion (on both sides) is diminished or lost. Yesterday's radicals claimed difference, perhaps today's radicals are the assimilationists.

wow, what an insightful post. i feel like an iditiot that i never made that connection that i bolded. i have been feeling something like that for ages, but unable to grasp it.

i have to say that i've sensed a real uneasiness with a lot of gay people for some time now, especially those he enjoy being distinctively different from straights. and i've heard a lot of them say that they feel attacked or use other similar language, when i have not seen any such attacks. i think a more accurate word might be that they feel threatened. as you point out, our identity as gay = different -- which was so scary before we came out (for most of us), but can be liberating and cool afterward -- is now threatened a bit.

if we assimilate in some ways, adopt some straight ways like getting married or going into the army, we may lose a bit of our distincitiveness. i don't think there's really much risk that we'll ever blend in completely and be just like the straight people, but our conception of ourselves as dramatically different may shrink dramatically.

i think this is a really interesting idea (the bold line again), that we have gotten so used to running in one direction: embracing and revelling in our differentness, that something feels wrong about pushing in the other direction--on an instictive level, it can feel like backsliding. we're going the wrong way!

instincts are powerful and precious sometimes, but they can also be dead wrong, and they require a bit of examination.

this is really just a subset of the classic problem of any type of revolutionary, whether is revolting against a government or a cultural institution or just cultural ideas. revolutionaries who overthrow governments are famous for getting in trouble once they win. both the character of many of their leaders, and the general momentum they have built up--the feeling in their ranks of what is right--is to revolt. except now they have to govern, not knock things over. it's a very different task, and if they can't make the transition, they don't last.


Thanks, Dave. I came to this realization after seeing BBM and being so effected by it. When I tried to explain why I thought the film and its reactions (by fans, media, and detractors) was so important and strong, it kept coming back to the feeling that it was a very radical proposition that was packaged in such a seemingly "normal" manner. It's most vocal dismissal seemed to be happening from two opposing camps: the religious righteous (as would be expected) and some, largely urban gay folk. I must say that for me as a gay man the visibility and identity politics of the previous decades was absolutely necessary. But is it simply enough that you can live in what constitutes a gay bubble and be satisfied with this kind of ghetto? Are the stereotypical career choices, personas, and cultivated lifestyle choices enough? For some gay folks I'm sure the answer is a resounding yes. For others, the answer will be no, either because they are dissatisfied with range of choices or they never fit them in the first place. As a contrarian, it's always those places and spaces where you're not particularly welcome to enter that seem the most promising or enticing. That's why I think today's truly progressive "gay agenda" is about occupying those areas that once were off limits and out of bounds (marriage, adoption, military service, etc.). And of course this is what terrifies the religious righteous more than anything else, you're moving into their space, or even their neighborhood or school meetings. Just like Jack and Ennis terrified them because you could no longer tell the queers from the straight guys: how would you know the difference? Maybe you can't tell the difference.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lonewolf on June 19, 2006, 01:39:50 AM
I'll tell you one thing, im absolutely sick of GAY being tagged in front of everything homosexually involved.

i know what you mean. sometimes, it's necessary during a debate, to identify exactly what you mean. but much of the time, it's very existence suggests the speaker doesn't quite accept its existence without the adjective. i don't want a gay marriage, i just want a marriage. (should i ever find an acceptable husband. hehehe.)

the related one that is TOTALLY outlived its usefulness in my opinion is "openly gay." i find that so insulting. it still sounds as if the person is surprised: not just gay, but OPENLY gay. and isn't it redundant? i mean, if you're printing that he's gay in Newsweek, or saying it on Meet The Press, he's pretty much out in the open regarless now, isn't he?

or even using it in conversation: if you're talking about it as if it were common knowledge that the person is gay, isn't it assumed he's out. i'd say we can switch to the default being gay, and using "closeted gay" in the exception. (and since gay people almost never use the phrase, we can assume it's probably a straight person saying it, so this isn't just someone known in gay circles anyway.)

i was sick of this about ten years ago. when is it going away? why do they think they need it?

...Damn Dave, that was about the best articulation of a response I couldve gotten from my rage. Im glad to hear another fellow man feels the same way i do about that topic (see how I didnt tag GAY in front of "man", not that is a negative, its just already communicated and unnecessary) and all this closet stuff, like you say is another topic to address.

In reality, when were born, we are bombarded by constant heterosexual norms, presented to us as "the right way", from television to bedtime stories its always the same, your never going to see the handsome prince kiss the equally handsome prince to wake him will you? not in the next 20 years i dont believe so. But given that as an example, society creates this closet, any human fears social exile it doesnt matter on what scale it is still undesirable. Therefore, we are reluctant to 'out' ourselves for fear of disownment by hose we care for. But, in the future even the closeted gay term may dissappear, but it takes time, lest hope its sooner than later.

But I got on here to say something else, before i saw Daves response :) which i still find quite kind lol. But in our ever raging debate we have a newcomer in the form of animation. Some of you may have seen this, but it has just aired on Adult Swim, and episode of family guy on the topic of gay marriage. Apparently the makers of the show are plenty liberal, but not to be stereotypically absent, for humors sake. I feel as if the thoughts of many were represented well, Peter, the main said something to the effect of "Sure, i dont see why we shouldn't let gays marry and suffer like the rest of us" it was very funny and very true all at once. Id say its a good eye-opener for the "slow" Americans out there, bless them, a cartoon will teach more than any news show for those few, *sigh*.

I just thought id say that, and ill end with a lyric from a recently downloaded song... it more or less captures the mood of where society should go:


If we want to see our world in one piece,
Many of our leaders sure will have to leave,
Put them on a rocket straight up into space,
Send them to another galaxy,
Change the past, if we don’t we will all be damned.

Time, go with you

Time, time, go with you

You can dream your life, but you better live your dream.

The song makes it seem so much longer, but hey, i think it gets the thought across, its true if you think about it.

                                                                                                                                                                                 Peace folks,

                                                                                                                                                                                       The 'Gay' Youth of the Future

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 19, 2006, 02:31:31 PM
I'll tell you one thing, im absolutely sick of GAY being tagged in front of everything homosexually involved. if they tag "straight" in front of everything hetero, people would see how dumb it sounds...

descriptive, yes. necessary, no.

Lonewolf,

I second your statement here . . . also particularly in relation to Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar in the film of Brokeback, where, as I've said elsewhere, I can identify them as either bisexual or as homosexual (rather than "gay" because, as was evident on another thread here, "gay" has different meanings to different people).

Maybe that difference in meanings of the word "gay" should be considered more by the proponents of same-sex marriage, because, ultimately I think it could stand in their way if they're not careful.  There's a big gaping whole between the general public's perception of the Will Trumans-Jack McFarlands and the Jack Twists-Ennis Del Mars of the world.  No matter how poor or unsuccessful Jack and Ennis's marriages are portrayed in comparison to their love for each other, an enormous gap is created in the public's eye showing both men having sex with women as well as each other--even though many people can argue it down as "lying, faking it, etc."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 19, 2006, 09:12:53 PM
Maybe that difference in meanings of the word "gay" should be considered more by the proponents of same-sex marriage, because, ultimately I think it could stand in their way if they're not careful.  There's a big gaping whole between the general public's perception of the Will Trumans-Jack McFarlands and the Jack Twists-Ennis Del Mars of the world.  No matter how poor or unsuccessful Jack and Ennis's marriages are portrayed in comparison to their love for each other, an enormous gap is created in the public's eye showing both men having sex with women as well as each other--even though many people can argue it down as "lying, faking it, etc."

i agree that a lot of people have a narrow image of what a gayguy looks/acts like. but changing the phrase "gay marriage" to "same-sex marriage" or anything else isn't going to change that perception one bit.

the things that will change it are prominent masculine fictional characters like jack and ennis, and prominent masculine real people like sports stars and movie idols coming out of hiding. and most of all, a range of different homos in every straight person's life coming out, including masculine gayguys and feminine lesbians.

and perhaps we need to think about which images of ourselves we're highlighting in our gay pride parades this month. why are we highlighting our own stereotypes and then complaining about them?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 19, 2006, 10:15:08 PM
I noticed this quote in an article entitled "Black gay pride events grow, reaffirm identity" and I thought I'd post it here for comments (mostly I wonder if this is a widely held belief among black gay men, and I wonder if the difference in the rates of infection with HIV between the blacks and whites plays a role in this):

"The majority of people who go to black pride do not live in the gay ghettos, on Castro Street or in Chelsea," said Earl Fowlkes, president of the International Federation of Black Prides, a coalition created in 1999. "Black folks don't have the institution that develops in gay neighborhoods, and they don't feel that safe space. Our events create a space where no one is going to call them names -- or question their blackness."
.
.
.
"The black gay agenda is different than the (white) gay agenda," Fowlkes said. "We are talking about housing, medicine, economic development and homophobia, while the gay agenda is more focused on marriage." '

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/17/MNG72JG0BU1.DTL&hw=black+gay+pride&sn=001&sc=1000

For HIV rates among African Americans see here:

http://www.cdc.gov/HIV/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 20, 2006, 12:55:34 AM

It seems like there can be no coordinated strategy on anything from the political left and we are left to wonder why nothing changes. Yes, gay culture is diverse. No one is suggesting that everyone in it needs to partake of marriage or living in the suburbs or raising kids. The quest is for the same priviledges and rights that other heterosexual citizens hold. It is this struggle for "sameness" that runs counter to the decades of promoting cultural difference in gay communities. I would go as far as to say that the priority on asserting difference has passed or evolved beyond questions of identity and group affliation (what makes me and others like me different from other people) and has entered into areas (marriage, adoption, etc.) which were previously out-of-bounds (made so by both gay and straight people). Marriage is threatening because it disrupts the stereotype of gay=sex with gay=love just as surely as BBM confounds notions of masculinity and being gay. Difference means distance and therefore categorical safety. Sameness closes that distance and is ultimately more threatening because the categorical exclusion (on both sides) is diminished or lost. Yesterday's radicals claimed difference, perhaps today's radicals are the assimilationists.


Brilliantly stated SIGNAL63.  I am new to this thread so please forgive any redundancy, plus reliance on pop culture for oversimplified examples. 

I think a key to political success is political assimilation.  Gays are the new demons of conservative Republicans.  Blacks, women and other minorities obviously have a long way to go towards achieving equality, but once Martin Luther King peacefully assuaged the fear,  the Huxtables were inevitable, the wealthy black-white family just like us.  In between, inter-racial marriage remained illegal in many states until 1967, but brave couples like the fictional Willises on The Jeffersons helped the public slowly see there is no harm, they were readily identifiable.  Moreover, blacks did not sacrifice their culture, but smartly re-packaged it for the predominant white audience, and I think gays should learn from the example. 

Indeed, conservative republicans are finally running scared, as evidenced by their re-introduction of the inevitably doomed constitutional amendment, dangled for the sole purpose of energizing their waning evangelistic political base.  I agree with the historical proposition that once the door is ajar it will keep opening, but I do not think it inevitable without affirmative actions emphasizing our similarities.  Jack and Ennis are out of the closet, a major step.  They began emerging slowly when the world learned masculinity icon Rock Hudson had AIDS, but were pushed back in by the disgrace of AIDS being used as a weapon to elicit even more fear and alienation.  When Liberace contracted it, the bigots scoffed it was to be expected (and even deserved - I shudder even typing that).  But in the ensuing 25 years, with brave partners marrying, committing and adopting, and sex education, we circle back to married neighbor Rock, hence Jack and Ennis.  Straight people have seen the new example, not just the Village People wanna-bes dancing semi-naked in the streets.  Not that there's anything wrong with that (lol) - or perhaps there is in 2006.  Certainly that too is an act of great courage, particularly since the stigma of being gay, as difficult as it remains, was far worse 20 years ago, back to Brokeback and beyond.  I deeply admire the brave ones who came out, and I'm sure as heck not in any position to judge how they attempted to claim their rights, but the prude in me has always felt uncomfortable at the virtually simulated sex floats during gay pride parades.  It’s not just I didn’t personally share the sensibility, but also because I was embarrassed in front of straight parents with whom I attended (while I was still closeted to them).  My straight friends were probably less judgmental than I, but when pushed, they confessed they suspected the naked floaters would make poor baby-sitters.  Unfair perhaps, but society is rightly very careful with whom it trusts its children, so when in doubt, throw it out. 

Thankfully the landscape keeps evolving.  Science tells us that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else (duh), and it is time we debunk the myth that gay men are naturally more sexually promiscuous than straight.  Virtually every straight male friend talks of sex, sports and sex at least as much as the gay ones (sex, movies and sex, lol).  If gay men have been proportionately historically more promiscuous (?), it is in large part because we have not had the opportunity to partner in the same way as straights.  Straight male friends admit to at least as many sexual partners as gay ones, but marriage was at the end of their tunnels (bad pun intended) with all the legal and societal advantages it affords.  Its hard enough for most people to sustain a relationship in the best of circumstances, much less in the face of societal shame, so resulting promiscuity naturally ensued; it was that or be lonely (see “Normal Heart”).  So why present our neighbors with something we’re mostly not, perhaps because we don’t need to be any more, when now we are finally at the cusp of claiming something so much more valuable.  I don’t mean to offend, of course the gay community is diverse, but when straight neighbors see for themselves that gays are both as good and bad as they at partnership and parenting, they trust us with their children.  No doubt naked pride floaters are just as capable, but perception is everything.  I don't mean to stifle the culture, I too celebrate flamboyance, but at cabarets, clubs and theaters.  In other words, if you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em - within reason of course.  We’re here, we’re queer, welcome to my tupperware party, lol.  And if you wanna meet at Allegria after the kids are asleep...

I feel the gay civil rights movement was where the black civil rights movement was 40 years ago, and hopefully ours will progress even faster.  I believe it is inevitable, provided we continue to show we have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else, since by so doing it validates their own ideas.  I also think the idiocy that gay marriage denigrates straight marriage is crumbling fast.  Tonight The Colbert Report, during a (fake) tirade against gay superheroes, Krypton exploded, obviously on account of gay marriage.  Yeah, unfortunately millions will tenaciously remain repulsed by all things gay, and equally unfortunate is that many of those same persons still deem blacks, hispanics and other non-whites inferior or worse.  It is also an uphill climb to extricate the gay marriage debate from the conflagrant merger of church and state foisted by this administration.  The hope is in our youth, the children of both straight and gay families, who will teach greater tolerance to future generations.  That’s why that “Best Kiss” prize from the MTV Awards is so much more valuable than some stupid bronze naked man, holding his sword of war.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lonewolf on June 20, 2006, 02:08:31 AM
I noticed this quote in an article entitled "Black gay pride events grow, reaffirm identity" and I thought I'd post it here for comments (mostly I wonder if this is a widely held belief among black gay men, and I wonder if the difference in the rates of infection with HIV between the blacks and whites plays a role in this):

"The majority of people who go to black pride do not live in the gay ghettos, on Castro Street or in Chelsea," said Earl Fowlkes, president of the International Federation of Black Prides, a coalition created in 1999. "Black folks don't have the institution that develops in gay neighborhoods, and they don't feel that safe space. Our events create a space where no one is going to call them names -- or question their blackness."
.
.
.
"The black gay agenda is different than the (white) gay agenda," Fowlkes said. "We are talking about housing, medicine, economic development and homophobia, while the gay agenda is more focused on marriage." '

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/17/MNG72JG0BU1.DTL&hw=black+gay+pride&sn=001&sc=1000

For HIV rates among African Americans see here:

http://www.cdc.gov/HIV/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm

Hmm, that applies to me pretty directly... I didnt know we negros did this since the 90's but I was like 11 or so, i dont know if internet access was availale back then, makes me feel old. But thats interesting to me, i really didnt think weve already split racial views already, but it happens i guess, ill read the article and give my opinion since i fall into that category.

...Im a creature of the night, as you can see from my post times, im tired, havent had my dose of BBM slash yet and i have to do crap so im off to bed, but ill catch this topic later, ranting about government and racial issues im sure after I return.

Peace Folks
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 11:31:11 AM
nice post, but i think you got the promiscity bit mostly wrong:

. . . it is time we debunk the myth that gay men are naturally more sexually promiscuous than straight.  Virtually every straight male friend talks of sex, sports and sex at least as much as the gay ones (sex, movies and sex, lol).  If gay men have been proportionately historically more promiscuous (?), it is in large part because we have not had the opportunity to partner in the same way as straights.  Straight male friends admit to at least as many sexual partners as gay ones, but marriage was at the end of their tunnels (bad pun intended) with all the legal and societal advantages it affords.  Its hard enough for most people to sustain a relationship in the best of circumstances, much less in the face of societal shame, so resulting promiscuity naturally ensued . . .

i think there's some truth there: that it's harder for gayguys to be married--both because we lack the institution, and because we have no woman to do a lot of the emotional heavy lifting (see my post upthread)--and that keeps many of us bedhopping longer.

that's part of the reason for promiscuity. but i'm pretty sure the bigger reason is that we can. if every straight singles bar was packed with men on the prowl and women just as willing, they would be having just as much sex as us.

and i don't think most straight people have any problem with that, once it's pointed out. every straight person i've ever said that too laughed their ass off and understood. they know that on the whole, their men are just as promiscous. they're just less successful at it, because their women are not.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 11:54:31 AM
"The majority of people who go to black pride do not live in the gay ghettos, on Castro Street or in Chelsea," said Earl Fowlkes, president of the International Federation of Black Prides, a coalition created in 1999. "Black folks don't have the institution that develops in gay neighborhoods, and they don't feel that safe space. Our events create a space where no one is going to call them names -- or question their blackness."
.
.
.
"The black gay agenda is different than the (white) gay agenda," Fowlkes said. "We are talking about housing, medicine, economic development and homophobia, while the gay agenda is more focused on marriage." '

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/17/MNG72JG0BU1.DTL&hw=black+gay+pride&sn=001&sc=1000

wow, great story, thanks for that michael.

at first it made me sad that blacks felt the need to spin off to their own celebrations, and it still kind of does, but it makes sense that physical location is a big part of it, and we have a much bigger situation.

it's interesting to me that so many white gays continue to gravitate toward the gay ghettos, but the blacks tend to stay in the black ghettos. (i'm using the word ghetto in its primary sense: #1 from dictionary.com: "A section of a city occupied by a minority group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure."

it's probably the best indication there is that most white gays identify primarily as a gay person and black gays tend to identify first as a black person.

and jeez, it's got to be hard enough having two minority labels to deal with, but it's worse than that, because homophobia is still much stronger in the black community. it's not surprising that black gays are not focused on gay marriage -- that's the last battle, and as they are still working on feeling safe.

i had a black bf for awhile who was twisted in way more knots that i was about this stuff. he had so much more to deal with. he was already dealing with being called an oreo--because he kinda was. he confessed that he didn't really like hip hop much, but he listened to it just to stay in touch. (very much like i used to watch the football roundup every sunday so i would be able to keep up with the sports conversations at work all day monday.) and the more entrenched he got in the gay scene here in denver, the more he saw himself losing even more touch with his black roots and getting shunned when he tried to hang with his black friends. (much less make new ones.)

it's freaking hard. i never had any good answers for him.

i'm interested to hear more from you, lonewolf. i had no idea you were both a homo and a negro, hehehe. i have a feeling we have a whole lot of white people here on this site, too. we could use some more color in some of these discussions.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 12:20:28 PM
So Pridefest has always been sort of the third rail of gay politics, but some gay writers have begun to speak up the past few years about how the image we're projecting there might not be the wisest thing for us poltically, in the zeros.

Anybody want to step out on the ledge on this one?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 20, 2006, 12:20:52 PM
nice post, but i think you got the promiscity bit mostly wrong:

. . . it is time we debunk the myth that gay men are naturally more sexually promiscuous than straight.  Virtually every straight male friend talks of sex, sports and sex at least as much as the gay ones (sex, movies and sex, lol).  If gay men have been proportionately historically more promiscuous (?), it is in large part because we have not had the opportunity to partner in the same way as straights.  Straight male friends admit to at least as many sexual partners as gay ones, but marriage was at the end of their tunnels (bad pun intended) with all the legal and societal advantages it affords.  Its hard enough for most people to sustain a relationship in the best of circumstances, much less in the face of societal shame, so resulting promiscuity naturally ensued . . .

i think there's some truth there: that it's harder for gayguys to be married--both because we lack the institution, and because we have no woman to do a lot of the emotional heavy lifting (see my post upthread)--and that keeps many of us bedhopping longer.

that's part of the reason for promiscuity. but i'm pretty sure the bigger reason is that we can. if every straight singles bar was packed with men on the prowl and women just as willing, they would be having just as much sex as us.

and i don't think most straight people have any problem with that, once it's pointed out. every straight person i've ever said that too laughed their ass off and understood. they know that on the whole, their men are just as promiscous. they're just less successful at it, because their women are not.


Hey Dave.  If you re-read what I wrote I think you'll see we agree.  I was trying to say that most men are the same in that straights have just as much sex as gays until marriage, if they can.  Don't under-estimate the women out there, I've known a number who haven't been afraid to enjoy themselves, lol.   Interesting point though about the "emotional heavy lifting", no doubt you are generally right but I have to think more about that, I'm not sure you give many gay men enuf credit.   thx 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 20, 2006, 12:24:42 PM
So Pridefest has always been sort of the third rail of gay politics, but some gay writers have begun to speak up the past few years about how the image we're projecting there might not be the wisest thing for us poltically, in the zeros.

Anybody want to step out on the ledge on this one?


I reiterate what I said in my prior post.  Mass promiscuity is not a positive image.  We should tone it down during day and do as we pleased in the privacy of our homes and clubs, just like straights. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 20, 2006, 12:30:16 PM

So we are finally getting the country to at least address the fact that they have excluded us homos from legalized monogomous coupling--ie, marriage--for ages now in Western culture.

I can understand why polygomysts would see that as a great opportunity to take the discussion a giant step further, and debate whether we should abandon the idea of monogymous coupling as a central definition altogether and redefine it as something very different, ie, multiple couplings.



I like what Jon Stewart said to Bill Bennett.  Gay people have a biological imperative towards same sex coupling.  Polygomists don't NEED to have three wives [or husbands of course].
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 20, 2006, 12:32:56 PM
and i don't think most straight people have any problem with that, once it's pointed out. every straight person i've ever said that too laughed their ass off and understood. they know that on the whole, their men are just as promiscuous. they're just less successful at it, because their women are not.

dave, once i have to disagree - statistics say that married men have more sex than single (straight) men. because sex is "available" without the whole courting thing. and the women of this millennium don't transform into frigid wives anymore the moment they marry ;)
which of course doesn't contradict your notion of gay men having lots of sex, provided that you don't need the whole courting thing either (which i've been told by a couple of men - seems only women need that stuff  ;)).
so, i'd say it's rather married men and gay men which are "compareable"...

and about the whole promiscuitivity thing i have to agree with jayiijay - i also believe that this is "made" by society. first of all, so many men live/ lived in the closet - no chance for a "regular" relationship, so no other chance but bein promiscuous. then, even when people are out and living in an relationship, society puts so much pressure on them with their prejudice and everything that it it is very likely that the relationship suffers - and when it finally breaks (helped by society), then society again points at the two guys saying that this was clear, as it proves that gay men are promiscuous....what a bigotry !
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 01:47:44 PM

Hey Dave.  If you re-read what I wrote I think you'll see we agree.  I was trying to say that most men are the same in that straights have just as much sex as gays until marriage, if they can.  Don't under-estimate the women out there, I've known a number who haven't been afraid to enjoy themselves, lol. 

i reread it, and what you said here, and i still think we disagree. the key point in your phrase above is "if they can." but in general, they can't, so most don't.

it's very common for gay men to have had several hundred sex partners. that's much more an exception with straight men. hence the promiscuity label.

and i think the primary reason is that gay men are making their pitch to gay men. (and they know what an easy pitch it is. when i was bi and i wanted to sleep with a woman, i had to work for it. i knew i needed about 5-10 minutes in a gay bar to get it. if that. or failing that, about 30 seconds in a bath house. straight people don't even have bathhouses. it's a whole different ballgame.)

yes, i know there are quite a few women out there willing to have sex, too. but in a fraction of the numbers of men. and they are operating in a culture that at least puts the brakes on. "slut" for them is derisive, for a man it tends more toward a badge of honor.

i spent a lot of time in straight singles bars in a lot of cities, and never saw an atmosphere where you could just smile at a woman, come over and proposition her, or start making out in the first thirty seconds and leave with her five minutes later. of course it happens, but it would surprise people in a straight bar. in a gay bar, happens all the time, nobody bats an eye.

my point is that gay men KNOW they're dealing with other men so that sex is generally availalbe--depending on what you're going to accept--and the whole sex culture has revolved around it. but the core ingredient making it work is having horndog men on both sides of the equation.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 01:50:26 PM
dave, once i have to disagree - statistics say that married men have more sex than single (straight) men. because sex is "available" without the whole courting thing.

yeah, but the available person is their wife, so it's the same person each time. (aside from when they're cheating, but i believe you're making the point of them having it with the wife a lot.)

promiscuity isn't about having a lot of sex, it's about having sex with a lot of different people.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 20, 2006, 02:03:01 PM
dave, once i have to disagree - statistics say that married men have more sex than single (straight) men. because sex is "available" without the whole courting thing.

yeah, but the available person is their wife, so it's the same person each time. (aside from when they're cheating, but i believe you're making the point of them having it with the wife a lot.)

promiscuity isn't about having a lot of sex, it's about having sex with a lot of different people.

ok, you're right there. ;)

but maybe married men don't have to have sex with many women because their wives are soooooooo good ?  ::) ::) ::) ok, that was a joke.

anyway, i don't know any numbers of sex partners of gay men. and i don't have a representative number of gay men available to make accurate statistics. but those i have i would actually put in "average numbers", not different from straight men. so, my experience might not be in line with "general" numbers.

but another question comes up now: if it is true that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men - why the need for marriage, for real commitment ? i simply have the impression that gay men come in lots of different colours and sizes, as straight men do (and i'm sure that it will be possible to find straight men with several hundred sex partners, too).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 20, 2006, 02:38:48 PM

i reread it, and what you said here, and i still think we disagree. the key point in your phrase above is "if they can." but in general, they can't, so most don't.

it's very common for gay men to have had several hundred sex partners. that's much more an exception with straight men. hence the promiscuity label.

my point is that gay men KNOW they're dealing with other men so that sex is generally availalbe--depending on what you're going to accept--and the whole sex culture has revolved around it. but the core ingredient making it work is having horndog men on both sides of the equation.


No, we do agree.  I was just wasn't clear in my original post that I meant INTENT, not actual practice.  You're too smart, lol.

On a far more salient point, "it's very common for gay men to have had several hundred sex partners."   Damn.  Really?  Am I that naive?  Where are these men???  This ain't a LOL, it's a cry out loud!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 20, 2006, 02:50:26 PM
. but i'm pretty sure the bigger reason is that we can. if every straight singles bar was packed with men on the prowl and women just as willing, they would be having just as much sex as us.

and i don't think most straight people have any problem with that, once it's pointed out. every straight person i've ever said that too laughed their ass off and understood. they know that on the whole, their men are just as promiscous. they're just less successful at it, because their women are not.

I totally agree with that, and funny I had never really thought about it before! lol  I think alot of straight single men would be out having sex every night of the week, with a different girl, if they could get it. 

I don't like to see people promiscuous, be it straight or gay.  But that is just me and as you said the women often feels differently than the men.

(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d145/cccccarol/mex-pridecouple.jpg)

I also agree that images like the above don't do much for the cause.

I am sure they are perfectly nice people, but would I have them dressed like that to my house for a dinner party.........um no.

Most of my gay friends blend right in with all our other friends.  Houses in the burbs, two incomes, pets, sometimes kids, long term committed relationships, yadda yadda, yadda.  I don't think of their sexuality one way or the other, it is none of my business.  It is a non issue.


P.S. we had a gay man on here once who said he frequented bath houses for orgies and had slept with thousands of men, I tried really hard not to be judgemental, but my first thought was to cringe, that just can't be good.   :-\
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 03:19:00 PM
if it is true that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men - why the need for marriage, for real commitment ?

yup. sex is great, but it's not everything.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 20, 2006, 03:28:22 PM
if it is true that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men - why the need for marriage, for real commitment ?

yup. sex is great, but it's not everything.

Anonymous sex means nothing.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 03:33:41 PM
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d145/cccccarol/mex-pridecouple.jpg)

I also agree that images like the above don't do much for the cause.

i totally agree.

here's the rub. gay people--me included--are going to get really antsy if people--including our own people--start suggesting we can't live out scenes like that. i think the distinction is between living it and promoting it.

that pic is mild. you can shoot a photo like that on any saturday night in a danceclub here in denver. probably quite frequently in des moines and ohmaha and i'm guessing mobile, alabama, though i've never been. and images a hell of a lot more shocking than that are going on all the time.

and by the way, you can see more outrageous any night of the week in vegas, with a primarily straight audience, too -- or probably on broadway. nothing wrong with staging a fun little show.

i think the difference is when we stage a parade, issue press releases and court the press to come see us and televise us or put us on the front page of the paper, and then we present them with those images, and the distinct impression we are giving is not that this is us putting on a show, but this is who we are. not most of us, not most of the time.

why are we doing this again?

at this point, the question becomes, who is gay pride for? for most of the homos i have known for that past ten years or so, gay pride is mostly for us--mostly about having a big party. that's cool, i like parties. it's pride weekend in denver this weekend, and i'm looking forward to it: not because of the parade--i never really got parades--but mainly because of the dance parties saturday night. man, it will be fun.

and that's fine, and i like my parties fun, but why are we still inviting the press? i think a lot of them cover it out of a sense of obligation, and god knows we beg them. i was on the denver pridefest committee for three years and we were always brainstorming ways to get them a freaking news angle. and we had a theme every year, which was 99% of the benefit of the press, to give them something to write about. i can guarantee you 95% of the crowd out at the parade and festival didn't even know what it was.

i'm not against gay pride--i enjoy it too much. but originally it was a statement to the straight world, and that is not only no longer necessary, it's wildly counter-productive. so can't we quietly drop that aspect of it?

of course they may still choose to cover it--color for them--but i think they'll cover it a hell of a lot less if we quit asking, and quit giving them material.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 03:44:37 PM
Anonymous sex means nothing.

well i wouldn't say nothing. hehehe.

seriously. i have a good friend who says that too, and my response is usually, "then why are so many people having it?" they're getting something out of it.

personally, i'd exchange it for a good meaningful relationship, but it gets you through the night now and then.

(i got such a smile of recognition the first time i heard john lennon sing, "whatever gets you through the night." i was probably ten, and i wasn't thinking about sex or drugs or anything like that, but already it rang so true. some nights--and some days, but especially some nights--you just need to get through the night.)

and seriously, i also wouldn't give back my slut phase for the world. to say that i got nothing or learned nothing out of those years . . . well, that's just nothing like my experience. and i know a lot of people who got a lot out of theirs.

it can be like a drug addiction, though--more of a problem if you can't figure out how to stop. and sometimes a problem along the way. but certainly not nothing.

---

i also always thought the phrase anonymous sex was something of a contradiction--or near contradiction. you might be anonymous strangers when you start it, but that's rarely true once you've finished.

i guess some people really can have sex with strangers without any feeling, but i think they're the exception. i've seen them, but rarely. (or maybe they're just not the kind of people i'm drawn to sleep with? or hang out with?)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 20, 2006, 03:49:29 PM
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/45112.html

Above is a link (I posted it in another topic) it is a gay pride parade with a Brokeback theme!

I don't really know what goes on at the parades, I have never been to one.  I know Toronto has a huge one every year.

http://www.pridetoronto.com/

It actually always sounded pretty good to me, no crazy stuff, but then I can't say as I have never been.

I did see La Cage in Vegas last year!  :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marino_(female_impersonator)

(don't mind me going link crazy here)

I agree with you people can do what ever they like (look at straight people during Mardi Gras) but why promote it?

It does nothing for the cause.  Like I said, we have many gay friends, my husband can sit down with the guys talk sports, jobs, whatever.  I just can't see him and a Drag Queen having much in common. 

And if people want to marry, we want to think of those people as regular people in committed relationships.

I don't want to see people gay or straight jumping in and out of marriages.   If you are in love and committed to each other, and want to spend the rest of your life together, you should be able to marry............period.

I think people may see these parades and say "see they are not like us"   Which is also crazy, because when I see Mardi Gras people going nuts, I think "they are not like me"

Maybe some people just like a good party!  :-\   But we have our rights, we take them for granted, you guys are still fighting for yours, so yea maybe it is something to look at and consider.



Boy this sounds complicated doesn't it, and it really doesn't need to be.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 20, 2006, 04:44:10 PM

So we are finally getting the country to at least address the fact that they have excluded us homos from legalized monogomous coupling--ie, marriage--for ages now in Western culture.

I can understand why polygomysts would see that as a great opportunity to take the discussion a giant step further, and debate whether we should abandon the idea of monogymous coupling as a central definition altogether and redefine it as something very different, ie, multiple couplings.


I like what Jon Stewart said to Bill Bennett.  Gay people have a biological imperative towards same sex coupling.  Polygomists don't NEED to have three wives [or husbands of course].

I have to chime in and argue slightly here again, I'm afraid--especially because this statement seems to polarize the issue just too much for me.

As a bisexual man who has NEEDED to love, and HAS loved both another man and another woman AT THE SAME TIME, it's only a need for a relationship with ONE man and ONE woman and not a need for relationships with an unlimited number or even a larger number of people.  Maybe it can be classified as "multiple couplings because it's more than with just one other person," but it has nothing to do with the kind of thing that it seems polygamists are involved with.  It really wears thin to have any combination more than two lumped into the "polygamy" category.  In fact, if we could stretch things a bit, changing the law to include same-sex couple marriages would actually be very near to including ONE heterosexual marriage and ONE homosexual marriage at the same time, but no more than that.  If I were asking--and I'm not--I wouldn't ask for more than that.

But, as Dave has said earlier, to ask for even that would be disastrous to the same-sex marriage cause at the moment.

However, I do wish everyone would be very careful not to generalize every relationship of more than two peple so much over onto the "polygamy" side! 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 20, 2006, 05:21:04 PM

So we are finally getting the country to at least address the fact that they have excluded us homos from legalized monogomous coupling--ie, marriage--for ages now in Western culture.

I can understand why polygomysts would see that as a great opportunity to take the discussion a giant step further, and debate whether we should abandon the idea of monogymous coupling as a central definition altogether and redefine it as something very different, ie, multiple couplings.


I like what Jon Stewart said to Bill Bennett.  Gay people have a biological imperative towards same sex coupling.  Polygomists don't NEED to have three wives [or husbands of course].

I have to chime in and argue slightly here again, I'm afraid--especially because this statement seems to polarize the issue just too much for me.

As a bisexual man who has NEEDED to love, and HAS loved both another man and another woman AT THE SAME TIME, it's only a need for a relationship with ONE man and ONE woman and not a need for relationships with an unlimited number or even a larger number of people.  Maybe it can be classified as "multiple couplings because it's more than with just one other person," but it has nothing to do with the kind of thing that it seems polygamists are involved with.  It really wears thin to have any combination more than two lumped into the "polygamy" category.  In fact, if we could stretch things a bit, changing the law to include same-sex couple marriages would actually be very near to including ONE heterosexual marriage and ONE homosexual marriage at the same time, but no more than that.  If I were asking--and I'm not--I wouldn't ask for more than that.

But, as Dave has said earlier, to ask for even that would be disastrous to the same-sex marriage cause at the moment.

However, I do wish everyone would be very careful not to generalize every relationship of more than two peple so much over onto the "polygamy" side! 


I respectfully disagree Joe.  Speaking as a person who has also had a bi perspective most of his life, I do not see the difference between a bi person saying he/she simultaneously loves/needs two people of different sexes, as opposed to a straight person stating he/she simultaneously loves/needs two persons of the opposite sex.  I think I understand what you are saying, that people in the situation you describe should not be culturally labeled polygamists in the common derogatory perception of such practice, but let's face it, more than one is poly.  Personally I do not judge one way or the other, certainly people regularly fall in love with more than one person, but when that happens to a married person, he/she either divorces, cheats or abstains.  In my opinion, bi people in committed relationships should do the same - hopefully not cheat (obviously) - but play by the same rules of the same game, and settle for one marriage/permanent commitment only, at least at this point in American history.  I think it urgent we take this one step at a time or risk losing all battles.  Polygamy is still wielded as a slippery slope weapon against gays.  I don't know what studies say on potential bisexual "need" for simultaneous mates of each sex, but it is dangerous to even raise the spectre.  Millions finally understand that people have been born gay since the outset of human history, and I for one am ecstatic by the growing recognizion of the homosexual biological imperative, despite the inability to reproduce "naturally" (another classic argument against gays).  That is how Jon Stewart chastized Bill Bennett and, in my opinion, we should encourage such support. 

Also, to be as clear as possible, please know I am not saying that the issues of one group are more important than those of another; no.  But it sounds to me like what you are advocating is in excess of what straights permit themselves, i.e., one marriage only. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: NWWaguy on June 20, 2006, 06:37:39 PM
This is such an incredibly interesting discussion. I don't have much to add, if anything.

The only thing I'm concerned about as we work toward mutual understanding and maybe even a sort of plan of action to further the cause in general:  Beware of labeling and stereotyping ... the actions of 'this administration' have furthered the discussion immensely, that is a great benefit ... the 'anti' faction is spread throughout the population ... heck, even Libertarians have their problems with the idea!  LOL  From the party we so often think is 'on our side' we get a definition of oral sex not being sex and 'don't ask, don't tell' ...   Marriage is a legal issue ... the other is a 'ceremony' with the legal deed being done by the one 'vested' with power from the secular ... so it's a 'Marriage Mass' or whatever ... so, let's work together to the good of all, eh?

Thanks for letting me put my penny on the tray!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 20, 2006, 06:40:19 PM
Anonymous sex means nothing.

well i wouldn't say nothing. hehehe.

seriously. i have a good friend who says that too, and my response is usually, "then why are so many people having it?" they're getting something out of it.

personally, i'd exchange it for a good meaningful relationship, but it gets you through the night now and then.

(i got such a smile of recognition the first time i heard john lennon sing, "whatever gets you through the night." i was probably ten, and i wasn't thinking about sex or drugs or anything like that, but already it rang so true. some nights--and some days, but especially some nights--you just need to get through the night.)

and seriously, i also wouldn't give back my slut phase for the world. to say that i got nothing or learned nothing out of those years . . . well, that's just nothing like my experience. and i know a lot of people who got a lot out of theirs.

it can be like a drug addiction, though--more of a problem if you can't figure out how to stop. and sometimes a problem along the way. but certainly not nothing.

---

i also always thought the phrase anonymous sex was something of a contradiction--or near contradiction. you might be anonymous strangers when you start it, but that's rarely true once you've finished.

i guess some people really can have sex with strangers without any feeling, but i think they're the exception. i've seen them, but rarely. (or maybe they're just not the kind of people i'm drawn to sleep with? or hang out with?)

I guess I got tired and to old to wake up in the morning feeling like a lonely slut ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 20, 2006, 07:42:09 PM
Regarding pride celebrations...we could, of course act a bit more sober - like at St. Patrick's day.  Or perhaps we could dress a little more respectfully...like at Carnival and Mardi Gras.  And look at the terrible terrible effects those celebrations have had on their respective communities.

The good news is that pride celebrations are usually on Sunday.  And it's easy to ignore all that nastiness by spending the day in church.  Of course, there is always some good entertainment on in the afternoon when you get home:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Welk

Whatever happened to the Shakers?

 ;D

mf

 ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on June 20, 2006, 08:07:06 PM

yup. sex is great, but it's not everything.

Anonymous sex means nothing.

nice to see other gay men say that.

I'm also glad that I avoided that trap of "anonymous sex".  I have a friend who was very into anonymous sex.  I never saw the appeal of it.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 20, 2006, 09:25:17 PM
If I might add that I also think that the "anonymous" sex I had got me nowhere as a person. Aligning trophies on the mantlepiece is so vain, they hid my insecurity by showing how independent I was. Attachment was an abstraction. I think frequent flyer sex is like buying stuff you don't really need. It's only when you end up having to get rid of the that stuff that you feel like a fool. Thinking that sex is a substitute for love and attachment is dangerous. No amount of sex could teach us how to be who we could become in a loving relationship. It's a survey on body types. Having wasted my time in bed I am now alone in front of my computer, writing to strangers.
I don't regret what I did, I only wish I could have really looked in the eyes of those men and find something more than a release of a sexual tension.
Man, I can't believe how shallow I was.
Now, when I look at a man, I first think of who he his rather than how good he'd be in bed. The forces of attraction are still boiling but, these days, there boiling closer to my heart.
Wow,I must really getting old! ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 09:25:36 PM
Speaking as a person who has also had a bi perspective most of his life, I do not see the difference between a bi person saying he/she simultaneously loves/needs two people of different sexes, as opposed to a straight person stating he/she simultaneously loves/needs two persons of the opposite sex. 

I've got to agree. I was bi for seven years too, and the act of making an emotion connection/commitment to a single person would still be just as ruptured by making it to more than one person. i really enjoyed having sex with both men and women, just like i enjoyed having sex with several men, but neither one was a comitement to one person.

Another practicality question is how widespread is this desire/need? I can't say I've ever heard of any other bi's wanting/needing marriage defined that way. Is there a sizeable movement that I'm unaware of, or is it a relatively small number of bi's asking for this?

You're going to have a hell of a fight IF most bi's agree that they need that, but if they don't iIhave a feeling you're going to have to make peace with the fact that you're a rare individual and are going to come up with your own rare solution--i.e., outside the institution.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 20, 2006, 09:39:05 PM
If I might add that I also think that the "anonymous" sex I had got me nowhere as a person. Aligning trophies on the mantlepiece is so vain, they hid my insecurity by showing how independent I was. Attachment was an abstraction. I think frequent flyer sex is like buying stuff you don't really need. It's only when you end up having to get rid of the that stuff that you feel like a fool. Thinking that sex is a substitute for love and attachment is dangerous. No amount of sex could teach us how to be who we could become in a loving relationship. It's a survey on body types. Having wasted my time in bed I am now alone in front of my computer, writing to strangers.

Yup, sex can be dangerous. Alcohol, too. Some people become alcoholics. Some rot their livers. And believing either one can be a substitute for any of the essential qualities of life, that's really foolhardy. But they can both be a nice addition, if you don't let them get a hold of your life and start running it.

I'm taking my chances with both.

John, it sounds like you had a bad long-term experience with sport sex, wasted way too much time with it and regret the situation you're in. I can sympathize with that. But generalizing that experience to all other people seems like a stretch.

It strikes me much like a reformed alcoholic imploring everyone not to drink, that it's bad, bad, bad. Look at what it did to me--can't you see it's bad? I would respond that it's clearly bad for you. And it will be bad for a lot of others. Of course the problem is that we don't know which of us will become the alcoholics or sexaholics before we start. And yet many of us take our chances. I'm glad I did.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: divina on June 20, 2006, 10:06:12 PM
The fight for gay marriage is asking for equal rights, the same opportunity to a spouse that heteros enjoy. If polygamy gets legalized for straight men and they are allowed more than one spouse then gay people and women have the right to ask for the same rights. But asking for it now is asking for more than is currently legal for heterosexual couples and tying these two issues together confuses the issue for people like me who support gay marriage but not polygamy (due to the unequal treatment of women that I feel will largely be the product of its legalization). I think opponents of gay marriage are desperate to tie these issues together because they have no real argument why gays should not be allowed to marry so they are trying to focus the issue on something else. Its nothing more than a distraction technique that we shouldn't pander to.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 20, 2006, 10:08:14 PM
Dave I'm sorry if I touched a nerve.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 21, 2006, 12:36:32 AM
Anonymous sex means nothing.

well i wouldn't say nothing. hehehe.

{snip}

and seriously, i also wouldn't give back my slut phase for the world. to say that i got nothing or learned nothing out of those years . . . well, that's just nothing like my experience. and i know a lot of people who got a lot out of theirs.

i also always thought the phrase anonymous sex was something of a contradiction--or near contradiction. you might be anonymous strangers when you start it, but that's rarely true once you've finished.

i guess some people really can have sex with strangers without any feeling, but i think they're the exception. i've seen them, but rarely. (or maybe they're just not the kind of people i'm drawn to sleep with? or hang out with?)

Okay, I probably have a somewhat unique perspective on this [surprise!].  As someone who was both abused as a child and has been bashed several times I found anonymous sex to be very, very useful to me (well...from the mid-seventies through the early 80s at least - until I got to paranoid about disease to do it).

I have an incredibly difficult time trusting men I don't know.  No way was I going to let some guy I didn't know into my apartment - and I wasn't about to go to someone's house if I didn't know them either.  So between being with men I knew and could trust I often went to the baths and movies.  It simply seemed safer to me.  I know that may sound like a weird reversal, but it was true for me - you are around a large group of people and if you need to get away from someone you can.

And for those of you talking about for relationships here, I have to tell you that I know of at least two that started from anonymous sex.  One happened in 1981 at a bathouse called the 1808 here in San Francisco and they're still together.  That's 25 years folks.  They bought a house together and have travelled all over the country as well.  Another happened in the tea rooms at NYU.  They moved in together and moved through several states.  It lasted over 5 years.  They're not still together as lovers, but they're still close friends - and they introduced each other into their 'gay families'.

Now I'm not saying it happens often, or that it's for everyone - but it does happen.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 21, 2006, 01:32:35 AM
Okay, since we've had the drag queens at parades question come up here (and as I have a few friends who are drag queens) I thought perhaps a little background might be useful.  First off, the first gay person to ever run for office (at least in the U.S.) - a drag queen, José Sarria (in 1961, for city council in San Francisco).  Here's his bio:

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sarria_j.html

The first safe sex pamphlet for gay men was published by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in 1982.  Here's a timeline that lists it:

www.aidsaction.org/timeline/pdf/timeline.pdf

By the way, it took the U.S. govenment five and a half years after this to publish 'Understanding AIDS.'

And, of course, Pride parades commemorate Stonewall, where there was participation by both people in drag and butch lesbians (as well as go-go boys):

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/stonewall_riots.html

http://www.workers.org/ww/1998/sylvia0702.php

Prior to Stonewall there were was the Riot at Compton's Cafe in the tenderloin in San Francisco in 1966:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464189/

One of the organizations that does fundraising throughout the country (and around the world) is the Imperial Court, which was started by José Sarria.  There's a brief description of their goals here:

http://www.impcourt.org/icis/about/intro.html

As many of you know, I went to the San Diego Gay Rodeo recently.  What you may not know is that the Imperial Court is represented at (and honored by) the Rodeo.  Here's that link:

http://www.gaysports.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=14&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=521&snippetset=yes

And (if you don't want to go there) here's what the Rodeo said about them:

The Imperial Court de San Diego is a social and community service organization bound together in shared structure, policies and goals with the International Court System. As representatives of the Court System, the Imperial Court de San Diego's primary goals are:

• to further relationships with businesses and organizations within the community

• to hold functions and fundraisers to benefit the community

• to help those in the community who are in need of our assistance

Each year the organization contributes tens of thousands of dollars to local community services as well as to National and International causes. Membership comes from every aspect of society, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual. A person's gender, lifestyle or mode of dress has no bearing on being a member of the court "family."

“The Imperial Court de San Diego is an important part of San Diego’s LGBT community, we appreciate their hard work and dedication to making ‘our’ world a better place,” mentioned Joseph Sims, Marketing Director, GSGRA-GSDC. “We salute the many valuable contributions the Imperial Court de San Diego makes to our Community!”

So that's what drag queens have to do with the parades and why they are still honored.




Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 21, 2006, 07:20:44 AM
WOW thank you Michael, you learn something every day.  I have to say this site is a learning experience, I mean that.

And FYI I know a straight couple, that met in a bar, went home and had sex that night and have been together ever since (married 10 years)  same thing I guess.

And John John don't feel bad, apparently casual sex does work for some.  But it didn't work for you and that is cool.   :-*  It sure as hell would never work for me.  I pray you meet that special someone one day.  And being Canadian, you guys can marry if you do.

As for the bi-sexuals being able to marry more than one person, I totally agree with Velvet, when straight people can do it, then gay people can think of asking for it as well.

Reminds me of a cute story.  When my son was in Jr. Kindergarden we went to Parents night.  All the kids were there.  These two little girls (twins) and their Parents approached us.  The girls yelled his name in unison.  He looked at us and said "This is my girlfriend Laura and Victoria"  Outside my husband couldn't stop laughing, I said to my son, :you do know they are more than one person don't you"?

Now just think if he had stayed with those two and wanted to marry them!  :D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 21, 2006, 12:49:30 PM
Okay, I probably have a somewhat unique perspective on this [surprise!].  As someone who was both abused as a child and has been bashed several times I found anonymous sex to be very, very useful to me (well...from the mid-seventies through the early 80s at least - until I got to paranoid about disease to do it).

wow, i had no idea, michael.

fascinating story. and that totally makes sense about being safer in a group setting.

for me--and i think for a TON of young gayguys--sport sex was the crucial step in coming out. i wasn't ready to admit to myself that i was gay or even bi for awhile, just driven/experimenting. this took quite a few years. seven years total of experimenting/bi before i finally had a session with my shrink that blew up and the fucking lightbulb finally went off. it was shortly after that that i learned to love a guy--after going home with him from a bar the second time i met him (both fairly brief encounters at the bar).

i'm not sure if that meets the definition of "anonymous" or not--though as i said, i think the term "anonymous sex" is contradictory, at least for me. i don't know how everybody else has sex, but for me they're not anonymous by the end. it tends to be quite an intimate exchange regardless of how much i knew about them at the beginning. i know a lot by the end.

maybe we're using the phrase differently. i typically here it applied to any situation where you're essentially going home (or to a bathroom stall or whatever--hehehe) with essentially a stranger. i wonder if the crucial factor (or perhaps A crucial factor) is less how long you have known him than how well you hope to know him. some guys apparently go into these encounters with the express intent of it being a one-shot deal, because they want to avoid commitment at any cost. and some apparently take it a step further, intending to pump their body to the point of ejaculation without revealing anything about their heart or soul and then never seeing the other person again.

i know many guys from that one-timer group often get more than they bargained for. (or perhaps unconsciously WERE bargaining for.) tons of men are afraid of commitment, but then you wake up with the right guy, and sometimes to your own surprise, you really want to see him again. (though he may not. hehehe.)

as for that latter group, who think they can have sex without baring a big swath of their soul, i think they're kind of uncommon and highly delusional. or perhaps they're just extremely unobservant or untalented at reading their partners during sex--or willfully refuse to observe--and assume that their sex partners are just as blind as they are. i suppose you can have sex without learning anything about the other person, but if they're perceptive, they've still learned a hell of a lot about you.

i about to say that maybe more people are having this robotic, no-exchange-of-intimacy sex than i realize, and i'm just going by the people that i'm attracted to. but i suddenly remembered that i've spent a fair number of bathhouses, in an assortment of different cities, and i've seen and/or participated in enough groups to see plenty of emotion involved.

i also met another boyfriend who is still dear to my heart through sex a few hours after we met. and i met one of my best friends that way. we met briefly at 6 a.m. at a circuit party, exchanged numbers, met up at a bathhouse an hour later, then to his house and had great sex, and then started talking about his book collection on his bedroom shelves. i noticed "A Prayer For Owen Meaney" and recited the first sentence (which runs about three lines) by heart, he was skeptical, went to the shelf to check, which impressed me. we discussed books and art for a few hours, had sex a couple more times after that and then decided to just be friends--which took a bit of adjusting--but now it's 2.5 years later, and he's one of my best friends. he just finished his medical residency, and i have a whole new circle of really bright doctor friends through him.

of course those are the exceptions. but i've met lots of nice people by sleeping with them, and/or trying to sleep with them. my best friend in denver and the longest bf i ever had (six years), who is still one of my closest friends fall into that category.

of course i probably use it that way too much. there was a great line in Eternal Sunshine, where jim carrey said to Clementine something like, "You sleep with people to get them to like you." something like that. and i turned to my friend (the doctor from the circuit party above, who i was watching it with), and whispered, "you do that."

i do something like that too, sometimes. not that, exactly, but something like it.

i'm not much of a slut anymore, though, though i wouldn't trade those years for anything.

i still use sports sex every now and then, though. it gives me certain things i need.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: garyd on June 21, 2006, 04:37:00 PM
I have always  found this whole idea that there are "tons of men who are afraid of commitment" very interesting.  I have always wondered if it was just a cliche, or a sort of macho way of avoiding having to say "I would love to be with someone and it hurts that I am not", or, perhaps, a universal reaction from women who are frustrated by guys who seem to not want to get married. 

This is all very anecdotal, I know, but I certainly never had a fear of commitment and I have not seen it in either one of my sons.  I am not saying it doesn't exist, or at least the idea of it.  The whole concept seems to percolate through our entire culture.  (There is a famous line of dialog toward the end of the musical "Company" in which a character says to the protagonist: "Bobby, why are you so afraid of being with someone.  The only thing to be afraid of, really, is being alone".   This, of course, provides the set up for one of the great 11o'clock numbers of all time.)  Still, I think the "only thing to be afraid of, ...is being alone" rings pretty true.  Am I wrong? 

My point is, is this commitment thing real or just an excuse for something else?  Do these guys avoid commitment in other areas of their lives?   Is it a fear of commitment or a fear that it won't be "perfect"and, if that is the case, have we idealized romantic relationships to the point that the real thing never seems to be quite enough?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 21, 2006, 05:03:15 PM
Okay, I probably have a somewhat unique perspective on this [surprise!].  As someone who was both abused as a child and has been bashed several times I found anonymous sex to be very, very useful to me (well...from the mid-seventies through the early 80s at least - until I got to paranoid about disease to do it).

for me--and i think for a TON of young gayguys--sport sex was the crucial step in coming out. i wasn't ready to admit to myself that i was gay or even bi for awhile, just driven/experimenting. this took quite a few years. seven years total of experimenting/bi before i finally had a session with my shrink that blew up and the fucking lightbulb finally went off. it was shortly after that that i learned to love a guy--after going home with him from a bar the second time i met him (both fairly brief encounters at the bar).

i'm not sure if that meets the definition of "anonymous" or not--though as i said, i think the term "anonymous sex" is contradictory, at least for me. i don't know how everybody else has sex, but for me they're not anonymous by the end. it tends to be quite an intimate exchange regardless of how much i knew about them at the beginning. i know a lot by the end.

maybe we're using the phrase differently. i typically here it applied to any situation where you're essentially going home (or to a bathroom stall or whatever--hehehe) with essentially a stranger. i wonder if the crucial factor (or perhaps A crucial factor) is less how long you have known him than how well you hope to know him. some guys apparently go into these encounters with the express intent of it being a one-shot deal, because they want to avoid commitment at any cost. and some apparently take it a step further, intending to pump their body to the point of ejaculation without revealing anything about their heart or soul and then never seeing the other person again.

i know many guys from that one-timer group often get more than they bargained for. (or perhaps unconsciously WERE bargaining for.) tons of men are afraid of commitment, but then you wake up with the right guy, and sometimes to your own surprise, you really want to see him again. (though he may not. hehehe.)

as for that latter group, who think they can have sex without baring a big swath of their soul, i think they're kind of uncommon and highly delusional. or perhaps they're just extremely unobservant or untalented at reading their partners during sex--or willfully refuse to observe--and assume that their sex partners are just as blind as they are. i suppose you can have sex without learning anything about the other person, but if they're perceptive, they've still learned a hell of a lot about you.

i about to say that maybe more people are having this robotic, no-exchange-of-intimacy sex than i realize, and i'm just going by the people that i'm attracted to. but i suddenly remembered that i've spent a fair number of bathhouses, in an assortment of different cities, and i've seen and/or participated in enough groups to see plenty of emotion involved.

i also met another boyfriend who is still dear to my heart through sex a few hours after we met. and i met one of my best friends that way. we met briefly at 6 a.m. at a circuit party, exchanged numbers, met up at a bathhouse an hour later, then to his house and had great sex, and then started talking about his book collection on his bedroom shelves. i noticed "A Prayer For Owen Meaney" and recited the first sentence (which runs about three lines) by heart, he was skeptical, went to the shelf to check, which impressed me. we discussed books and art for a few hours, had sex a couple more times after that and then decided to just be friends--which took a bit of adjusting--but now it's 2.5 years later, and he's one of my best friends. he just finished his medical residency, and i have a whole new circle of really bright doctor friends through him.

of course those are the exceptions. but i've met lots of nice people by sleeping with them, and/or trying to sleep with them. my best friend in denver and the longest bf i ever had (six years), who is still one of my closest friends fall into that category.

of course i probably use it that way too much. there was a great line in Eternal Sunshine, where jim carrey said to Clementine something like, "You sleep with people to get them to like you." something like that. and i turned to my friend (the doctor from the circuit party above, who i was watching it with), and whispered, "you do that."

i do something like that too, sometimes. not that, exactly, but something like it.

i'm not much of a slut anymore, though, though i wouldn't trade those years for anything.

i still use sports sex every now and then, though. it gives me certain things i need.


MICHAEL & DAVE, what incredibly intimate, insightful posts, as always from both of you.  First & foremost, sincere thanks for sharing in this way.  No doubt it means a lot to most members, and it certainly helps me personally in navigating my own issues on this and similar topics.

Dave, like you, I met two of my closest friends initially with just sex in mind, what a happy surprise to have gotten so much more.  As you said, commitment-phobes and others will sometimes find each other in a bar, leave, pump, grind and leave again.  Fine, I've been done that once or twice myself in different emotional phases.  But I agree that on a sub-conscious level, most of us want more, even from our one-night stands.  Heck, it's another person we're dealing with, and he isn't there for my sole amusement; we must try to satisfy one another.  That recognition alone helps remove the so-called anonymity as far as I'm concerned, the need to give something in exchange for what we get, even if it is merely physical -which is not so mere. 

We all do things differently, but no matter how faceless, I've gotta talk first, at least a little, otherwise I can't proceed.  And the talks after usually last longer, which I would bet is true for many, particularly younger guys who are trying to come to terms with their sexuality and possibly coming out.  After all, if you don't experiment, then how do you know with certainty, especially with society telling you homosexuality is abnormal and/or curable.  Some young guys want the experiences to confirm they are gay, hence the talks; others want it to confirm they are NOT, hence some of the hit & runners.  But beyond those years, of course there is the intimacy of being with another person from which we almost inevitably must learn something about ourselves - even if what we've learn is that we are or aren't as solitary as we might have previously thought.

"I wonder if the crucial factor (or perhaps A crucial factor) is less how long you have known him than how well you hope to know him" and "...and sometimes to your own surprise, you really want to see him again (though he may not.)"   For me, that is nail on the head Dave (pun intended).      I see a person to whom I am attracted but have never spoken.  I want to sleep with him.  Maybe he is looking back, but I remain afraid, even if he approaches first.  Why?  Shit, I know I'd be ecstatic just to touch him, and he seems to want to do the same, but in my sub-conscious heart, I realize I want more.  Maybe he'll turn out to be a jerk.  Fine, that's easy, I'll hit and run too.  But what if he's a good guy, I like him, yet the feeling isn't mutual?  Too bad and oh well, because "anonymous" sex aside, that's just dating in general.  And let's face it, aren't people with whom we've had the "customary" 3-5 best-behavior dates before we congregate also really still strangers?  But that aside, the testosterone is potent, there's a need, so maybe I'll erect a guard and pretend it is just sport sex.  And maybe it is, and usually I'll have had a good time.  But thinking of my two decade-plus one night stands, we never really know, do we?  It's up to each and both of us every time.  [No, neither was ever a formal boyfriend, that has a lot to do with my own quirks, but I think we'd almost all agree that lasting friendships are A key to happiness, however they happen].

For the record, I speak as a person of likely less experience in this regard than many (alas for me, lol), but reading these threads helps me realize that part of that is from classic fear of rejection.  For those with more experience, I would contend they are braver, but I further suspect most would not reject a good thing, even if it was "more than they bargained for", whether that thing is just friendship or more.  I hope I am clear in carving out commitment-phobes, I think they are a subset of this discussion, and I'm also aware that different people feel differently about long & short term relationships at different times.  I am just trying to agree with those who contend that so-called anonymous sex can have a variety of meanings and values since it is part of the inherent human need most share to be connected to others.

Finally, DAVE, yeah, I know, like all of us you post what you are comfortable posting, and certainly nobody has been more generous than you, but shit, you can't blame me for asking, "I do something like that too, sometimes. not that, exactly, but something like it" sure piques the interest!!


Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 21, 2006, 05:28:42 PM
I have to say that I find it ironic, if not kind of mind-boggling, to be reading about all this anonymous and
recreational sexual activity in many people's lives over many years and then to have my long-term
commitment to both a man and a woman rather dismissed as practically irrelevant when it comes to
the "marriage" issue.  Particularly when I've never, ever been to a straight or gay bar, to a bathhouse,
to a rest stop, or had anonymous sex with anyone.  The very thought of touching someone without
encompassing their whole being with love is even repugnant to me too.

To think that changing the marriage law is going to do much to alter the anonymous, recreational
sex activity seems pretty far-fetched to me.  Something more fundamental in terms of a revolution
in people's conception of engaging the soul of another human being seems much more needed there.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 21, 2006, 05:35:48 PM
I have always  found this whole idea that there are "tons of men who are afraid of commitment" very interesting.  I have always wondered if it was just a cliche, ...

This is all very anecdotal, I know, but I certainly never had a fear of commitment and I have not seen it in either one of my sons. . . .

My point is, is this commitment thing real or just an excuse for something else? 

Cliches rarely develop in a vacuum. Certainly not this one. I assumed we had all known enough men in this situation, but I guess we all know different men, and/or talk to them about different things.

I think any shrink could/would tell you that it's taken for granted in their field. Any listening?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 21, 2006, 05:46:04 PM
I have to say that I find it ironic, if not kind of mind-boggling, to be reading about all this anonymous and
recreational sexual activity in many people's lives over many years and then to have my long-term
commitment to both a man and a woman rather dismissed as practically irrelevant when it comes to
the "marriage" issue. 

I can see your frustration, though I don't see how the two are actually related. It strikes me a bit like saying: It's ironic that there's all this violence on television, yet I can't get people to buy my argument on altering the death penalty.

There's an appearance of a relationship, but it's a facade.

People can and will always have sex outside of marriage. Until the end of time--or mankind--I think that's one of the few things we can be sure of.

And that's never going to effect the likelhood or the advisability of our society radically changing the conception of marriage to include polygamy--even in the specific sense you want.

Hopefully we can all agree that people have the right to opt OUT of marriage if they choose, and legally adopt any sexual behavior they want, in or out of marriage. And single people (or married) having a lot of sex, or discussing that openly doesn't affect the validity or practicality of the polygamy argument.

Seems you're trying to conflate two completely separate things again. Sounds like a case of mistaken irony to me.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 21, 2006, 05:46:17 PM
I have to say that I find it ironic, if not kind of mind-boggling, to be reading about all this anonymous and
recreational sexual activity in many people's lives over many years and then to have my long-term
commitment to both a man and a woman rather dismissed as practically irrelevant when it comes to
the "marriage" issue.  Particularly when I've never, ever been to a straight or gay bar, to a bathhouse,
to a rest stop, or had anonymous sex with anyone.  The very thought of touching someone without
encompassing their whole being with love is even repugnant to me too.

To think that changing the marriage law is going to do much to alter the anonymous, recreational
sex activity seems pretty far-fetched to me.  Something more fundamental in terms of a revolution
in people's conception of engaging the soul of another human being seems much more needed there.

I don't think changing the marriage law will stop people from having recreational sex, it hasn't stopped straight people.  But as was said by Velvet, I think it was, you are asking for something that straight people don't have.

What gay marriage advocates are asking for is equal rights, not special rights.  I know there are probably many straight men out there who would take two wives, if it were legal.

Here it is:

The fight for gay marriage is asking for equal rights, the same opportunity to a spouse that heteros enjoy. If polygamy gets legalized for straight men and they are allowed more than one spouse then gay people and women have the right to ask for the same rights. But asking for it now is asking for more than is currently legal for heterosexual couples and tying these two issues together confuses the issue for people like me who support gay marriage but not polygamy (due to the unequal treatment of women that I feel will largely be the product of its legalization). I think opponents of gay marriage are desperate to tie these issues together because they have no real argument why gays should not be allowed to marry so they are trying to focus the issue on something else. Its nothing more than a distraction technique that we shouldn't pander to.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: garyd on June 21, 2006, 06:22:26 PM
Clever editing, Dave.  Or perhaps just selective reading.

Cliches thrive in a vacuum because there is an absence of anything else, (like truth), to hinder their growth.

I did not say a "fear of commitment" does not exist or that it is not used as an excuse for avoiding relationships.  I am sure the subject is rampant on shrink couches throughout the country.  And those shrinks who are listening and, just as important, those who are worth listening to, attempt to get beyond the banal excuse to assist the patient in understanding the truth behind the fear.  After all, these guys can commit to a car, a career, a brand of beer, a baseball team.  Why not a relationship?  Of what are they truly afraid; that they will never be able to have sex with other partners, that once the commitment is consumated someone else will come along with better potential, that the relationship will not live up to their idealized expectations?  Perhaps they have simply learned to avoid anything that has the potential to cause pain. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Mr. Wrong on June 21, 2006, 06:51:27 PM
Quote
After all, these guys can commit to a car, a career, a brand of beer, a baseball team.  Why not a relationship?  Of what are they truly afraid; that they will never be able to have sex with other partners, that once the commitment is consumated someone else will come along with better potential, that the relationship will not live up to their idealized expectations?  Perhaps they have simply learned to avoid anything that has the potential to cause pain. 


    do you think perhaps the men who can;t commit are still feeling deep shame about their sexuality? Could that be a cause?

Jason
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 21, 2006, 06:58:18 PM
Quote
After all, these guys can commit to a car, a career, a brand of beer, a baseball team.  Why not a relationship?  Of what are they truly afraid; that they will never be able to have sex with other partners, that once the commitment is consumated someone else will come along with better potential, that the relationship will not live up to their idealized expectations?  Perhaps they have simply learned to avoid anything that has the potential to cause pain. 


    do you think perhaps the men who can;t commit are still feeling deep shame about their sexuality? Could that be a cause?

Jason

I'd vote for that. If they don't accept themselves how could they accept the other?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 21, 2006, 07:28:11 PM
    do you think perhaps the men who can;t commit are still feeling deep shame about their sexuality? Could that be a cause?

Jason

I can't help but think of what the answer to that would be if we switch the context from homosexual relationships to heterosexual.

Fear of commitment is almost cliche regarding male/female relationships.  I really don't thing one answer (like shame about sexuality) is going to answer questions for all people.  We're just too complex.  Does Hugh Hefner have a fear of commitment, or a sense of entitlement?  What about Donald Trump?  Kevin Federline?  There are endless examples of heterosexual men who cannot stay married (or in a relationship) for more than a year and yet I don't think we wonder about whether or not they feel shame.  I kind of doubt Jude Law felt shame when he was doing the nanny - he may have felt shame about being caught, he may have just felt inconvenienced.  When Hugh Grant was caught with Divine Brown he may have felt embarrased, but I don't think he felt shame about his sexuality.  I don't even think R. Kelly feels shame about his sexuality - and he seems to have a lot of it.

I would guess that on an animal level males may have a compulsion to spread themselves around - it just would make sense genetically.  It may make things a bit more difficult in male-male relationships, but I would hope we could get around it one way or another.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Mr. Wrong on June 21, 2006, 07:34:00 PM
Quote
can't help but think of what the answer to that would be if we switch the context from homosexual relationships to heterosexual.

well the answer would be different because the circumstances are different.  Straight men have never been told that what they are is something wrong, something unnatural and even something evil.  But they do have their own issues. But we are not talking about straight men who can't commit. We're talking about Gay men and Shame has to considered as a major factor. Wouldn't you agree?

Jason
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 21, 2006, 07:50:32 PM

Quote
can't help but think of what the answer to that would be if we switch the context from homosexual relationships to heterosexual.

well the answer would be different because the circumstances are different.  Straight men have never been told that what they are is something wrong, something unnatural and even something evil.  But they do have their own issues. But we are not talking about straight men who can't commit. We're talking about Gay men and Shame has to considered as a major factor. Wouldn't you agree?

Jason

My point is that if both straight and gay men do it perhaps there is some unifying factor that presupposes sexual orientation - like a male sex drive.

We are, of course, thinking animals and therefore psychology plays a role in the way we play out our impulses.  And I'm sure that in terms of the way it plays itself out psychologically that you are, of course, right and shame plays a major role for gay men.

I'm just not sure that if we change the circumstances (eliminate shame) that it will change the behavior (multiple partners), but that is speculative - and I have another film to see at the film festival and must go.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 21, 2006, 09:34:12 PM
Quote
After all, these guys can commit to a car, a career, a brand of beer, a baseball team.  Why not a relationship?  Of what are they truly afraid; that they will never be able to have sex with other partners, that once the commitment is consumated someone else will come along with better potential, that the relationship will not live up to their idealized expectations?  Perhaps they have simply learned to avoid anything that has the potential to cause pain. 


    do you think perhaps the men who can;t commit are still feeling deep shame about their sexuality? Could that be a cause?

Jason


Jason, no doubt you are right, shame could be a/the cause for some, but personally I don't think it as common as your post implies.  Most of the gay men I know who have difficulties committing have no hints of shame about them, I am thinking about ones I know very well.  Some helped me become more comfortable about my own sexuality, they have been comfortable with theirs since late teens/early 20s, I am virtually certain their inability or choice not to commit is primarily for other reasons. 

So what are those reasons?  As michaelflanagan said, there's a million.  If I had to pick the most universal as these things go, I would agree with your earlier post, the 'ol male sex drive, plus the unique male need for independence.  No offense to the ladies, I dated a woman on & off for almost 10 years in large part because she needed her solititude and independence as much as I did back then (it worked well, she lives only 14 blocks away).  But I find truth in the stereotype that women are more eager to settle down than men, at least pre-35, perhaps in part because of the desire/need to reproduce, and possibly because we men like to be alone (like Garbo, lol).  You know, we need to be one of the guys, run around, sow wild oats, mark our territories, show off to our peers, be the toughest or smartest or richest, and find out what the hell we're generally looking for, once we are introspective enough to ask the question (it only took me my full 40 yrs, lol).  As a sex, perhaps we are less innately confident than women in this regard, as women generally know in their bones they will be good wives and mothers, whereas we men, gay and straight, have to determine thru experiences that we are worthy of mates.  Yes, I think it is tougher for gay men to prove their masculinity to themselves and others on account of societal & family pressures, but men generally take longer than women to "know" themselves, how can you give yourself to another sooner (though people do it daily). 

Gay men also now face another relatively new issue that straights have faced since the beginning of time, the fatherhood question.  I think there is pressure on straight men from society and women to mate by a certain age which was never a factor for gays in deciding whether to commit.  Now that gay fatherhood is slowly being accepted, perhaps gay men who know they want to be in a permanent relationship (i.e., marriage, lol) will start feeling a greater need to commit sooner on account of children.  In some instances it will be because they don't want to be old dads, in others it will be because of surrogate moms, and in time, it may become second nature.

Every straight male I know has expressed aversion to fatherhood at one time or another (kind of the way little boys say yuk, little girls).  Most guys are ecstatic once they become dads, but their fear of such responsibility goes back to the confidence thing, in reverse chronological order: am I ok to be a become a dad?  am I ok to be a husband?  am I ok to be a boyfriend?  am I ok?  Even very well adjusted people go through phases where they feel isolated in their thoughts, believing they are the only ones thinking & feeling some pretty crazy things.  Anyhow, I am glad gays are adding prospective parenthood to the list of insecurities.  Looking within ourselves for the strength to be parents I believe will inevitably lead to greater self-confidence and subsequent long-term commitments.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 21, 2006, 11:09:51 PM
Clever editing, Dave.  Or perhaps just selective reading.  

huh?

you asked if the fear of comittment is real. my answer, yes.

---

my edit -- with elipses showing the deletions -- was to highlight just the key passages of your msg that i was responding to, which we STRONGLY urge everyone on this forum to do. (nobody wants to wade through several paragraphs of an original post to see what you're responding to, especially when they have already seen the original post. we ask people to keep the part you're responding to, so the reader can see the few lines or the key points in question--more if necessary--and read the response.

if i somehow changed or distorted the meaning of your post with my edit, please let me know how i changed it and i'll correct it.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 21, 2006, 11:15:44 PM
I have to say that I find it ironic, if not kind of mind-boggling, to be reading about all this anonymous and
recreational sexual activity in many people's lives over many years and then to have my long-term
commitment to both a man and a woman rather dismissed as practically irrelevant when it comes to
the "marriage" issue. 

I can see your frustration, though I don't see how the two are actually related. It strikes me a bit like saying: It's ironic that there's all this violence on television, yet I can't get people to buy my argument on altering the death penalty.

There's an appearance of a relationship, but it's a facade.

People can and will always have sex outside of marriage. Until the end of time--or mankind--I think that's one of the few things we can be sure of.

And that's never going to effect the likelhood or the advisability of our society radically changing the conception of marriage to include polygamy--even in the specific sense you want.

Hopefully we can all agree that people have the right to opt OUT of marriage if they choose, and legally adopt any sexual behavior they want, in or out of marriage. And single people (or married) having a lot of sex, or discussing that openly doesn't affect the validity or practicality of the polygamy argument.

Seems you're trying to conflate two completely separate things again. Sounds like a case of mistaken irony to me.

It's not ironic that I can be completely committed and faithful to two people for many years, if not the whole of my life, but I shouldn't be entitled to marry them, while others SHOULD have the right to be married and yet go on having all this sex outside their marriages . . . "until the end of time"--as long as their marriage is "just two"?  What a world!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 21, 2006, 11:20:15 PM
My point is that if both straight and gay men do it perhaps there is some unifying factor that presupposes sexual orientation - like a male sex drive.

. . .

I'm just not sure that if we change the circumstances (eliminate shame) that it will change the behavior (multiple partners), but that is speculative - and I have another film to see at the film festival and must go.

i'm with michael. i've never heard anything to suggest that this afflicts gay men more than straight men. i don't think it has anything to do with being gay or straight, it just has to do with being a man.

and my instinct is to reverse the question: why wouldn't men be afraid of committment? seems like a rational fear to me. hehehe. but seriously. one person for the rest of your life? pretty daunting, no? it's closing down a hell of a lot of options.

the only puzzling part to me is that the fear is so much less rampant among women. but i do think the difference has a lot to do with the biological imperative of men to sew their seed widely and women--who have the responsibility of having the kid--have an instinct to secure a mate. the old story.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: dsmom on June 21, 2006, 11:29:15 PM

JoeBoston...

I don't agree with your reasoning...and I have not read all of the posts in this thread...but the impression I get is you feel that since other people don't abide by the 'rules' of marriage then there should be none...that doesn't make sense...some people don't abide by the traffic laws should we then allow everyone to drive however they want??

I know that is not the best analogy but you act as if you want to change the definition of marriage to match what you want..

and as a straight woman, I can not go there with you...if you want to have the same rights as me...(and I think you should)...then common ground is where we need to meet...you not only want me to meet you there but drag me off the other side...and I want to dig in my heels and say no!...you will not get everything you want...feel free to love whoever you want...but marriage...no I wouldn't vote for anything involving polygamy...so if you want to waste effort and resourses and time fighting for it that is your choice...

but I will tell you this...you (the gay community) are not going to get too far til ya'll get in the harness together...(you know the saying 'a house divided against itself'....)

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Boris on June 22, 2006, 02:53:54 AM
First of all, a small notion about the pride pic: both of them wear more clothes than Christina Aguilera has worn throughout her career. The problem is not the nudity as such, but the message we give if that's the only image we have to offer.

Well, I have to disagree with Dave and Michael. I genuinely do believe that reluctance to commit (more apt name for "fear of commitment") affects more gay men than our straight counterparts. Not because of psychological reasons and anyway, as mental health professional I've grown rather tired for these "psychological" cop outs. Gay men have less incentives, less tradition, less encouragement and less community support for long term commitments. How many times I have heard how other guys tell me how they are "seeking for Mr.Right" but don't believe in the existence of one, are sure that it won't work anyway and that there just aren't good men available. Except they themselves of course.

I do not believe either these biological reasonings of a inherent need to spread one's seed as far and wide as possible. As a good farmer it should and could be possible to put your seed to a same field more often. This is a question about choices, not forces we can not control. I have absolutely nothing against people having any kind of sex they want as often as they want but I respect those people who tell me it is their choice. That it gives them more pleasure, more fun and is more satisfying. I can applaud that.  I can't and won't judge anyone, how could I. Been there, done that plenty of times myself. But it was my choice.

Of course having a one partner closes many options. That is the nature of long term commitment. That is why it is a choice, a personal decision. Some people choose sexually monogamous ideal, some open relationship, but whichever the case, commitment by definition rules some of the options out. We have become a culture that idealizes long term commitment in speech but does little to enforce them.

The only explanation I am willing to approve of the vast array of psychological reasons is the idea that being desirable and having lots of partners reassures us about our self worth. Too many gay men have their self esteem tied to their age, biceps, size of endowment (the dutch study was just sad), amount of partners and lust in other men's eyes. In many ways we have ended up reflecting precisely the narcissistic, youth obsessed culture our opponents say that we are.

When I used to have a dish on the side I was labeled as slut and a whore. Now that I don't do that anymore, I'm boring. You just can't win this. We have created an ideal: a handsome man who has unlimited possibilities for sex, expresses yearning for long term relatiosnhip but doesn't actually seek it for real. Were supposed to voice that ideal in different ways, but in reality our actions speak otherwise. And I am not moralizing about this: I have done precisely that. Anonymous sex and one night stands are great fun, but when we do it, we do it by choice, decision.

Wayne Besen puts it much more eloquently than I would:
http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/05/watching-seinfeld-reruns-alone.html

I am not demanding that we get rid of sex, or nudity or being proud of our asses should one have a spectacular one. What I am saying is that they are not mutually exclusive. Instead of paying lip service to commitment we should bring about those models, those stories too. Not instead of (which usually happens when battling for marriage rights, those boring guys in long term relationships are useful to bring in front of cameras when they are needed) but together with. 

We shouldn't be ashamed about our sex drive, or sexual expression but being a gay man is more than having a great body, big cock and good looking underwear. The marriage battle is about something else altogether. I do not suggest to put those semi nude dancing boys to cellar somewhere or push them to margins but to bring about other ways of living, other choices and options.

That is why I am against the current with this marriage battle too. I have never been interested in the term marriage, I have viewed the rights and benefits to ne of more importance, regardless of what it is officially called. I would have been ready and willing to settle for civil unions providing that it gives all the same benefits as marriage. Especially because many the older couples who desperately need these rights may not have time for us to achieve the word "marriage". We do not have it here in Scandinavia but it doesn't make any difference. Our battles lie elsewhere than what's in a name.

And yes, this was intentionally provocative. I'm sorry about that, got a bit carried away.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: David Dragon 3 on June 22, 2006, 03:06:32 AM
I am saddened by the polygamy reference.  This has been a thorn in the cause for gay marriage.  I don't believe it is what is wanted, its not what I want, but instead put out there to cause fear in the straight world and blur what it is we are looking achieve. This is a totally different path that wastes our efforts to betroth the ones we love. 
When I was in my 20's I had my flings.  I am sure that if a straight man had my numbers he would brag to anyone who would listen and they would puff up and slap each other on the backs.  However, what I discovered in these romps was a search to find the one.  To find the man who would love me and let me love him and someone who I could be with for the rest of my life.  I did have my fun on the search but when I met my partner I knew it from the first time I walked in his apartment.  All the books.  We have been together for the past 9 years and this is a love that I pray will last until I die. 
Today I received my social security announcement and it says that if I where to die then my spouse could receive the pitiful social security in my absences.  However this does not apply to me and my partner. Its another form of isolation.  It is saying that you don't get the same things in life that everyone else does and that you are different.  This is just one of the many things that I find cruel in the current system we are forced to live with. 
This is what gay marriage is about.  Not special rights for gays and lesbians but giving them the same rights everyone else already has.  It is not redefining marrage but including those that are in love to the same rights and privileges as everyone else no matter there race, religion or sexual orientation.  The fight is for inclusion in the system.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: dsmom on June 22, 2006, 04:55:29 AM
Jari and David

Here we can and do agree...this is the common ground where you will be able to get straights onboard...not all of them but maybe enough...

and there may be a few straight people that would applaud someone with a high "bed count"...but come on....there are jerks all over...that kind of behaviour is NOT approved by most straight people...for gays or straights...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on June 22, 2006, 08:25:00 AM

but I will tell you this...you (the gay community) are not going to get too far til ya'll get in the harness together...(you know the saying 'a house divided against itself'....)


I totally agree, that is just what I have been trying to say, only you said it better.

First of all, a small notion about the pride pic: both of them wear more clothes than Christina Aguilera has worn throughout her career. The problem is not the nudity as such, but the message we give if that's the only image we have to offer.


Actually I thought that was Christina Aguilera!  :D   Good post by the way Boris.

Today I received my social security announcement and it says that if I where to die then my spouse could receive the pitiful social security in my absences.  However this does not apply to me and my partner. Its another form of isolation.  It is saying that you don't get the same things in life that everyone else does and that you are different.  This is just one of the many things that I find cruel in the current system we are forced to live with. 

This is what gay marriage is about.  Not special rights for gays and lesbians but giving them the same rights everyone else already has.  It is not redefining marrage but including those that are in love to the same rights and privileges as everyone else no matter there race, religion or sexual orientation.  The fight is for inclusion in the system.

AMEN!   ;)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 22, 2006, 10:32:58 AM

JoeBoston...

I don't agree with your reasoning...and I have not read all of the posts in this thread...but the impression I get is you feel that since other people don't abide by the 'rules' of marriage then there should be none...that doesn't make sense...some people don't abide by the traffic laws should we then allow everyone to drive however they want??

I know that is not the best analogy but you act as if you want to change the definition of marriage to match what you want..

Thanks, dsmom...

No, I'm not necessarily saying that "since other people don't abide by the 'rules' of marriage then there should be none," but rather since
it's the case that many often don't abide by the rules, I don't think my deep commitment to two people should be dismissed outright, as it so easily seems to be--as "not relevant here," etc.

To use your traffic law analogy, it would be like the very careful and conscientious driver who has never broken a law in his whole life, but
one day forgets to use his turn signal and is arrested and thrown in jail for that, while tons of other people go around day after day constantly flouting rules of the road all over the place in their mad dash to get to wherever they're always having to get to in such a hurry and are
never given a second glance by the cops--as is so often the case in my city!

However you look at it, as I said earlier on, the issue is one of "changing the definition of marriage," even if it's only to extend the
"two" to include same-sex two's.  It seems to me then that those who are only wanting that change just want to change it to only
what THEY want.  And I don't see that as necessarily any more valid than me, perhaps, wanting to change it to what I want--although
I'm really not very interested in much of any of it any more at this point.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 22, 2006, 11:39:58 AM
well said, boris. very good post.

i was responding to someone questioning the very idea of men fearing committment in general, and i naively got sucked into responding to that.

i don't think you and i really disagree, at least on #2 of the following: i think that

1. American (Western? all?) men in general (i should probably limit it to a culture i'm well acquainted with) tend to share a pretty strong fear of commitment -- markedly stronger than the average woman. (And I'm guessing there are biological imperatives at play, though I can be much more certain of the existence of the trait.)

2. How gay and straight men act on that fear is markedly different. I would agree with your statement that "reluctance to commit . . . affects more gay men than our straight counterparts." I would say the fear is real in both cases, but we get different responses, because of a very different situation--as you described.

The vast majority of straight men do end up committing to one person for a lifetime, though approximately half of them break the comittment completely (or are forced to by their wives--regardless, they divorce), and many more . . . shall we say bend it? (carry on affairs, or flings or one-nighters.) It's not exactly a sterling record for the straight men, but it's a hell of a lot more than the gay men have managed.

I think this sounds like a pretty good assessment of some of the main reasons: "Gay men have less incentives, less tradition, less encouragement and less community support for long term commitments."

But I would add one more, which I partially alluded to hear earlier: No women, who do far more than their share of the emotional work in most relationships.

I earlier alluded to the fact that man-man relationships lack a woman to do a lot of the work. An equal or bigger part of that, I think, is women teaching men to do the work--and I think this is becoming more of an issue as society gets easier on gays and more of us come out much earlier.

I noticed something very profound over the course of my 20s, when I was young and single and straight, and had a ton of young single straight friends in my 20s. We got better at relationships. With each new girlfriend, we learned some big lessons about how to get along in a relationship -- and for some guys, they learned it with one woman. And mostly we were learning it from our girlfriends, and we were cognizant of that. At the time, we joked about our women taming us, and some of that was true--they were insisting on certain sorts of behavior that tended to go against our grain--but they were also being better listeners in most cases, being better emotional problem-solvers.

I think it was particularly evident in fights: when young men have a ton of testosterone, can be very
aggressive, and bull-headed, won't back down, or relent. That kind of shit doesn't really work very well with most women. You might "win" the argument, but you don't really get your way. They tend to have different strategies, and a bright woman will figure out a way to get her guy to adapt and find other ways to an agreement that a debate.

I think straightguys learn a huge amount (75%? 80%?) of how to get along in a relationship from the women. And I think the mere fact that the relationship tends to be higher on the priority list for most women is crucial. (There have been endless surveys asking young men and young women about their priorities, and i believe career is way out in front for men, followed by a few other things I can't recall, but I don't think relationship is near the top. And if I recall correctly, it is #1, in the agregate, for women.) Young women by and large also get that relationships don't just work themselves: that you have to work at it. Most men seem oblivious until they learn it the hard way over the years.

I think it's time we give women their due, and admit that most of them tend to be a lot better at certain things than most men. I think that most people get that women tend to be much stronger on emotional and interpersonal skills. We talk about that all the time in certain fields: how they bring different skills to the table in business and politics, diplomacy other fields. I have seen and read countless discussions about how Western culture has leaped so dramatically in the past several decades once we got the combined skills of men and women heavily in our workforce. Of course we know lots of women who are bad with people and men who are great, but on average, women are way ahead of us.

So why would we think we could build a whole separate subculture without women in the marriages/relationships, and not have a problem? Of course I'm not saying there is something inherently wrong with gay relationships and we should abolish or shun or discourage them -- I'm saying we come into most of them with a stark handicap, and we should address it, deal with it. If you lose both your legs in a car accident, you don't pretend you don't have an obstacle. You deal. Of course in this case, we lose something in the mix, and we gain extra in other qualities, so that helps. But to stretch the metaphor, even if we had 4 arms and no legs, we could do a lot of cool new things, but we'd still have certain problems to work our way around.

And yes, guys, two penises and no vagina in the relationship . . . well we're missing something. we've seen from brain scans how the minds associated with those penises and vaginas work differently, and we also know it from millions of years of observation. (And even if you want to argue the differences between the sexes are 100% cultural, well, so what? They're still there in our fucking relationships, however they got there.)

I'm not sure what we need, exactly. More shrinks or training courses? Maybe not. I think the biggest thing we need to do as a group is realize it, talk about it, learn our weaknesses and be aware of our potential partners' weaknesses . . .

That doesn't seem like enough, actually. I don't know what we need. But I think we need to start by accepting the limitations of the problem as a group, so we can start fumbling our way toward a solution.

And it's odd. A lot of gayguys seem to be strong on the emotional scale, and yet somehow I don't see this translating. (Maybe still too much testosterone, too quick to anger? I don't know.)

I have also observed a marked difference between my gay friends who spent years trying to be straight and those who didn't. The ones who dated women for many years picked up a lot of skills. I'm shocked to be in my 40s and see a lot of gay men (who were never with a woman) at the most infantile level in their relationships. Of course a lot of that is that they never bothered with relationships at all, so they didn't learn anything. But even ones who have been in relationships, I'm stunned, sometimes. I just want to say, "Weren't you supposed to learn this shit in your 20s?" It's like they're still in relationship high school.

And I think one more point is relevant. In my 20s, my straight guy friends and I discussed our problems with our wives and girlfriends, and often came to the same cliche conclusion as comics have surely been making since the beginning of time, because it's so often true: often we really couldn't figure out what the hell their problem/need was, because it just didn't seem rational to us. Sometimes, their wants/needs were so baffling to us, it was almost like dealing with an alien species, and we had to throw our hands up and say, "OK, I don't get this at all, but I'll go along because it makes you happy. And because you go along with some of my shit that baffles you."

I think there's something powerful about reaching a point where you really don't/can't understand the other person and you are forced to make a break with your own world view and adopt some core behaivors that don't fit your world view just because they fit someone else's. I think it fundamentally changes your concept of compromise. I think you consciously make the bargain with yourself that you are going to do a lot of important things that make no sense to you, just because that's the bargain.

In some ways, gay men (or lesbians) understand each other better. We never get to the "Men, they're just nuts!" moment we throw our hands up. Of course we face compromises, but never that moment where we feel like we're dealing with an alien species, and that even if we left this one, all the other options would be aliens, too.

That's a powerful thing, and that's one thing that gay men miss out on. (Yeah. It's our toughest challenges that make us stronger, emotionally richer. Or as Ernest Hemmingway said: "The world breaks everyone. And afterward, many are stronger in the broken places.")

Of course it's GREAT to be with a person that you can understand better. For me, I can't tell you how much easier it is dating men, who I get so much better. And I've never heard a gay man make the same kind of complaints about men in general as an unfathomable species that straight men are always making about women. Or women about men. (Even if when they've stopped saying it and just roll their eyes.)

(And of course the sex is freaking hot when you instictlively know more naturally what a man wants. And there's something incredibly intimate about understanding what he's feeling during sex in a way that a woman never completely could. Which is balanced with the absense of being with a woman where you can never fully grasp her sexual experience and are forced to make that leap of wondering, of searching, of trying to get closer. It's always a tradeoff. There is a powerful gain and a powerful loss. Neither experience is better, but they sure are better in different ways.)

It almost sounds like two men should have it EASIER in a relationship than one of each, because we understand each other better. But I think the lack of that huge, particular challenge--of learning to leap that huge chasm between the sexes in our first relationships--really inhibits our learning process. We have lots of little challenges that annoy the crap out of us, but we don't have that giant canyon to cross that fundamentally changes the way we deal with our partners.

That's what I think.

That last one might be the hardest to prove or the last one to be accepted, but I think that someday it will be. And I think that the other three points -- 1) that having (on average) double the male traits and none of the female traits, and that 2) women do much more than their share of the maintenance work in a relationship, and 3) that women tend to teach the men how to get along in a relationship -- are powerfully striking factors.

Add this to what Boris said about fewer "incentives, less tradition, less encouragement and less community support for long term commitments," and I'd say our community has a hell of a lot of work to do.

And the "less tradition" he mentions is built into a lot of what I spoke about. Someday I think gay men can train each other in relationships, and we can be good advisors to our gay friends. (And/or, we'll learn that we have to look to our female friends for a lot of our love advice.) We'll learn whatever we have to learn to make it work. But we're damn new at this. Most of the gayguys were in the closet until the last few decades, and then a lot of us spent a lot of time literally fucking around. We're just in our first couple generations of relationships. We have SO much to learn about how this is going to work.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 22, 2006, 11:50:05 AM
It seems to me then that those who are only wanting that change just want to change it to only
what THEY want. 

I really don't think you're listening. Partially because you tend to repeat your points without responding directly to the points others made, and partly because almost everyone here has made the same essential point: We want equality. The over-riding principle is not what any one of us want, but what THEY (straights) have.

And this point has been made here by gay men, bi men, and straight women, at least. In several of those cases, it was not what the individual poster wanted, but in all these cases, it was asking for the same principle: equality.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 22, 2006, 12:32:02 PM

However you look at it, as I said earlier on, the issue is one of "changing the definition of marriage," even if it's only to extend the
"two" to include same-sex two's.  It seems to me then that those who are only wanting that change just want to change it to only
what THEY want.  And I don't see that as necessarily any more valid than me, perhaps, wanting to change it to what I want--although
I'm really not very interested in much of any of it any more at this point.



Joe, I've said it before, I'm saying it again: what THEY want is the same is what the large majority wants, marriage between TWO people.  Your redefinition exceeds what straights have; gays just want equality.  The more you persist in this argument, the more ammo you give to right wingers who are still fighting to keep marriage solely a heterosexual right.  I think you shoot gays in the foot by co-mingling the arguments.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: garyd on June 22, 2006, 12:44:26 PM
Some really good stuff, Dave, Thank you.  It certainly went a long way in assisting me in undertanding the male/male relationship situation.  Two thoughts come to mind:

1. Male/female relationships are valued by our society.  Male/male are not or, at least have not, enjoyed the same acceptance.  Surely it will help when that same value is recognized by the whole of society for male/male relationships.( At least one less obstacle in the way of learning how to form and nurture relationship).   I should think that the legal recognition of gay marriages would go a long way in moving society in that direction.  The sooner, the better as far as I am concerned.

2.  You have written often about the work of the female in male/female relationships.  It certainly seems valid.  I wonder if lesbian relationships are less difficult due to the fact that both partners are female?

Finally, some additional thoughts on this whole fear of commitment discussion I brought up several pages ago.  Certainly we straight males are subject to these fears.  It seems to me that many of us "get over it" as part of the normal maturation process.   Many more do not get over it and commit to relationships before we are really ready...hence one reason for high divorce rates.  Another group not only do not get over it but somehow allow it to become an "irrational" fear or... phobia.  This final group is in need of some decent professional help.  I do not pretend to know how exactly this plays out in male/male relationships but it is probably safe to assume that there are some similar root motivations at work.  It also seems perfectly valid to accept that gays have an additonal hurdle to overcome which is the personal acceptance of their own sexuality.  Again, it seems to me, that this is where society as a whole must learn to accept and value homsexuality to the same degree that heterosexuality is accepted and valued.  Then, perhaps, the personal acceptance will not be so difficult and start to dissapear altogether.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 22, 2006, 12:50:36 PM

I do not suggest to put those semi nude dancing boys to cellar somewhere or push them to margins but to bring about other ways of living, other choices and options.

That is why I am against the current with this marriage battle too. I have never been interested in the term marriage, I have viewed the rights and benefits to ne of more importance, regardless of what it is officially called. I would have been ready and willing to settle for civil unions providing that it gives all the same benefits as marriage. Especially because many the older couples who desperately need these rights may not have time for us to achieve the word "marriage". We do not have it here in Scandinavia but it doesn't make any difference. Our battles lie elsewhere than what's in a name.


Boris, I agree with everything you said except for the highlighted sentences above.  As a lawyer in the States, I can tell you that civil unions afford merely a fraction of the legal and economic rights as marriage.  Even if they did, however, I would still advocate marriage because without it, gays will continue to be regarded as innately inferior, not good enough to marry.  Yeah, even after gay marriage eventually passes here gays will still be thought of as inferior, but the right to marry is a vital step away from that.   I also think that to more expeditiously achieve the goal, alas we should put the nude dancing boys inside, because they are used as ammunition against us.  Frankly, I understand that, it sends the stereotypical message of gays preferring sex to family, which we have always been "forced" to in the past, but hopefully not anymore.  What's the big deal anyway, it's one or two parades per year, for those interested they can see the same boys in the clubs at night.  As for Christine Aguilera, again I agree, it's a double standard, but I think a minor one which we have to endure until the bigger battle is won.  Besides, Christine Aguilera, Paris Hilton and the like are ridiculed as skanks, so we prudish Americans aren't all that inconsistent as we may seem.   
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: garyd on June 22, 2006, 01:20:52 PM
JayiiJay: Well, what must surely be considered the "mother of all gay pride parades" occurs here in San Francisco this weekend and I don't think it is realistic to think that it is going to go away anytime soon.  And perhaps it shouldn't .  You can be sure that there will be some pretty outrageous pics broadcast and printed.  The truth is, most of the parade  has become pretty tame.  It is beginning to have the look and feel of a very large VFW parade: people marching, waving flags, some long lapses between one group and the next.  Same thing with the Bay to Breakers.  It is basically just a charity run full of all sorts including moms, dads, kids. Of course it is always the naked dudes(and dames) that get the attention from the media. 
Anyway, whatever happens, this whole marriage thing has to be resolved.  I have never thought that we should institute a two tier system (marriage/civil unions).  I also do not favor our current system, here in California at least, of "domestic partners".  It is better than nothing but it is not equality. Marriage is the "gold standard" .   To call a same sex union anything other than that, here is the United States, is simply to devolve back to a" separate but equal fiasco". 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joeboston on June 22, 2006, 01:27:45 PM
It seems to me then that those who are only wanting that change just want to change it to only
what THEY want. 

I really don't think you're listening. Partially because you tend to repeat your points without responding directly to the points others made, and partly because almost everyone here has made the same essential point: We want equality. The over-riding principle is not what any one of us want, but what THEY (straights) have.

And this point has been made here by gay men, bi men, and straight women, at least. In several of those cases, it was not what the individual poster wanted, but in all these cases, it was asking for the same principle: equality.

You're far too clever for me, Dave.  Wish I were a better writer!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 22, 2006, 02:16:47 PM

Marriage is the "gold standard" .   To call a same sex union anything other than that, here is the United States, is simply to devolve back to a" separate but equal fiasco". 


Well said.  In fact, one of the lawyers who argued the recent NY appeal to legalize gay marriage cited the old "separate but equal" bullshit.  Brown vs. The Board of Education (1954) purportedly changed that, but it took another decade for states to start to implement the mandate in any material way, and obviously African Americans still have a long long way to go towards achieving true equality.  Gays are just getting started
(no disrespect to Stonewallers of course, I hope you all know how I mean that).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Boris on June 22, 2006, 02:52:05 PM
Dave

Thank you for your very insightful post. I have printed it for further reading and to be responded later. It has some idea that I need to think through more thoroughly than I usually do before posting. One thing though: about the tradition. That is what I have been talking about in masculinity threads: we need to show the young ones that it can be done. That long term relatiosnhips can be successful, that there are options and choices and that the underwear cult is not the only place to go.


Boris, I agree with everything you said except for the highlighted sentences above.  As a lawyer in the States, I can tell you that civil unions afford merely a fraction of the legal and economic rights as marriage.  Even if they did, however, I would still advocate marriage because without it, gays will continue to be regarded as innately inferior, not good enough to marry.  Yeah, even after gay marriage eventually passes here gays will still be thought of as inferior, but the right to marry is a vital step away from that.   I also think that to more expeditiously achieve the goal, alas we should put the nude dancing boys inside, because they are used as ammunition against us.  Frankly, I understand that, it sends the stereotypical message of gays preferring sex to family, which we have always been "forced" to in the past, but hopefully not anymore.  What's the big deal anyway, it's one or two parades per year, for those interested they can see the same boys in the clubs at night.  As for Christine Aguilera, again I agree, it's a double standard, but I think a minor one which we have to endure until the bigger battle is won.  Besides, Christine Aguilera, Paris Hilton and the like are ridiculed as skanks, so we prudish Americans aren't all that inconsistent as we may seem.   

Well, I come from a very different society with very different system of politics and family law. Living in  a country that celebrates consensus and compromise (we have to, it's a multi-party system, all governments are always coalitions) so social change is result of exhaustive process of discussion, compromise, and seeking for common denominators. Finland is the most socially conservative of Northern countries, so we got our civil unions (registered partnerships) much later than our Scandinavian neighbors. It is likely that Sweden will grant full marriage rights in near future. Our family law gives gays precisely all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage (excluding adoption, something no Northern country has legalized yet). There are no other differences between the legal status of registered partnerships/marriages on practical level. Our legal system is also different: courts can not make policy and we do not even have constitutional court like you do. All disputes concerning the application of constitution are resolved at Parliament.

By nature I am a practical man, and my concern is the situation people face now. While I do agree that marriage is "golden standard", gay, especially the older ones in long term relatiosnhip would greatly benefit even from civil unions. I know that we need to aim high, but I'm afraid we might sacrifice some people and their real lives during the process. But I must admit that living in a culture where all change is incremental, it has affected my reasoning. I just want to find the best solutions for short term gain that is in line with long term goals. And the fact is that demand for full marriage rights has resulted in state constitutional amendments that have in reality pushed the goal even further and at the same time made civil unions in many states impossible too. But I'm not here to tell you American friends what to do, just voicing what worked for us.

About those dancing boys. I have been one of the most vocal critics of gay underwear cult and I now find myself in position where I have to defend it to some extent. It can plausibly be argued that diluting our sexuality and making it invisible to straights in order to gain more widespread acceptance means denying who we are. Where do we draw the line if we seek not to offend or provide ammo to those who oppose our lives regardless of how we present it. If gay pride marches were to consist solely of long term gay couples with children, they would accuse us of lying and exploiting the children. They can not be won to our side whatever we do.
Double standard is something I wish we could avoid. That's why I talked about taking responsibility of one's choices and decisions at personal and community level.
And I really sincerely hope that having a family and satisfying sexual life aren't mutually exclusive.

As garyd said the parades have toned down during recent years and here up north they were never overtly sexual to begin with (too cold I assume). While I agree that we should give a more diverse picture of our culture than drag queens and muscle bunnies in sequined underwear, they are still part of this culture. I am asking for diversity, not denying some parts of what it still true. The bunny boys or gays in dark rooms are not our enemy either. We need to work out ways to do this together. And they might need some support too with the idea that there is a chance for real love.

Back to Brokeback: one of the reasons that made the movie so powerful was that it depicted love between men that included sexual intimacy, tenderness, passion and touch. It won the "Best kiss" also because it show that gays aren't just nice fairy godmothers looking "real "families from TV (like Fab Five does). That we are capable of love that is passionate and deep and that occludes the intimacy. In a way the movie might work as a guide how to show it to others: with respect to other's feelings but not hiding it or making it meaningless.

For me many gay men I know are much hotter fully clothed than those muscle marys with loincloths. But then it's just me.

Off the soap box.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: garyd on June 22, 2006, 04:11:58 PM
Boris:

Based upon my limited, by not totally isolated, experience in working on this matter, I believe that thoughtful, well-considered, modulated discussions similar in tone and content to your post, are occurring through out the United States.  I have been afforded the opportunity to participate in both state and federal "task forces" and so-called "blue ribbon" panels given the charge to formulate proposals for various legislators.  I have always been one of a couple of "token" members meant to represent the straight, conservative, Republican niche.  The work always results in proposals designed to extend absolute equal status to same sex marriages as those afforded heterosexual marriages and all incorporate individual state laws with a caveat that all states must recognize the legislation of one another.   We all leave feeling so very proud of the work and feeling so very grand about ourselves.  The problem, of course, is that the whole issue continues to be used as a political wedge to inflame the fringe elements of both U. S. political parties. The radical "left' elements of the Democrats never feel the legislation is as encompassing as it should be.  The radical right of the Republicans simply resort to plain old bigotry and homophobia hiding, usually, behind some sort of religious screen. 

Consequently, while I unequivocally support your statement regarding taking individual responsibility at the personal and community level and while I too believe in incremental change,  I don't think it is safe for your community to try and hide or muzzle the "bunny boys" and gays in dark rooms.  They are part of your world and, by extension, ours. 

We have discovered in this country, that there are times ( i.e. Civil rights legislation) when the Federal government simply must step in and demand sweeping, sea-change, reforms.  I don't know if same sex marriage is one of those issues, but it may well be.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 22, 2006, 05:14:46 PM

By nature I am a practical man, and my concern is the situation people face now. While I do agree that marriage is "golden standard", gay, especially the older ones in long term relatiosnhip would greatly benefit even from civil unions. I know that we need to aim high, but I'm afraid we might sacrifice some people and their real lives during the process. But I must admit that living in a culture where all change is incremental, it has affected my reasoning. I just want to find the best solutions for short term gain that is in line with long term goals. And the fact is that demand for full marriage rights has resulted in state constitutional amendments that have in reality pushed the goal even further and at the same time made civil unions in many states impossible too. But I'm not here to tell you American friends what to do, just voicing what worked for us.

About those dancing boys. I have been one of the most vocal critics of gay underwear cult and I now find myself in position where I have to defend it to some extent. It can plausibly be argued that diluting our sexuality and making it invisible to straights in order to gain more widespread acceptance means denying who we are. Where do we draw the line if we seek not to offend or provide ammo to those who oppose our lives regardless of how we present it. If gay pride marches were to consist solely of long term gay couples with children, they would accuse us of lying and exploiting the children. They can not be won to our side whatever we do.
Double standard is something I wish we could avoid. That's why I talked about taking responsibility of one's choices and decisions at personal and community level.
And I really sincerely hope that having a family and satisfying sexual life aren't mutually exclusive.



Hey Boris, thanks for the response.  I'm moving to Finland, lol.  By the way I spent a fantastic weekend in Helsinki last July 4th weekend, what a beautiful city. 

I hear you, but highlighted the paragraphs above because I too perceive myself as practical, and it is solely in support of the goal of legalizing gay marriage in the states that I argue against the dancing boys.  As you said, we need to address the situation gay people face right now, and right now unfortunately that image gives conservatives ammunition to hurt our cause.  As I'm sure you know, many contend that Bush won re-election in Ohio because Karl Rove put an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot.  These guys mobilize their base by scaring their constituents into believing they are being invaded by irresponsible sex crazed gays, and they regularly use the outdoor dancing boy footage against us.  It's disgusting, but an unfortunate reality, so why do it?  I would never propose anything that would jeopardize the multi-faceted gay identity, but I don't see how asking them not to get publically naked once a year does that. The sacrifice is minimal, they should still strip down all they want, just not in front of the tv cameras.  Honestly I hate saying this, but I think we have to play their game on their turf to obtain wider acceptance.  Once we do, screw 'em.  And again, Americans as a whole are far more prudish than Europeans (except the Brits, lol), straights who publically dispaly themselves like Christina Aguilera & Paris Hilton are derided here too.   

You also said "if gay pride marches were to consist solely of long term gay couples with children, they would accuse us of lying and exploiting the children. They can not be won to our side whatever we do."  I'm pleased to say, I disagree.  Sure, some people will die bigots, but many others observe gays with children, see we are not pedophiles but loving parents, and become accepting.  I've seen it, many times.  As statistics emerge that showing gay couples do just as well with children as straights, even more people will change.  God, I remember as a kid seeing the conservatives do the same thing to African-Americans, trying to scare everyone by portraying black people as gun-toters with big afros and wild outfits.  Unfortunately it often worked, people really were scared, even in purportedly liberal NYC.  But then the Jeffersons & Cosbys dressed like the white conservatives, and the purported danger was eliminated since they partially assimilated, identification was made.  Significantly, black culture not only survived, but it thrives.  More and more whites emulate blacks, especially in music.  And, in the past few years, I am pleased to report that those afros are back a bit, these things take time.  Obviously there is a long long way to go before blacks have true equality, but a significant segment of black society has advanced over the past 20-30 years, even with the shorter hair (lol) (and for some, on account of it).  As for gay influence, the meterosexual craze didn't last long here, but that it even existed is a step in the right direction.

As for civil unions vs. marriage, again, I hear you and agree that something is better than nothing, but the Republicans are finally on the run.  I don't know if you know of Bill Bennett, a famous arch-enemy of gay marriage, but even he recently conceded on television that gay marriage is inevitable (eventually).  Most Americans don't really understand the difference between civil unions and marriage.  The bigots will protest both no matter what.  Once the rest are more educated about who gays really are - good citizens and parents - then I believe we will be able to skip the civil union step and go straight to marriage.  If the political landscape plays out that so I'm wrong, then yeah, I'd fall back on civil unions any day.  Also, to be clear, those dancing boys are unequivocally also good citizens and parents (if they choose to be the latter), but I think they should sow their wild oats a bit softer.  As GaryD and others have said, the pride parades are already tamer than they used to be, a reflection that the mainstream gay culture is also mellowing, I think in large part because of growing acceptance.   

Finally, I echo what you said about Brokeback Mountain.  That's exactly what we need more of, and on tv too since the audience is huge.  It's coming.  I'm still seething at that f*cking Academy for denying its due, so many more people would have seen it, but, like you said, hooray for Best Kiss, bestowed by the young people of America. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: dsmom on June 22, 2006, 05:38:15 PM

I hear you, but highlighted the paragraphs above because I too perceive myself as practical, and it is solely in support of the goal of legalizing gay marriage in the states that I argue against the dancing boys.  As you said, we need to address the situation gay people face right now, and right now unfortunately that image gives conservatives ammunition to hurt our cause.  As I'm sure you know, many contend that Bush won re-election in Ohio because Karl Rove put an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot.  These guys mobilize their base by scaring their constituents into believing they are being invaded by irresponsible sex crazed gays, and they regularly use the outdoor dancing boy footage against us.  It's disgusting, but an unfortunate reality, so why do it?  I would never propose anything that would jeopardize the multi-faceted gay identity, but I don't see how asking them not to get publically naked once a year does that. The sacrifice is minimal, they should still strip down all they want, just not in front of the tv cameras.  Honestly I hate saying this, but I think we have to play their game on their turf to obtain wider acceptance.  Once we do, screw 'em.  And again, Americans as a whole are far more prudish than Europeans (except the Brits, lol), straights who publically dispaly themselves like Christina Aguilera & Paris Hilton are derided here too.   

You also said "if gay pride marches were to consist solely of long term gay couples with children, they would accuse us of lying and exploiting the children. They can not be won to our side whatever we do."  I'm pleased to say, I disagree.  Sure, some people will die bigots, but many others observe gays with children, see we are not pedophiles but loving parents, and become accepting.   I've seen it, many times.  As statistics emerge that showing gay couples do just as well with children as straights, even more people will change.  God, I remember as a kid seeing the conservatives do the same thing to African-Americans, trying to scare everyone by portraying black people as gun-toters with big afros and wild outfits.  Unfortunately it often worked, people really were scared, even in purportedly liberal NYC.  But then the Jeffersons & Cosbys dressed like the white conservatives, and the purported danger was eliminated since they partially assimilated, identification was made.  Significantly, black culture not only survived, but it thrives.  More and more whites emulate blacks, especially in music.  And, in the past few years, I am pleased to report that those afros are back a bit, these things take time.  Obviously there is a long long way to go before blacks have true equality, but a significant segment of black society has advanced over the past 20-30 years, even with the shorter hair (lol) (and for some, on account of it).  As for gay influence, the meterosexual craze didn't last long here, but that it even existed is a step in the right direction.


I highlighted the two lines in your post because I wanted to speak to them...as a straight woman the number one thing that is said about gay people is that they are obsessed with sex..."Why do they have to flaunt themselves"...and around here we will get the footage of the dancing boys and the guy with a snake as a loincloth (or the man dressed all in vinyl with a leash on)...and we will never see anything else...the conservatives that run our TV stations love this stuff...helps further their hate campaign...you should not be helping those who want to destroy you...

so you are screwed if you are a gay kid coming up in middle America...the examples you get are the above...and add to that everytime this is shown on TV people talk VERY negatively about 'those gays' so it KILLS their self esteem...I am not watching the news during this time...don't want to hear the hate they will spew or the images they will pick...

Is that attitude right? NO...but it is reality...

You will never change everyone's mind but why not try to change the ones that can be....

I was trying to think of a straight parallel to the Gay Pride parades...maybe Marde Gras?? But the conservatives don't broadcast that to further their cause...and a lot of straights don't like those parades either....


How does any of this connect to gay marriage....you can't get people to agree with you by letting them mock you...

(and I know this sounds awful...but. guys this is what is being done and said where I live...)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: garyd on June 22, 2006, 05:53:54 PM
Dsmom:
You are right on of course.  I live near San Francisco and both in and near NYC.  Work mostly in both places.  As a straight man, my view of things like this is a bit different.  However, I think you live very close to where I grew up and I know you are correct in everything you say.  You and I both agree that all this bigotry against gays has to end, it is just how do we go about being part of the solution?  I have read some of your posts, and if I am not mistaken you are very much doing your part in trying to assist your son. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: LSky94 on June 22, 2006, 06:41:25 PM
dsmom,

Your comments make a lot of sense.  I too live in mid-America and I know how the footage from the Pride parades are portrayed here.  Usually any coverage given is used to present a one dimensional view of gay people.  Whether it is right or wrong or whatever, all of this plays right into the hands of the Conservatives (who abound here).  I recall wincing whenever the footage of gay Pride parades would come on this time of the year, when I was a young teen.  Of course, as an adult, I know that the Mardis Gras atmosphere of Pride parades is one aspect of the Pride festivals.  But I also know that the rest of what goes on at Pride, or the larger issues connected to Pride, receive no coverage here and all that is left is an image of "gays as freaks."  And before anyone gets angry, that is not how I view it, but that is the message given; it is "reality" here, rightly or wrongly.  So in the end, all that we gain is more ammo for the Conservatives to use against us.    It shouldn't be that way, but it is. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 22, 2006, 08:39:58 PM
I was trying to think of a straight parallel to the Gay Pride parades...maybe Marde Gras?? But the conservatives don't broadcast that to further their cause...and a lot of straights don't like those parades either....

How does any of this connect to gay marriage....you can't get people to agree with you by letting them mock you...

(and I know this sounds awful...but. guys this is what is being done and said where I live...)

Didn't you know Jess, that Hurricane Katrina was a result of Southern Decadance?

http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html

Apparently it was also related to the removal of settlers from the Gaza strip:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/blaming-katrina-on-gays-_b_6856.html

And somehow voodoo and abortion are involved too:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/22005b.asp

But that's okay, because 9/11 was caused by paganism and the ACLU:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jerry-falwell/

And gay days in Orlando can cause meteors:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505020002

My point is this - we could dress like the amish and spend all day in church, but so long as we are gay there are fundamentalists who are going to oppose us.  There is nothing we can do that will make gay marriage acceptable to these people.  It's why many of us moved away from places like Lynchburg, VA in the first place.

And it's why some of us are considering moving to countries that seem to care about human rights (like Canada) - voting with our feet and our dollars.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 22, 2006, 09:02:10 PM
Well, I come from a very different society with very different system of politics and family law. Living in  a country that celebrates consensus and compromise (we have to, it's a multi-party system, all governments are always coalitions) so social change is result of exhaustive process of discussion, compromise, and seeking for common denominators. Finland is the most socially conservative of Northern countries, so we got our civil unions (registered partnerships) much later than our Scandinavian neighbors. It is likely that Sweden will grant full marriage rights in near future. Our family law gives gays precisely all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage (excluding adoption, something no Northern country has legalized yet). There are no other differences between the legal status of registered partnerships/marriages on practical level. Our legal system is also different: courts can not make policy and we do not even have constitutional court like you do. All disputes concerning the application of constitution are resolved at Parliament.

By nature I am a practical man, and my concern is the situation people face now. While I do agree that marriage is "golden standard", gay, especially the older ones in long term relatiosnhip would greatly benefit even from civil unions. I know that we need to aim high, but I'm afraid we might sacrifice some people and their real lives during the process. But I must admit that living in a culture where all change is incremental, it has affected my reasoning. I just want to find the best solutions for short term gain that is in line with long term goals. And the fact is that demand for full marriage rights has resulted in state constitutional amendments that have in reality pushed the goal even further and at the same time made civil unions in many states impossible too. But I'm not here to tell you American friends what to do, just voicing what worked for us.


Boris, great posts, and it's really great to have insights here from other countries. It's also slightly mind-blowing to think of Finland as the conservative country in your realm, getting civil unions last. God, I feel like we live in the Dark Ages in comparison. Our country was founded by the Puritans, and we never really shook their shadow. I'm not sure how that works, exactly, but it seems to.

And I'm totally with you on civil unions as an intermediate step, but I don't want to stop there. And should I ever get married, I'm sure as hell never going to call mine that, and any body who tries to can kiss my ass.

I'm conflicted about whether reaching for full marriage helps or hurts. When the Massachesetts supreme court acted, I was very nervous about us getting ahead of ourselves, but it seems to have actually shocked people for awhile and then accelarated the process of them getting used to the idea.

The Pew Poll (the best of its kind) shows that we're back to about the same level of support as right before that decision, slightly better. And in the long run, I think it took us a long way toward people getting used to the idea. The majority still opose it, but I think a great number of them see the tide turning, and know in their hearts that it is inevitable, and on some level are just dragging their heals.

We also have an interesting situation developing in my state of Colorado, where it looks like we might have competing state constitutional amendments on the ballot in the fall: one to outlaw gay marriage, and one to create gay civil unions. We are a pretty conservative state--went strongly for Bush both times, and the leading anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family are headquartered in Colorado Springs. (Now known as The Evangelical Vatican.) And yet most local pundits and polls are predicting both will probably win: the anti-marriage one easily, the other narrowly. I have a feeling that the civil union amendment will only pass BECAUSE of the other one. A lot of straight people are conflicted, don't want to feel or appear like a bigot, and want to grant us some sort of compromise. They can feel good about themselves by voting to screw us on one and throw us a bone with the other.

I think we may need to reach high with the marriage to help us get the civil unions--and eventually the marriage, too.

I have a feeling that that's how it will progress over time: more and more states will get some sort of civil unions, while a very few leap ahead to marriage. Eventually, as there are hundreds of thousands of civil unions and tens of thousands of gay marriages around the country for several years, and the straight people notice that it really didn't do a damn thing to hurt them, resistance will fade, and we'll gradually get more marriage. Some where along there a court decision will probably bring marriage and/or unions to the whole country, but I actually hope that's not too soon. A lot of people need an acclimation period--and frankly, we just have to wait for some of the rigid old people to die off and be replaced by kids growing up who couldn't care less.

I want to see us keep moving forward, but lurching too far too soon could be a mistake.

It would be GREAT to see the actual people actually vote some form of it in though, especially in a state like Colorado. James Dobson (founder of Focus on the Family) will go into convulsions if his own (adopted) state votes civil unions in three months from now. I can only pray.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 22, 2006, 09:03:32 PM

And it's why some of us are considering moving to countries that seem to care about human rights (like Canada) - voting with our feet and our dollars.


I'm from Canada, many American gays and lesbians come over here to get married, now tell me, of what use is a Canadian marriage certificate in your country? It has to be purely symbolic. It must be heartrenching crossing back on the border and suddenly not be officially married anymore.

Oh, and by the way you're more than welcome here but remember that parkas of any color are mandatory. ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: dsmom on June 22, 2006, 10:08:49 PM
Didn't you know Jess, that Hurricane Katrina was a result of Southern Decadance?

http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html

Apparently it was also related to the removal of settlers from the Gaza strip:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/blaming-katrina-on-gays-_b_6856.html

And somehow voodoo and abortion are involved too:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/22005b.asp

But that's okay, because 9/11 was caused by paganism and the ACLU:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jerry-falwell/

And gay days in Orlando can cause meteors:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505020002

My point is this - we could dress like the amish and spend all day in church, but so long as we are gay there are fundamentalists who are going to oppose us.  There is nothing we can do that will make gay marriage acceptable to these people.  It's why many of us moved away from places like Lynchburg, VA in the first place.

And it's why some of us are considering moving to countries that seem to care about human rights (like Canada) - voting with our feet and our dollars.


Oh, I agree that you will never get those people to agree with you but you don't need them to...they are fringe groups...not at all what the vast majority feel....there was a church here locally that put a sign out front right after the huricanes...saying that God was punishing the 'wicked'...99% of the community thought they were freaks themselves...

who you need to convince is that 99% ...and right now all that they are hearing from the Christian fringe is how horrible ya'll are...and they are hearing from you is that the things that the fringe is saying is true and you don't care what anyone thinks...

You can offer another view...and you will need to if you want to furthur your cause...

You have to make a choice...do you want to dance naked in the street or get equal rights...what is more important to you?? Do you want to be taken seriously or do you want to be the featured topic of discussion on the 700 club...a cut away on CNN? or Fox?...cause you cant have it both ways...not right here not right now...

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on June 22, 2006, 10:08:57 PM
I'm from Canada, many American gays and lesbians come over here to get married, now tell me, of what use is a Canadian marriage certificate in your country? It has to be purely symbolic.

Symbolism is huge.

I would argue that marriage is more a symbolic act than a legal one. Some (most) U.S. states still have common-law legislation on the books, which give a couple all the legal rights of marriage without a ceremony if they've cohabited a certain amount of time. It's quite actively used by a minority in Colorado, though the vast majority prefer the ceremony.

Of course the legal stuff is all very important in a lot of situations that come up, but day to day, through most of the marriage, the idea that you have taken the leap to consider yourself married, and done it publicly in front of all your friends and family, is the most imporant element.

I think we also see the primacy of the idea exert itself when a marriage breaks up. Once a couple decides "we're getting divorced," it's effectively over. The legal steps take awhile, but the marriage is dissolved as soon as the two people (or one) decide it is.

I think any cultural anthropologist or historian will tell you that as far as we can tell, marriage seems to have predated law in most or all cultures. It's a symbolic act that added legal attachments over the millenia as legal codes came into existence.

Symbols are huge. (Which is also why the name is.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 22, 2006, 10:26:21 PM

I'm from Canada, many American gays and lesbians come over here to get married, now tell me, of what use is a Canadian marriage certificate in your country? It has to be purely symbolic. It must be heartrenching crossing back on the border and suddenly not be officially married anymore.


Couples who obtain the certificate from Canada or wherever else will consider themselves married no matter where they live.  I imagine anger more than heartbreak at the denial of legal rights upon return to the States, their certificates symbolize their commitment forever.  I also like the idea of Americans hearing from their gay neighbors that they are in fact married, if only legally in Canada.  It will make many think about how America lags behind much of the developed world in social equality, the land of the free.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 22, 2006, 11:03:05 PM

You have to make a choice...do you want to dance naked in the street or get equal rights...what is more important to you?? Do you want to be taken seriously or do you want to be the featured topic of discussion on the 700 club...a cut away on CNN? or Fox?...cause you cant have it both ways...not right here not right now...



DSMOM, you know I agree with you from my prior posts, but being "taken seriously" is not that easy.  Take Brokeback Mountain, a film that unexpectedly broke into the mainstream, capturing the public's imagination for months and respect of world critics.  Prior to the Oscars, it became the most honored film in U.S. awards history on account of its artistry, but also because it played by the so-called straight rules of the game.  The most common praise was how its depiction of two lonely cowboys in love was "universal".  Straights could identify with this particular gay movie, so it was lavishly embraced, at last.  In fact, Brokeback's only detractors upon release were right wingers (who wouldn't see it) and, interestingly, a certain segment of the gay population - perhaps symbollically those dancing boys - who felt the movie wasn't gay enough (I couldn't disagree more). 

Everything was going great, but then the backlash set in.  Brokeback was SO embraced that it started to make much of America uncomfortable.  People visibly squirmed, and the initially good-hearted talk show jokes turned disrespectful and often nasty.  Through no fault of its own, the film became a big gay joke in many quarters, ultimately costing it the Oscar in the biggest (and worst) upset in their 78 year history.  Brokeback made great progress, but unfortunately America couldn't quite embrace it entirely.  The 99% you reference is more resistant than we thought, and that's where the heartbreak lies, the age old prejudice runs deep.  And alas it is not 99% after all, but significantly less, I have no idea the number.  So while I too wish the dancing boys would take it inside, we should try to understand their continued conduct and even anger, because the Oscar debacle shows we aren't taken seriously even when we do conform.  I believe the path is the Brokebacks route, but we must be patient with the dissenters, they protest because their disappointments also run deep.  They are the same as ours.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: dsmom on June 22, 2006, 11:39:34 PM
JayiiJay...

great posts thank you...you are right...but I still think the Brokeback route brought you farther forward than years of Will and Grace...and will continue to do so..

You have given me something to think on...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on June 23, 2006, 08:58:17 AM
JayiiJay...

great posts thank you...you are right...but I still think the Brokeback route brought you farther forward than years of Will and Grace...and will continue to do so..

You have given me something to think on...



Thanks much DSMOM.  As I hope you know, I agree with virtually everything you said, and that the Brokeback path is the way to go. 

I know I speak for many in expressing sincere gratitude for your beautifully stated, heartfelt comments, if only more were like you.  We're on our way!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Signal63 on June 24, 2006, 07:03:22 PM

I'm from Canada, many American gays and lesbians come over here to get married, now tell me, of what use is a Canadian marriage certificate in your country? It has to be purely symbolic. It must be heartrenching crossing back on the border and suddenly not be officially married anymore.


Couples who obtain the certificate from Canada or wherever else will consider themselves married no matter where they live.  I imagine anger more than heartbreak at the denial of legal rights upon return to the States, their certificates symbolize their commitment forever.  I also like the idea of Americans hearing from their gay neighbors that they are in fact married, if only legally in Canada.  It will make many think about how America lags behind much of the developed world in social equality, the land of the free.

As an American who just got married in Canada, I did it in part because of its symbolism. It directly confronts the issue because marriages are so enshrined in society. I ahd underestimated this, probably because I never thought I would be married, but the response from both gay and straight people, friends and strangers, has been incredibly positive. By marrying, I hope it makes certain people who are opposed to same-sex marriage uncomfortable and annoyed; I hope it inspires other same-sex couples to do the same; I hope it foregrounds the discrimination in this country; I hope it personalizes the issue to all those folks who are not necessarily against same-sex marriage so when the issue arises they can use their experience to help them understand what is at stake. I think the latter is important, even if you think you are preaching to the choir, because just as most people thought Hollywood was some kind of enlightened liberal enclave and were shocked by the deep-seated homophobia at the Best Pic fiasco for BBM, you should never assume anything.

It seems like one of the problems is that the pride parade has become the token, highly visible manifestation of GBLT life. As for what passes as a gay pride parade these days, I think it depends on the city and part of the country. It would be nice to see an actual civil rights protest instead of the usual pride celebration. Most parades and events have reduced the GLBT community to a demographic niche and while it's nice to see corporate support and special marketing efforts catering to you, it would be refreshing to see a little more indignation at becoming the stereotype de jour, one of the last minority groups that even the media can ridicule and demean, and a political pawn in a game with no real winners.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 24, 2006, 10:04:25 PM
I'm convinced your very unhealthy mix of religion and state is the very first problem you should tackle. Here in Canada religion has had little influence in the decision to pass the gay marriage law. Altough now we have a new very conservative minority government "à la little Bush", that might try and throw a blow to the law. We're keeping our eyes open, most commentators think it couldn't happen.

And yes I agree the symbolism can be a strong factor in showing that this thing is possiblle and that if other countries can do it why would such a great nation shy away from such a fundamental right. You seem to lead the world but unfortunately it's mainly economically.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 25, 2006, 08:42:04 AM
A few more wars will fix that ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Mr. Wrong on June 28, 2006, 04:57:52 PM
Focus On The Family is now attacking the media. What they really want is Fox News like coverage of the issue Gay marriage.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/28/dobson.gaymarriage/index.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 29, 2006, 12:30:31 AM
This weekend I saw 'Reinas' (Queens) the closing film of the Lesbian/Gay Film Festival here.  In the question and answer period afterwards it was mentioned that Spain changed its law to allow Same Sex Marriage after the Socialists won power in that country (much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church). 

This got me thinking - part of the reason that Canada passed Same Sex Marriage is that the left is strong there as well.  In the Netherlands and Belgium it happened after the Christian Democrats fell from power.  The Socialist Party (under François Hollande) has pushed for making same sex marriages equal in France.

This leads me to two questions: 1) If Andrés Manuel López Obrador (of the leftist Alliance for the welfare of all PRD/PT) wins the presidency of Mexico, will we see a bid for same sex marriage to be legal there (with it then being legal in both other members of NAFTA) and 2) Is one of the reasons that we have not succeeded in same sex marriage (in places other than Massachusetts) because we do not have a strong left or leftist leaning party in the United States?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on June 29, 2006, 01:46:03 AM
2) Is one of the reasons that we have not succeeded in same sex marriage (in places other than Massachusetts) because we do not have a strong left or leftist leaning party in the United States?

only one word: YES.

it was always the  left who brought improvement of social conditions - unions, rights to vote, minority rights, etc. that's why many european countries have socialist parties building the government. it seems that there is such a "left-phobia" in the us that "socialist" means "communist dictatorship" in the american point of view

i used to be proud of arnold schwarzenegger. an austrian who made it in the us. till the moment where he gave a speech saying that he grew up in a socialist dictatorship. austria was floored. we have a democratic government since the end of WW2 (before schwarzenegger has been born), in the 60ties and 70ties the socialist government brought enormous social improvements which made us one of the richest countries of the world, paired with one of the hightest life quality standards - health insurance and retirement fonts for everybody, unions being an important part of government decisions etc.
socialist parties all over europe are democratic parties and they don't have anything to do with communism. it seems that many people in the usa (including schwarzenegger) don't know a thing about socialism and communism. and that provokes a hysteric fear of communism (hence the hysteria of the mccarthy aera).

i'd say that because of that fear, a socialist party could never develop (the american democratic party equals rather our conservative parties) in the us. looking up at canada with it's strong left parties, i would say that i'm not that wrong...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: speedskater on June 29, 2006, 03:25:13 PM
I admire the united states for many things: its art, its music, its science, its philosophers past and present, its diversity etc (I admire these same things in other countries around the world too).  As far as "tackling religion"...we must tackle the the gay community and get a concensus of what we are about and what direction we are headed. I want to spend my time building a community as opposed to deconstructing indoctrination.
I am built to tackle it too  ;)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on June 29, 2006, 03:34:52 PM
HI! Speedskater! Wecome to the Forum, we need speedy people around here!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jim ... on June 29, 2006, 07:08:08 PM
yes john john beat me to it!  Welcome speedskater!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: speedskater on June 30, 2006, 09:58:42 PM
TY JohnJohn, Jim. appreciate the welcome.  :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on July 07, 2006, 01:06:05 AM
Thought you all would be interested in the lengths to which some people will go to restrict our rights:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060705/News01/60705016/CAT=News01

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on July 08, 2006, 01:14:12 PM
since it seems i now received all answers to my mails i will ever receive, here's some "statistics" on my personal little marriage amendment campaign:

- i wrote 100 e-mails to all 100 senators
- i received 26 replies, 10 of which were automatic replies (thank you for your mail...blabla)
- 16 were direct replies (of course with a pre-prepared press text, but direct replies nevertheless)
- 1 was off-topic (it was about immigration laws...)
- 5 replies were in favour of the marriage amendment, all of those were from republican senators
- 10 replies were against the amendment, all of those were from democratic senators

here's a list of the 15 senators who replied with direct mails about the topic:


pro amendment (all republicans):

Allen, George
Domenici, Pete V.
Ensign, John
Inhofe, Jim
Isakson, Johnny


against amendment (all democrats):

Dodd, Christopher (interestingly, he didn't vote in the actual ballot)
Durbin, Richard J.
Feinstein, Dianne
Harkin, Tom
Kennedy, Edward
Lieberman, Joseph
Obama, Barack
Schumer, Charles
Murray, Patty
Sarbanes, Paul



i'm keeping the original mails i received. if you're interested, i can of course send them to you, just pm me.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: melissasjack on July 08, 2006, 06:36:54 PM
Hi to Desertrat, johnjohn, and everyone else here, I know I've seen some of y'all in other places here... :)
I saw this thread and thought it had to be the perfect place for my rant!
In yesterday's Chicago Trib. there was a big article about Shitty New York and even Shittier Georgia upholding gay marriage bans...What a fucking blow, for NY of all places, that damn city is s'posed to be all about GD"D diversity with 9 gazillion different people livin there.
I read it last night, and it made me so sick to my stomache that I couldn't even finish dinner.
It was all about this Judge saying, "Oh we need to think about the children...it's not healthy or what's best..."etc...I'm sure you see the direction that was headed in...
I'm am still flyin' mad about this...and so ashamed that it took Brokeback Mountain to realize what an unfair fucked up situation this is . It's just plain wrong to deny anybody the right to 'document' their love and I don't understand how in hell this is the governments buisness.
I wrote a very good letter to the op-Ed page olast night at about 4 am, if it's gets published, i'll link it here..(or try to as I'm not the greatest w/ computers)
Doesn't our constitution protect the right to PURSUIT OF HAPPINES? WTF?
I write A papers for school, so hopefully I wrote it well enough to get in print so people can realize that if one dumb young straight girl sees how freaking wrong our government is, maybe someone else will too.
Sorry...that just made me feel so damn bad ...for everyone who has to be denied marriage because of it and for my country, which I love but don't like much...(at least the way it's been headed.)
The saddest part?
They had a group photo of some of the people protesting the decisions...wearing cool slogan t'shirts, etc... there was this one couple, and the guy had a t-shirt on that said Marriage is a right, not a priveledge granted only to heterosexuals...It made me tear up inside, because in the pic, his head is down and his hand is up by his face brushing tears from his eye...
What can I do to help this?
Truly just redirecting ignorant comments is not enough...I'm a student @Purdue, there's gotta be something I can do to help.
Sorry to rant, that just got me good though guys.
Melissa
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: LSky94 on July 08, 2006, 07:05:34 PM
Good for you Melissa, hope your Op-ed piece gets published.  We sometimes mistakenly think it isn't worthwhile to do such things, but the alternative is silence, and we know that leads to nowhere. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on July 11, 2006, 03:30:08 PM
very sad to see the NY court turn against us. i was really hoping that would be a big step.

i guess we'll have to continue waiting for our next big step. wait wait wait.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jasonwv on July 12, 2006, 04:25:49 PM
Ok I just want to rant a bit because of all these set backs! I know what I'm about to say makes no sense but it will make me feel better saying it!
                           
                    OK! So let's fight fire with fire! Everytime some state legislature wants to make a law against Gay marriage lets have someone attach an anti-divorce law to it too!! Why Not? Marriage is supposed to be sooooooooo sacred that only certain people can have it then they should never ever be allowed to divorce!
Why should laws only apply to our bedrooms? Yes, I think divorce should be illegal because the Bible says it's wrong! Are we just going to pick and choose the laws of the Bible we are going to make laws for everyone?
Make Divorce Illegal and against the law. And when it passes make it retroactive!! Take that Straight People!

                               ok, I'm done ranting. thanks for letting me vent.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: mountain boy on July 12, 2006, 04:32:33 PM
If they want to make Leviticus the law of the land, they need to outlaw eating shrimp and playing football while they're at it.     >:(
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: LSky94 on July 12, 2006, 06:01:45 PM
If they want to make Leviticus the law of the land, they need to outlaw eating shrimp and playing football while they're at it.     >:(

They also need to outlaw bacon, pork chops, hamhocks and require every man to live near the water so he can go wash his genitals and sit there by the river until sundown, for ejaculating outside of procreation activities, including unintentional wetdreams.  Imagine calling in to your employer "ummm, I can't come in today, I had a wetdream and I need to go sit by the river until sundown" lmao, that would be funny. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on July 12, 2006, 06:06:22 PM
Ok I just want to rant a bit because of all these set backs! I know what I'm about to say makes no sense but it will make me feel better saying it!
                           
                    OK! So let's fight fire with fire! Everytime some state legislature wants to make a law against Gay marriage lets have someone attach an anti-divorce law to it too!! Why Not? Marriage is supposed to be sooooooooo sacred that only certain people can have it then they should never ever be allowed to divorce!
Why should laws only apply to our bedrooms? Yes, I think divorce should be illegal because the Bible says it's wrong! Are we just going to pick and choose the laws of the Bible we are going to make laws for everyone?
Make Divorce Illegal and against the law. And when it passes make it retroactive!! Take that Straight People!

                               ok, I'm done ranting. thanks for letting me vent.




I don't think it's a rant at all.  It's a clever and all too logical analogy to their illogical double-standard bigotry.  Well said.

Did you see Whoopi Goldberg's latest HBO special?  While defending gay marriage and highlighting the bullshit bible arguments, she notes that the bible (which bible?) says that people who commit adultery are supposed to be put to death.  Let's enforce that one.  Then, she notes people who commit bestiality with say, a goat, are to be put to death.  Fine...but then she notes that the goat is also supposed to be put to death!  What the hell did the poor goat do to deserve all this, lol??  Anyhow, apart from all the inconsistencies in the bible and the propensity of the hypocrites to yield it as a selective weapon for their choosing, I thought that was supposed to be irrelevant, this country was founded on separation of church and state.  Yeah, I know, there has always been a blurring of the lines, but to my knowledge not to the extent this administration uses THEIR god to suppress and deny the rights of others.  Just like all good zealots.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on July 13, 2006, 01:48:37 AM
If they want to make Leviticus the law of the land, they need to outlaw eating shrimp and playing football while they're at it.     >:(

They also need to outlaw bacon, pork chops, hamhocks and require every man to live near the water so he can go wash his genitals and sit there by the river until sundown, for ejaculating outside of procreation activities, including unintentional wetdreams.  Imagine calling in to your employer "ummm, I can't come in today, I had a wetdream and I need to go sit by the river until sundown" lmao, that would be funny. 

and every man is required to wear a coat with 5 tassels.

my standard answer to everybody who comes with "it's against the bible": AND WHERE ARE YOUR TASSELS, YOU SINNER ?

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Carissa on July 13, 2006, 03:15:21 PM
and every man is required to wear a coat with 5 tassels.

my standard answer to everybody who comes with "it's against the bible": AND WHERE ARE YOUR TASSELS, YOU SINNER ?

 ;D ;D ;D
I missed the Tassel scripture. ;)  What is it? ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on July 13, 2006, 03:48:50 PM
and every man is required to wear a coat with 5 tassels.

my standard answer to everybody who comes with "it's against the bible": AND WHERE ARE YOUR TASSELS, YOU SINNER ?

 ;D ;D ;D
I missed the Tassel scripture. ;)  What is it? ;D

tassels as a sign of religious people are mentioned a couple of times in the bible. here's two places: Numeri, 15,37 and Deuteronomium 22,12.
so according to them, a religious person has to wear tassels on his/her coat !  ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on July 16, 2006, 08:05:07 AM
Doesn't seem too long ago the New York Times wouldn't even use the word "gay."  Now here they are, with an affectionate account of a gay wedding:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/fashion/sundaystyles/16love.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on July 17, 2006, 07:02:40 PM
A good, optimistic article on gay marriage in this week's New York Magazine.

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/imperialcity/17666/index1.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on July 18, 2006, 02:18:59 PM
the amendment failed in the House today:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2207417

from AP:

Quote
WASHINGTON Jul 18, 2006 (AP)— The House on Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, ending for another year a congressional debate that supporters of the ban hope will still reverberate in this fall's election.

The 236-187 vote for the proposal to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was 47 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment. It followed six weeks after the Senate also decisively defeated the amendment, a top priority of social conservatives. The amendment needed the yes votes of two-thirds of those voting.

...
"I do not understand what motivates you," Frank said Monday, addressing Republicans on the Rules Committee. "I don't tell you who to love."

...

The Senate took up the measure last month but fell 11 short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation to a final vote. The last House vote on the issue, just a month before the 2004 election, was 227-186 in favor of the amendment, 49 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.


They did gain nine votes. That's scary. And disgusting. (Did the Rs gain many seats in the 2004 election? I didn't think so.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jasonwv on July 18, 2006, 02:26:58 PM
They knew it wouldn't pass. This vote was about getting people on record to muster up their hate campaigns for the coming election. I can see it now'''Rep. So & So voted against the  gay marriage ban do you want him representing your family values!" Or, I voted for the gay marriage ban but my opponents party voted overwhelmingly against it! Is that the party of family values?" 
  It really makes me sick that they can galvanize people to vote by doing that. That's why we really have to show up in force this election.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on July 19, 2006, 02:36:11 PM
A good, optimistic article on gay marriage in this week's New York Magazine.

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/imperialcity/17666/index1.html

wow, that's an astoundingly good take on gay marriage, and it's written by kurt anderson.

(the link is actually to p. 2, though. p. 1 is here: http://newyorkmetro.com/news/imperialcity/17666/index.html )

on the first page he trashes the NY court's rather revolting logic, but the second page explains why it's in our long-term best interest to have the legislature do it rather than the judges:

Quote
As a practical political matter, full-bore gay marriage is useful to have on the table, so that marriage lite—civil unions, domestic partnerships—seems by comparison a moderate option. Supporters of gay rights can learn from the anti-abortion playbook of the past three decades. The positions of the pro-life hard core have served to make modest restrictions on abortion seem reasonable to the conflicted middle. But the risk of righteous passion is overreach.

In retrospect, it’s unfortunate that we pro-choicers won by means of Roe v. Wade. The legal reasoning was dubious, and it inflamed a chronic anger (against the courts, the irreligious, Washington, Democrats) that Republicans have exploited masterfully ever since. If the decision had come, say, a decade later, political history would be quite different. Back in 1973, the tide of opinion and politics was clearly moving in the pro-choice direction. Thirteen states, including six in the South, had recently liberalized their statutes to allow abortion if the fetus had any severe defect or if a woman’s physical or mental health was endangered. But just four states (including New York) had fully legalized abortion. Roe shockingly short-circuited an organic, progressive political process and slammed our politics in a religious and rightward direction.

By contrast, consider the political-judicial history of interracial marriage. The timing was perfect. In 1967, when the Supreme Court got around to declaring laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional, only sixteen states still carried such statutes on their books—whereas less than two decades before, it was illegal for a white to marry a black in most states. In the progress toward marital equality, it’s not yet 1967.

And the way to work it is locally, ripe state by ripe state. Before Massachusetts’s supreme court ignited the national debate, polling showed a solid majority of the state’s citizens in favor of gay marriage. Last year, California passed a bill legalizing gay marriage; the state’s former-bodybuilder governor vetoed it, but if Schwarzenegger is beaten this fall, it’ll be passed again and signed by a Democratic governor. That would be preferable to judges’ remaking the law—the state court of appeal in San Francisco will soon rule on whether the existing statute is unconstitutional—but even a pro-gay judicial outcome would be in sync with the California political consensus. Similarly, any day now New Jersey’s supreme court may rule that state’s existing law unconstitutional—but a poll last month found that Jerseyites now support gay marriage 50 to 44 percent.

I have to grudgingly agree.

It's a tough choice: we kinda need momentum--we need the crucial political middle to see gay marriage as inevitable, and see the country moving toward it. But they will be SO much less resistant to that movement if they see it coming from voters and their reps. Getting a gov in California who will sign the law that the assembly passed is crucial. And we need other states.

I think that the Mass court decision will work for us in the long run, because we needed someone's hand to be forced, so that marriages actually happened. Every year that passes there will be a longer and longer history in this country where homos have been marrying, with no ill effects. More people will slowly see that the sky never fell and it really doesn't matter to them.

The thing that bothers me about the NY decision, though, is losing some of the moral authority, in the sense that even in a liberal state, even senior judges have said that is NOT an inalienable right to marry. (Or rather, they have found some tortured logic to state explicitly that it is, and that it doesn't depend just on tradition, yet we don't deserve it because it's not ‘deeply rooted.' Huh?) The best thing about Lawrence vs Texas was that even a conservative supreme court was finally willing to step up and say, hey, it's totally unfair to forbid homos to have sex. that's just plain morally wrong, and you have to stop. to have a presumably liberal court in NY say that our marriage claim does not have a moral imperative is harmful to us.

But as a practical matter, I agree with Kurt: As long as we have a toehold in Mass. to demonstrate the lack of danger, it's much better to keep the courts out of it and get the legislatures to do it, at least for now. He's right: It's not 1967 yet in gay years.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: estefue on July 19, 2006, 06:07:52 PM
It's a little hard to be optimistic when we have that idiot governor in Massachusetts actively working against us and planning to use this as his "issue" for his presidential campaign.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jayiijay on July 19, 2006, 07:35:50 PM


The thing that bothers me about the NY decision, though, is losing some of the moral authority, in the sense that even in a liberal state, even senior judges have said that is NOT an inalienable right to marry. (Or rather, they have found some tortured logic to state explicitly that it is, and that it doesn't depend just on tradition, yet we don't deserve it because it's not ‘deeply rooted.' Huh?) The best thing about Lawrence vs Texas was that even a conservative supreme court was finally willing to step up and say, hey, it's totally unfair to forbid homos to have sex. that's just plain morally wrong, and you have to stop. to have a presumably liberal court in NY say that our marriage claim does not have a moral imperative is harmful to us.


I agree with everything that Anderson and you said, though New York State is not as liberal as its reputation.  Without New York City, it would virtually always go Republican (though NYC's last few mayors would seem to contradict my logic, wouldn't they...oy).  The "deeply rooted" language is bullshit used by judges where there is neither a legal nor logical rationale to otherwise support their decision.   Historically, "deeply rooted" has been used as an excuse to uphold bigotry, which itself is deep rooted.  Very Dred Scott.

What gets me is that so much depends upon who happens to be in the judge's chairs.  Robert Smith (who wrote the decision) is a conservative person (I know him a bit).  His seat could just as easily have been filled by a moderate or liberal.  People need to keep in mind how important these appointments are when they vote.  If NYers had selected a democrat (as is usually expected), the court would have been different, we would have won.  My point is, there is no "higher" Antigone law going on here, it's being in the right place at the right time, many judicial decisions are no less informed by politics and personal preference than legislative ones, which is ultimately why I agree with Anderson's premise.  If people think THEY are effecting the changes rather than a few judges, those changes are more likely to stick.  I found the Roe v. Wade analogy compelling.

I agree, California will be important.  It will also be interesting to see what happens in New Jersey.  But like you said Dave, when centrists and even right wingers begin to believe the eventual inevitability of gay marriage, great strides will be made.  I thought it was fantastic when Jon Stewart got rightwing nutcase Bill Bennett to concede exactly that.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Spike on July 26, 2006, 10:04:59 AM
The Washington State Supreme Court has upheld the state's Defense of Marriage Act. The interesting part of the decision for me is the following:

…limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.

It seems that heterosexuals are the ones in need of special rights.

Read the entire decision here:

http://www.krem.com/sharedcontent/northwest/pdf/gaymarriageruling.pdf

If PDF format is a problem you can read the entire decsion online here:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=759341MAJ









Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Boris on July 26, 2006, 11:37:07 AM
Decision was 5-4. Sad but not unexpected. The most dangerous part of their ruling is not upholding the DOMA. It is the part where they declare being being gay is not "immutable" and that gays are not "suspect class" and thus in need for rights protection based on their minority status. That will be ammo directly to those who oppose all advances in legal status of fays and gay couples. In the long run it'll be much more damaging than denying rights to marry. The court basically declared that gays do not need and they are not entitled to any benefits or protections as gays.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisFewa on July 26, 2006, 01:08:41 PM
I was listening to a debate today, I believe it was for the future mayor of NYC.  One of the candidates said he would not support gay marriage because it was against his religion.  Forget the separation of church and state thing for a sec.  What religion supports denying a group of people rights?

I’m dumbfounded everyday by how they justify themselves, by overlooking parts of their religion.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Spike on July 26, 2006, 08:55:59 PM
Boris,

While I agree that the statements regarding "immutability" and "not suspect class" in the Washington State decision are troubling, they are disingenuous as well.  The legislature in Washington state recently passed the non-discrimination statute regarding employment, insurance, housing and other issues.  That would make the "immutability" reference in the decision moot and rather silly. This decision cannot be appealed so essentially they can say any stupid thing they want to justify their position. You may want to look into who is financing the campaigns of these 'Supremes'.  One of them got in under the wire of the new campaign finance law and took thousands from the right-leaning construction industry in Washington state with no apologies. Bet you can't guess which one.  The governor and other politicians like King County executive Ron Sims (who started this whole lawsuit) have come out to say this ruling is just plain wrong.  There is an anger here that I have not witnessed since Stonewall. The next step is legislation to prevent government from involving itself in what are basically religious sacraments.  As governor Gregoire said "I believe the state should provide these same rights and responsibilities to all citizens. I also believe the sacrament of marriage is between two people and their faith; it is not the business of the state".

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jack on August 18, 2006, 07:10:41 PM
at the request of the management...

Pete just put up a poll at http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=12326.0 so we can find out approximately how many books we need to have printed in the first run. I don't know a single soul who gets around these threads better or more than you do. So I wondered if you would help us spread the word and get a bunch of folks to fill out the poll for us. Could you point them in that direction as you move from thread to thread (like a ministering angel)?

thank you...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: maggied on August 29, 2006, 08:21:44 AM
The Washington State Supreme Court has upheld the state's Defense of Marriage Act. The interesting part of the decision for me is the following:

…limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.

It seems that heterosexuals are the ones in need of special rights.






And it seems like no one has noticed that the survival of the human race would be much better served if heterosexual couples stoppped having so many kids - that threatens the welllbeing of everyone on the planet more than just about anything else. Anyone who thinks we are going to run out of procreators soon is living on a different planet from the rest of us. .Heck you should be campaigning for tax breaks for married homosexual couples who won't overpopulate the planet!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on August 29, 2006, 09:59:57 AM
The Washington State Supreme Court has upheld the state's Defense of Marriage Act. The interesting part of the decision for me is the following:

…limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.

It seems that heterosexuals are the ones in need of special rights.






And it seems like no one has noticed that the survival of the human race would be much better served if heterosexual couples stoppped having so many kids - that threatens the welllbeing of everyone on the planet more than just about anything else. Anyone who thinks we are going to run out of procreators soon is living on a different planet from the rest of us. .Heck you should be campaigning for tax breaks for married homosexual couples who won't overpopulate the planet!

i guess this is the most debated question at the moment. over ere in central europe, they constantly bug us about not having enough kids since the social system will break down if we have only a small number of young people and a dominating group of old, retired people.

and in general, i think what the supreme court doesn't see is that there are thousands of orphaned kids waiting for parents to adopt them. but i guess those people would prefer having the children rot in orphanages to giving them in the loving care of a same sex couple....
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Spike on August 30, 2006, 03:48:06 AM
Lawyers for Same-Sex Couples Seeking Marriage in Washington State Petition Supreme Court to Reconsider Last Month’s 5–4 Decision
Attorneys Say Court Didn't Explain How Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Furthers Any State Interest

(Seattle, August 29, 2006)—Attorneys representing the 19 same-sex Washington couples who argued for their clients’ right to marry under the Washington State Constitution have petitioned the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider its July 26, 2006 5–4 decision.

Two cases were decided jointly last month—Andersen v. King County in which the eight couples are represented by Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women's Law Center and Castle v. State whose 11 couples are represented by the ACLU of Washington.

“We still believe that Washington’s Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry,” said Jon W. Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal. “Instead of explaining why our clients couldn't marry, the court told us why marriage is good for different-sex couples. Barring same-sex couples from marriage only hurts same-sex couples and their families—it doesn't help anyone.”

In August 2004, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled that the Washington State Constitution guarantees basic rights to lesbian and gay people—and that a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates those rights. The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women’s Law Center had to be given marriage licenses. One month later, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ruled similarly in the Castle case brought by the ACLU. Both decisions were appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court, which overturned the lower courts’ decisions on July 26.

"The Court did not come to grips with the very real harms done to same-sex couples by denying them equal access to the many benefits of legal marriage," said Paul Lawrence, the lead attorney on the ACLU's legal team for the case. "The court's reliance on the tie between procreation and marriage does not make sense. Many opposite-sex couples get married with no intention of having children, and many same-sex couples do in fact raise children."

According to the rules of the Washington Supreme Court, parties have 14 days from the issuance of a decision to petition for reconsideration. Lambda Legal, the ACLU of Washington and the Northwest Women’s Law Center filed for an extension of that period, which was granted and expired after 5:00 p.m. today. If the Supreme Court rejects the motion for reconsideration filed today, the July 26 decision would become final. If the motion for reconsideration is granted, the justices could change their decision without holding another oral argument or they could decide to hold another oral argument for further clarification.

“This rule allowing motions seeking reconsideration exists because of cases exactly like ours,” said Nancy Sapiro, Senior Counsel at Northwest Women’s Law Center. “Since the stakes in this case are so high—whether or not the state will recognize our clients’ families and thousands like them throughout the state—we felt that we had to use every option available to us to show the justices the logic behind our arguments and how their decision as it is currently reasoned falls short.”

In May 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to open marriage to same-sex couples. A Boston Globe poll taken in March 2005 found that 56% of people in Massachusetts favor marriage for same-sex couples. This percentage is nearly a mirror image of the 53% of people in the Bay State who had opposed such marriages just a year earlier in February 2004, before couples of the same sex could legally wed there. Spain, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands have all stopped prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying nationwide, and South Africa is scheduled to do so by the end of 2006.

Representing the eight couples in the Andersen v. King County are Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jennifer C. Pizer; Jamie Pedersen, former member of Lambda Legal’s Board of Directors and an attorney at the Seattle law firm, Preston Gates & Ellis; Patricia Novotny, Lisa Stone and Nancy Sapiro of the Northwest Women’s Law Center; and Bradley Bagshaw and Jennifer Divine, of the Seattle law firm Helsell Fetterman LLP. Representing the 11 couples for the ACLU are Paul Lawrence, Matthew Segal and Amit Ranade of the law firm Preston Gates & Ellis; Karolyn Hicks of the firm Stokes Lawrence; Roger Leishman of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine; and ACLU of Washington staff attorney Aaron Caplan.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on September 08, 2006, 01:24:12 PM
Pope Benedict lashed out Friday at Canada for allowing same sex marriage and abortion, saying the policies resulted from Catholic politicians ignoring the values of their religion.

 :-\

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/08/pope-canada.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Spike on September 08, 2006, 02:58:56 PM
Not exactly 'new' news, but Brad Pitt is restating his position on gay marriage in Esquire.  Good for him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_en_ce/people_brad_pitt;_ylt=Av9qBFLmFvY3TYkgXpiEZq9RF78C;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on September 10, 2006, 04:39:46 AM
Not exactly 'new' news, but Brad Pitt is restating his position on gay marriage in Esquire.  Good for him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_en_ce/people_brad_pitt;_ylt=Av9qBFLmFvY3TYkgXpiEZq9RF78C;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-

i always respected brad pitt and angelina jolie for their social work (i actually know a bit first-hand because i used to live in namibia, right where they had their baby. and they REALLY gave money to absolutely the right organisation and the amount was a pure blessing to them). now i even respect them more.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: WLAGuy on September 10, 2006, 01:08:52 PM
Pope Benedict lashed out Friday at Canada for allowing same sex marriage and abortion, saying the policies resulted from Catholic politicians ignoring the values of their religion.

 :-\

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/08/pope-canada.html

He's right, of course.  The point he's missing is that those values are flawed. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisFewa on September 29, 2006, 11:25:59 AM
very cool

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1445772006
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: jackfingtwist on September 29, 2006, 11:28:49 AM
my uncle nd his partner got married last august in Boston
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on October 19, 2006, 12:58:02 PM
The following article got me thinking a bit more about gay marriage.  For me I don't think there is any arguement that gay marriage should not be legal that holds water.  It seems pretty clear that removing this hurdle will eliminate a large barrier of discrimination.  I don't really think that we can hope to be valued or treated equally if we don't have this barrier removed.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/MNGNVLPNI01.DTL&hw=lesbian+children&sn=014&sc=058

This article talks a bit about economics among lesbian couples.  As lesbians have more children than gay male couples do it may lead us to an image of what a 'post gay marriage' world will look like (or maybe not, as there is still economic disparity between men and women).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/07/BAG7FL0HUI1.DTL&hw=lesbian+children+gay&sn=002&sc=430

And then again there are issues of gay divorce:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/25/BAGLALC2EN1.DTL&hw=divorce+gay&sn=004&sc=304

I wonder what a post-gay marriage world will look like.  Will people who remain single be thought less of, either because they are seen as being incomplete or promiscuious?  And what will the effect on gay institutions be?  Will people who get married and don't have children be seen as being more 'selfish' than people who do?  Will the differences in the proportions of same-sex marriages by gender remain (currently 64% of the marriages in Massachusetts are between same-sex female couples)?  Will the divorce statistics for heterosexual marriage be reflected in divorce statistics for same-sex marriage?

The question about institutions is a particularly interesting one.  Here in San Francisco many of the lesbian/gay performance spaces (Valencia Rose, Jose's Cabaret, Artemis Cafe) and the bookstores (Old Wives Tales, Mama Bears, Walt Whitman Bookshop) have gone out of business.  Is this due to a shift in identity politics?  The impact of the internet (in the case of the bookstores)?

Here are some articles on lgbt businesses that have got me thinking:

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn33/oscarwilde.html

http://www.womeninprint.ca/about/index.html

http://www.feminista.com/archives/v4n2/gage.html

http://www.lgbt.ucla.edu/Sisterhood%20closing.htm

http://www.thirdspace.ca/articles/hogan.htm

And here are some webpages about how single people fit into the equation - our rights compared to the married:

http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_story_224100119.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_42/b3854001_mz001.htm

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/

http://www.unmarried.org/


Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on October 19, 2006, 03:08:07 PM
very interesting read, michael.

did you see the summary of a marketing study concerning gay men that i posted on the "what does it cost ?" thread ? it was very interesting.

what will post-gay marriage world be ? well, looking at the UK, i would say it will not be any different form today's marriage world. i would predict that the divorce rates will be the same. maybe not in the beginning because nobody will want to "confess" that his marriage failed. but as soon as things go to "normal" people will fall in love, marry and divorce like everybody else.  will people who get married and don't have children be seen as being more 'selfish' than people who do? of course they will. that's what's happening with straight couples without children today, so why should it be different with same sex couples ? well, thinking about it again, it might get interesting: usually there is more understanding for men if they don't want children. it's the women who are seen as selfish mosters if they don't want kids. so maybe i can't predict what will happen after all... ;)


thanks for the links. the last two were particularly interesting for me - being unmarried but in an almost 10 years-relationship myself (and feeling extremely pressured by society towards marrying and having kids...).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on October 23, 2006, 12:31:43 PM
One Episcopal bishop has okayed the blessing of gay unions in his diocese:

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid37827.asp

Not a wedding ceremony, just a blessing of Connecticut couples who have a civil union there.

And one priest is quoted in opposition.  Which strikes me funny, since many Episcopal churches have an annual blessing of the animals, to which people bring their cats, dogs, parakeets, goats, turtles and whatever...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Sandy on October 23, 2006, 04:53:02 PM
He is one of six Episcopal ministers in the state that oppose the bishop. I actually live about a mile from the church where the dissenting minister presides. Its a charistmatic Episcopal church, which seems almost a contradiction in terms (I'm an Epsicopalian so I have some experience). He'll get his sound-bites, but not much more. Our legislature voluntarily passed the law on civil unions, so we seem pretty comfortable with it.

Connecticut joins eight or nine other dioceses in the country to permit same-sex blessings. Progress, slowly. Sigh.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chapeaugris on October 24, 2006, 03:44:38 AM
In Doonesbury this week: Mark wants a divorce from Chase*, though they're not legally married, and comes to Joanie for advice. This should be interesting -- Trudeau has obviously decided to turn his sights on the gay marriage issue.

* Yay. I never knew what Mark saw in him, anyway. I mean, a Republican??
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on October 24, 2006, 09:20:48 AM
...
Connecticut joins eight or nine other dioceses in the country to permit same-sex blessings. Progress, slowly. Sigh.

And no doubt there's some deep theological reason that allows even holdout congregations  to have an annual ceremony for blessing pets but not the intertwining of same-sex lives. 

Chapeaugris, I always thought it pretty smart of Trudeau to make Chase a portly Republican - after all, neither were kids when they got together, both being old enough to have learned that some things were worth compromise.  I wonder if the breakup is precipitated by current politics, or just the wear-and-tear of domesticity?  It'll be interesting to see how the storyline plays out.  And, of course, it's always been wonderful to have one gay (non)marriage on the comics page.

There's been another gay male pair in a strip that's almost the opposite of Doonesbury, the very "family-friendly" Canadian "For Better or For Worse,"  which also has characters who age and change.  A high school friend of the family came out, and then later was shown in business with his partner.  It was done matter-of-factly, as I recall, with no allusions to political implications, and I don't believe those characters have appeared for some time. However, I don't follow this comic faithfully. It's well done, but sometimes a bit sentimental for my taste.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chapeaugris on October 24, 2006, 10:34:34 AM
Chapeaugris, I always thought it pretty smart of Trudeau to make Chase a portly Republican - after all, neither were kids when they got together, both being old enough to have learned that some things were worth compromise.  I wonder if the breakup is precipitated by current politics, or just the wear-and-tear of domesticity?  It'll be interesting to see how the storyline plays out.  And, of course, it's always been wonderful to have one gay (non)marriage on the comics page.

There's been another gay male pair in a strip that's almost the opposite of Doonesbury, the very "family-friendly" Canadian "For Better or For Worse,"  which also has characters who age and change.  A high school friend of the family came out, and then later was shown in business with his partner.  It was done matter-of-factly, as I recall, with no allusions to political implications, and I don't believe those characters have appeared for some time. However, I don't follow this comic faithfully. It's well done, but sometimes a bit sentimental for my taste.
It was the fact that they were not compatible politically that made them a dubious pair to me (in the Doonesbury world).

For Better or Worse is still around??! God, didn't that start up at least 25 years ago? I remember the first years.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on October 24, 2006, 11:35:12 AM

It was the fact that they were not compatible politically that made them a dubious pair to me (in the Doonesbury world).

But that's what I meant about compromise!  Remember, issues haven't always been so polarized as they've become with the present administration.  Under Clinton and, yes, Bush pere, there was some civility and cooperation.  And couples do manage to accommodate differing views all the time - unless the differences start to loom too large.  Which may be - we'lll see - the way Trudeau links his characters to the larger issues.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chapeaugris on October 24, 2006, 02:34:37 PM
I forgot how long they've been together. It's true -- once upon a time politically mixed marriages were conceivable.  :-\
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Sandy on October 24, 2006, 04:50:01 PM
Watch for news from the New Jersey supreme court tomorrow, which will rule on a case before which could make it the second state to allow gay marriage.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on October 25, 2006, 12:20:53 AM
Watch for news from the New Jersey supreme court tomorrow, which will rule on a case before which could make it the second state to allow gay marriage.

crossing fingers, praying non-stop, hoping beyond hope....
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Nax on October 25, 2006, 04:13:48 AM

(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b3/Jonathan_Harker/754dc0ca.gif)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on October 25, 2006, 04:20:45 AM

(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b3/Jonathan_Harker/754dc0ca.gif)

wow ! i LOVE this.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on October 25, 2006, 05:31:09 AM

Watch for news from the New Jersey supreme court tomorrow, which will rule on a case before which could make it the second state to allow gay marriage.

crossing fingers, praying non-stop, hoping beyond hope....


Today is the day.  Apparently, there will be a decision this afternoon about gay marriage in NJ.

The governor of NJ has said he is against gay marriage, but will stand by whatever the courts decide.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Nax on October 25, 2006, 06:36:00 AM

Watch for news from the New Jersey supreme court tomorrow, which will rule on a case before which could make it the second state to allow gay marriage.

crossing fingers, praying non-stop, hoping beyond hope....


Today is the day.  Apparently, there will be a decision this afternoon about gay marriage in NJ.

The governor of NJ has said he is against gay marriage, but will stand by whatever the courts decide.
I hope this works out - I want an excuse to buy a new hat  ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on October 25, 2006, 01:28:32 PM
Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: mountain boy on October 25, 2006, 01:28:50 PM
Go Chuck!!!     :) :) :) :)

From Wikipedia ... The latest poll was conducted in June, 2006, which showed the majority of New Jerseyans feel same-sex marriage should be legal in the state. 50% favored same-sex marriage, while 44% were opposed, and 6% were unsure. Nearly 2/3 of respondents, 65%, said they would agree with a law legalizing civil unions, while 30% were opposed.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: mountain boy on October 25, 2006, 01:30:21 PM
HOORAY  !!!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on October 25, 2006, 01:33:24 PM
N.J. Supreme Court affirms gay rights
By a 4-3 vote the New Jersey Supreme Court has affirmed that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexuals in the state, but also that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union, the Associated Press writes
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Sandy on October 25, 2006, 04:05:38 PM
If you go to the New York Times online edition, you can click through to a pdf (90 pp.) of the descision.

I have only read the 'syllabus' at this point, but the New Jersey legislature has a fixed time period in which to enact a law, either folding same-sex couples into the marriage provisions of current law, or authorizing a civil union statute that gives same-sex couples essentially the same rights of marriage as to heterosexual couples.

There are a number of different opinions and dissents (to different parts of the case). It would be worth taking a look to see what the legal (and extra-legal) arguments in play are.

A fitting decision for the chief justice's last day on the court.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: mountain boy on October 25, 2006, 04:34:37 PM
If I understand correctly, the 3 who dissented were actually taking a stronger position for gay marriage.

Their position was that the state should provide marriage to same-sex couples the same way it provides to mixed-sex couples.

(I love that they used the term "Mixed-sex couples"    :)  :-* :)   )

The prevailing decision - that the legislature has to devise a way for the state to provide at least something "like" marriage - was still favorable, but not as favorable.

The really GOOD take on this is that the state supreme court UNANIMOUSLY favored at least something like marriage.     ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on October 26, 2006, 01:52:08 AM
Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.

Y    E    A    H    !!!!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Nax on October 26, 2006, 03:30:35 AM
N.J. Supreme Court affirms gay rights
By a 4-3 vote the New Jersey Supreme Court has affirmed that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexuals in the state, but also that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union, the Associated Press writes

I do hope this comes about, I see a lot of us buying new hats ;D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on October 26, 2006, 04:35:16 PM
N.J. Supreme Court affirms gay rights
...
I do hope this comes about, I see a lot of us buying new hats ;D

Presumably it will come about, because it's not likely NJ will amend their constitution.  They already had a Domestic Partnership law.  (This is the one McGreevey supported and signed when, as he admits, he was afraid to support a full gay marriage bill because it might have been too revealing.) That legislation included some but not all of the rights and obligations of marriage. So it looks as though the NJ Supreme Court is saying that these "leftovers" will have to be dealt with, so as to remove the inequalities.

So far as I know, though, the primary issue will be what to call the new status for gay couples.  And I suppose there might be a question as to whether the older law is still needed; it was open to straight as well as gay couples.

Larry King's going to cover the issue on his CNN show this evening.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Jer009 on October 27, 2006, 12:14:27 AM
Friends,
Below is a link to a PDF file about the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision about gay marriage. The Syllabus comes first, then the text of the judge's ruling(scroll down).  I heard--on Air America radio, probably--that what's remarkable about these plaintiffs is that they are all so ordinary...they could be any couple, gay or straight:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf

Jer009
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dale on October 27, 2006, 03:38:33 AM
Hey all

I am little confused, what is the US like for gay people\couples?

I have read brads story, I am so happy that they have found love and togetherness, so it is possible out there. But the posts have confused me on one hand the US seams to support gay couple, with the law in some states accepting gay couples have rights and then on the other hand some posts imply that there can be quite a bit of homophobia.

In Australia there seams to little homophobia, most people just accept you as you are, as long as you don't rub it in there face. Which I think fair enough, when you see a couple gay or straight with their tongues down each other throats going for it big time in public it can make any body feel uncomfortable. However even though the general public couldn't care less the government don't accept gay couples and stay clear of the topic.

Personal if I found my Jack or Ennis I would be booking that ceremony pronto... (after and acceptable amount of time, to make sure he wasn't a psycho). I am just an old fashion guy at heart, I hope to one day to have those matching rings... you know the type I mean....

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on October 27, 2006, 06:07:42 AM
Hey all

I am little confused, what is the US like for gay people\couples?

I have read brads story, I am so happy that they have found love and togetherness, so it is possible out there. But the posts have confused me on one hand the US seams to support gay couple, with the law in some states accepting gay couples have rights and then on the other hand some posts imply that there can be quite a bit of homophobia.

In Australia there seams to little homophobia, most people just accept you as you are, as long as you don't rub it in there face. Which I think fair enough, when you see a couple gay or straight with their tongues down each other throats going for it big time in public it can make any body feel uncomfortable. However even though the general public couldn't care less the government don't accept gay couples and stay clear of the topic.

Personal if I found my Jack or Ennis I would be booking that ceremony pronto... (after and acceptable amount of time, to make sure he wasn't a psycho). I am just an old fashion guy at heart, I hope to one day to have those matching rings... you know the type I mean....



Hey Dale, welcome again!

Earl and I have been together for 28 years now next month. It's true that we do not hold hands while walking down the street or kiss in public (though we do hug, nice big bear hugs). Marriage is outlawed by law in this state (Virginia) and unfortunately after the next election will probably be further outlawed by an amendment to the state constitution which is on the ballot. You can easily guess how Earl and I are voting. We live in a suburban neighborhood in Arlington just outside Washington DC, and all of our close neighbors know of our partnership and have no problem with it. Indeed, they are very supportive of us. We did not move into our neighborhood for this support, but it has come about naturally. I admire Steve and Brad very much in the way they live, quietly and not flaunting themselves in the faces of their neighbors, but attracting them because of their sheer normality. As Steve and Brad would feel uncomfortable acting stereotypically gay, so would Earl and I. The cliche goes that you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, and that is certainly true in all of our cases. It's easy for an individual inclined to hate a stranger for activities which the stranger may or may not participate in, but it's more difficult for this individual to hate a neighbor who might be helpful to him. It might be just toleration rather than true acceptance or support, but it's not our business to change how our neighbors might think or feel deep in their hearts, just in how they act toward us, at least up to a point.

So what is it like for gay couples in the US? It's highly variable. Some rural areas are very accepting, as is true for Steve and Brad, and some urban, supposedly liberal areas can be unexpectedly intolerant. Even in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal. We gay couples are still obliged to be more circumspect in how we live than straight couples, but that comes with the territory and is not likely to change in our lifetimes. Things are better than they were during the time of Ennis and Jack's attempt to be together, but there is still much progress to be made.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on October 27, 2006, 07:56:43 AM
This morning on the radio, while being unwillingly subjected to a soundbite from W about the news from New Jersey, I was reminded of the similarity between the current way the religious right is using the same-sex marriage issue and the way Southern politicians used the race issue last century.

Southern politicians then used race to get votes by reminding poor Southern white voters that no matter how wretched their position in society was, their lot was still better than that of the black people. (Of course, at that time, black people were discouraged or forbidden from voting, by custom as well as by law.) They made poor white people afraid that, if black people were given civil rights, all gains on the part of black people would be at the expense of poor white people, and thereby remained in power without improving the lot either of poor whites or poor blacks. It took decades to change the minds of these white voters, and the process is in many ways not yet complete in reference to race. As if equal rights somehow confirmed special rights.

Now, certain politicians are creating in their willing listeners the idea that marriage between people of the same sex will somehow make the listeners' mixed-sex marriage (love the term, thanks Chuck!) less valid or somehow endangered. Such fear will take as long a time to overcome as it has taken to reduce fear of governmental and social takeover by people of a different race. It is especially ironic that many religious black leaders are in the forefront of this movement, conveniently forgetting what happened to their ancestors. But many people have an irrational fear of losing control, especially to alien, inconvenient ideas. Or the truth.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dale on October 27, 2006, 11:05:26 PM
Fritckep... that great 28 years congratulations.

I have found if people can't accept you the way you are then they are not worth knowing.

It seams the US is in a state of flux. I have never really consider the implication of a gay marriage maybe because I have an attitude that I don't give a damn what people think of me when it comes to matter such as these. If I was in a relationship that was ready for the commitment that comes with marriage I wouldn't give it a second thought. I would be proud that we had reached a stage when the love is that strong.

In fact one day, I hope to be married, if I am lucky enough to find deep mutual love.

What happens if you get married in a state where it is legal and move to state where is is not, isn't there any common laws between the state's in this matter.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on October 28, 2006, 02:34:46 AM
What happens if you get married in a state where it is legal and move to state where is is not, isn't there any common laws between the state's in this matter.

dale, i'm not american but as far as i know marriages signed in massachusetts, san francisco or new jersey are not valid in other states.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dale on October 28, 2006, 03:14:03 AM
It just seams a little strange, that you could get married in one state yet another your not!
Quick devours if wanted just move states.

This probably sound a little presumptuous, but does any body know other good sites where I can chat to some  gay or gay friendly cowboys or US country people. I know it probably sounds bad... I just want to chat to a few people get an idea of the difference in life style, maybe makes some friends online like am here.

I am in position where I am able to make the trip and maybe someday soon I will, but before hand I would like to get to know a few people and what to expect.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on October 28, 2006, 08:30:54 AM
Hey Dale,

It's true that so far same-sex marriages in Massachusetts are not legally recognized as marriages on the federal level or by any other state yet. Domestic partner arrangements are not federally recognized either, but are by states that acknowledge these situations. As is historically true in this country, judging by previous civil rights cases, a couple legally married in Massachusetts, upon moving to another state, will sue the state for recognition, and the case will make its way up through the various appeals courts up to the state supreme court, and there a final decision will be made. The process will take years. The same thing will happen on a federal level, the same-sex partner of a federal employee suing the federal government for recognition of benefits the same as for a mixed-sex marriage. This will take even more years, since federal appeals are generally slower than those of a state. Although states such as Utah will surely be the last to recognize such marriages, if ever, unless the federal level court decision is so sweeping as to overturn state level decisions, as happened when the US Supreme Court overturned state sodomy laws several years ago. These sodomy laws may remain on the books, but they are unenforceable because of the federal level decision.

As far as meeting Western rural gays, you might want to try posting in these sites on the Forum, and maybe someone there can give you some leads:

Mountain States Get-Together and Stock Show thread (this coming January):

http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=12085.0

the Wyoming thread:

http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=7050.0

A Country Perspective thread:

http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=10819.0

The latter thread has been rather moribund recently, but if you post there, you might get some responses. And as is true in all of them, previous postings would be of interest to you.

Hope this info helps!

And if you don't mind my asking, what part of Australia do you live in? Is it rural or do you live near a town?

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on October 28, 2006, 08:52:06 AM
Desertrat said:
Quote
dale, i'm not american but as far as i know marriages signed in massachusetts, san francisco or new jersey are not valid in other states

Correct.  Likewise, no matter what one's state laws say, gay marriage is not recognized at the federal (=national)  level.  So, for example, a gay couple married in Massachusetts cannot file a joint return as a married couple for their federal income tax.  (To be technical, the marriages performed in SF were declared invalid by the state of California; and what New Jersey has now is a domestic partnership with some but not all the legal rights of married couples.)

The U.S. Constitution allots some powers to the federal government, others to the individual states.  Works okay a lot of the time but can be really messy in others.  And it's one of the reasons some of our wingnuts want to amend the federal constitution to limit marriage to male-female, because that would supersede any state law.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chiaros on October 28, 2006, 02:10:38 PM
Yes, indeed, the future same-sex couple whether joined in civil marriage (NOT religious marriage) or in civil union in New Jersey (or Massachusetts) is only completely equal in the eyes of New Jersey law (or Massachusetts law).  Currently the marriage would still have NO STANDING in the eyes of the Federal Government. This couple CANNOT file federal taxes as a married couple as Castro says. Social Security benefits are NOT available to the "spouse" and are not transferable one to the other. Health benefits extended to one spouse by an employer (e.g. coverage of the spouse under a company's health plans) WILL be treated as UNEARNED INCOME on his or her Federal tax return (which has to be filed as an INDIVIDUAL return) and will be fully taxed. Etc etc etc. I believe Parenthetical Greg talked about this at the beginning of this thread somewhere there.

There are currently 1138 Federal benefits, then there are several hundred State benefits which vary from State to State.  The (future) NJ same-sex couple (and the MA couple) will get all the State benefits, of course, but at the current time none of the Federal ones.  I am given to understand that DOMA (passed in 1996) is the main block to extension of Federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in any particular state, and is also one of the underpinnings of States being able to disregard same-sex marriages from another State; with a State Constitution amendment to the effect of recognizing only male-female marriages they can disregard same-sex marriages essentially without referring to DOMA.  The "Full faith and credit" clause (Article IV) in the US constitution in this matter is essentially negated by the presence of the relevant clause in the STATE constitution.  [This is an oversimplification, but I think it is the essential gist - the lawyers amongst the forum membership here will be able to correct me on these points; I believe this matter was also addressed in the earlier parts of this thread] (Parenthetical Greg? A refresher and update on this, please?)  As Fritzkep says, challenges to DOMA (presumably) will accrue in due course, and wend their way through the courts.  One day, many years hence, perhaps another sweeping ruling from SCOTUS will render moot all those clauses in the State Constitutions and also force extension of Federal benefits to all, if an anti-same-sex marriage amendment does not get into the Federal Constitution before then.

Here's a few links...
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/25/18323403.php
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=27354&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Federal-Level
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Sandy on October 28, 2006, 02:45:15 PM
Laws on marriage are typically the province of each state's government. Whether one state recognizes another's marriage is up to the individual jurisdiction. That other states do not recognize gay marriages in Massachusetts does have a precedent. Once upon a time, many southern states would not recognize mixed-race marriages legal in other states.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on October 28, 2006, 05:07:14 PM
And the fact that the governor of Massachusetts uses a law which once prevented mixed-race couples from states where such marriages were outlawed to prevent out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying there is especially ironic, considering that many black religious leaders who oppose same-sex marriages would oppose this law if it could still be used to prevent mixed-race marriages.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dale on October 29, 2006, 01:58:21 AM
Hey Fritzep

I live in the city, rural Australia has been hit by a big drought so there is not much work out in the county area's.

Plus Australia like the US is vast the rural and outback area's are a long way from any city. The Australian outback is a great place but I wouldn't want to live there it is very hot arid and flat. Did I say flat I mean flat as far as the eye can see and further.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on October 29, 2006, 07:00:22 AM
Hey Fritzep

I live in the city, rural Australia has been hit by a big drought so there is not much work out in the county area's.

Plus Australia like the US is vast the rural and outback area's are a long way from any city. The Australian outback is a great place but I wouldn't want to live there it is very hot arid and flat. Did I say flat I mean flat as far as the eye can see and further.



Yes, I've heard of the flatness of, say, the Nullarbor Plain. I'm originally from southern Louisiana, which is quite flat, too, but at least has a lot of trees and other vegetation. And alligators.

There was an article on the radio yesterday about the drought there. It sounds extremely severe. Is it affecting WA also, or just the eastern states?


Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dale on October 30, 2006, 12:32:06 AM
Some parts of Aus are more affected than others, however the whole of Aus is fealing the drout.

WA has been affected, in fact 55% of rural area's has now classified as drout affected.

What i like in the US?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on October 30, 2006, 09:50:07 AM
A fair amount of the western US has been suffering from drought conditions for several years now, but designated drought areas are spotty across the midwest, mountain west and west coast. A few areas in the east are designated as drought areas, too, but far fewer.

I'm afraid we're getting a bit off topic, so before a moderator smites us, we must return!

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on October 30, 2006, 02:11:00 PM
A fair amount of the western US has been suffering from drought conditions for several years now, but designated drought areas are spotty across the midwest, mountain west and west coast. A few areas in the east are designated as drought areas, too, but far fewer.

I'm afraid we're getting a bit off topic, so before a moderator smites us, we must return!

Oh thank heavens!  I was afraid that gay marriage was somehow related to drought conditions (you know, like it causes earthquakes and hurricanes).
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dale on October 30, 2006, 05:11:25 PM
I'm not sure how you are going, but there is a big drought in my neck of woods relating to marriage.... ;)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on October 31, 2006, 09:35:30 AM
I'm glad that you were able to bring us back to topic so elegantly, Dale!

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on October 31, 2006, 01:23:06 PM
Oh boy!  Let's drag out gay marriage to incite knee-jerk reactions when the poll numbers are down:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/10/103006bush.htm
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on October 31, 2006, 01:32:39 PM
Oh boy!  Let's drag out gay marriage to incite knee-jerk reactions when the poll numbers are down:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/10/103006bush.htm

uaaaaahhhh !  >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on October 31, 2006, 01:53:22 PM
Here's an analysis from the News Hour on PBS that includes info on gay marriage and its implications in the Nov. 7th races:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/choices_10-30.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on October 31, 2006, 02:19:41 PM
In case you're wondering from that last article (as I was) what the 8 states with elections in them are, here is an article on that:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15890105.htm?source=rss&channel=charlotte_news

And here is an article that covers the status of gay marriage in the U.S. currently:

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=20695
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on November 02, 2006, 02:50:53 PM
Colorado is close to becoming the first state ever to create civil unions by the voters (as opposed to judges ordering it or the legislature.) the polls have it down to the wire, and for this to happen in a red state would be huge, and really change the momentum nationally.

please help if you can.

one easy thing:

The ABC affiliate is running a poll to see if people "believe the Bible condemns committed gay and lesbian relationships". As of 7AM, we are losing 2-to-1. So drop by their site and add a few votes to our side, and spread the word:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/family/10218645/detail.html

a bigger thing:

please volunteer to help (or donate)--FROM ANY STATE. They have it set up so that you can phone from your own home, to targeted voters for the crucial Get Out The Vote drive in the last four days (this weekend, plus). they've got lots of high-tech stuff to allow you to do it from anywhere. and if you know anyone in colorado, for god's sake urge them to vote and to volunteer. all the info you need here:

http://www.fairnessandequality.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Volunteer

thanks so much.

d

---

FYI, here's a new ad by Denver's Mayor Hickenlooper supporting I (on youtube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsGa-EGPzM

Pass it on to anyone who might be interested or swayed.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on November 02, 2006, 11:27:59 PM
And now we have the Reverend Haggard, "Accused of Gay Liason."  Yes, it may be false.  OTOH, it may be quite, and rather wonderfully, true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us/03minister.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Seems  possible the gay marriage issue has incited another sort of backlash - gays saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."

The accuser was on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show this evening.  (A nice-looking fellow.  Quite "presentable.")   Used to be the media were very slow to pick up on such stories.  Times have changed.

(Ed. to fix major typo.  Thanks, Dave. I was all excited over that one!)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on November 02, 2006, 11:41:18 PM
And now we have the Reverend Taggard, "Accused of Gay Liason."  Yes, it may be false.  OTOH, it may be quite, and rather wonderfully, true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us/03minister.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Seems  possible the gay marriage issue has incited another sort of backlash - gays saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."

The accuser was on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show this evening.  (A nice-looking fellow.  Quite "presentable.")   Used to be the media were very slow to pick up on such stories.  Times have changed.

the local nbc affiliate here just announced a major development this hour. they hired a big-name voice-recognition expert to compare the voicemail that the prostitute provided with a known tape of haggard. he just delivered his preliminary conclusion: it's a match. i think haggard is cooked. also, a church elder is now on local tv speaking pretty resignedly to it being a fait accompli. he's not saying anything is certain, but he's acting like he knows. (nothing you could report on, but definitely something you can bet one.) i think we're going to see a confession soon.
 
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=ac2e5ae3-0abe-421a-002e-f8d72bfbc01f&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

and fyi, the national media--and much of the local media--steered clear for 36 hours. this broke on denver talk radio wed morning, when the prostitute went public on a major local show. most of the media would not go near it until this afternoon when haggard abruptly resigned.


(it's Haggard, with an H, btw.)

and i interviewed Haggard twice last year. really bright guy. and i have to say, i liked him a lot, despite some of his views.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Nax on November 03, 2006, 02:39:29 AM
You know what they say "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". 

It would be easy sitting outside of the US as I am, to have a generalised view of American politics with regard to it's views on homosexual marriage / partnership or even basic gay rights - it's a large country with widely differing centers of population.  I come back to one of it's basic tennets, that it claims and values that it sees itself as "The land of the free" my question to those in power and those who would force their will on others or seek to lay down a moral code is - "what is freedom and who is allowed to have it?".

Neil.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: LSky94 on November 03, 2006, 03:44:48 AM
Freedom is whatever Prez-0-dent Bush says it is, and it is only for those Fortunate Few who he says can have it.  He is "The Decider" you know.   :D
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: KathyinBama on November 03, 2006, 04:47:36 AM
Well, we are really gaining in that poll.  Only 55% to 45% now.  Keep voting, folks!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on November 03, 2006, 07:15:50 AM

...
and fyi, the national media--and much of the local media--steered clear for 36 hours. this broke on denver talk radio wed morning, when the prostitute went public on a major local show. most of the media would not go near it until this afternoon when haggard abruptly resigned. ..
and i interviewed Haggard twice last year. really bright guy. and i have to say, i liked him a lot, despite some of his views.

When you remember how long it took for the Schrock and Gannon stories to emerge from the shadows, I thought next-day coverage was pretty good!

Harper's has put up a story they ran on Colorado Springs and Haggard about a year-and-a-half ago.  One small, rather sad fact is that he used to visit gay bars in order to minister.  We all lie to ourselves about one thing or another, don't we?

http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist.html

It's been interesting to read that he's considered a moderate because he's expressed moderate views on such things as environmental issues, and not been so foaming-at-the-mouth anti-gay as some of his colleagues. Let's hope his likeability translates into some serious reconsideration of homosexuality by at least a few of them.

Though he's anti-gay-marriage, does anyone know where he's stood on the proposed Colorado law to give more legal rights to gay couples?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: rnmina on November 03, 2006, 09:19:39 AM
Well, we are really gaining in that poll.  Only 55% to 45% now.  Keep voting, folks!
will do.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: rnmina on November 03, 2006, 09:23:38 AM
And now we have the Reverend Haggard, "Accused of Gay Liason."  Yes, it may be false.  OTOH, it may be quite, and rather wonderfully, true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us/03minister.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Seems  possible the gay marriage issue has incited another sort of backlash - gays saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."

The accuser was on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show this evening.  (A nice-looking fellow.  Quite "presentable.")   Used to be the media were very slow to pick up on such stories.  Times have changed.

(Ed. to fix major typo.  Thanks, Dave. I was all excited over that one!)
another link...I'm new to this story. TY Castro and  Dave.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on November 03, 2006, 10:18:57 AM
Well, Mike Jones evidently "failed" two key questions on his voluntary polygraph - did he have a three-year relationship with Haggard, and did they have sex. 

On the other hand, Haggard apparently told the churchfolk that some of Jones's allegations are true.  So, who knows??

Meanwhile, Time magazine has come through with more background:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1554388,00.html

It answers one question I've had:
Quote
Another question on the ballot> — Referendum I — would allow gays and lesbians to form legally protected domestic partnerships. While Haggard is not seen as a firebreather on the issue, and insists he supports the civil rights of all groups, he has expressed no interest in supporting Referendum I. At this point, one poll shows that Amendment 43 has 53% support; while Referendum I has 47%.

Makes you wonder if he might have had enough clout to make that measure pass.  Even McGreevey supported domestic partnerships in New Jersey - but then, as a Catholic, McGreevey was never obliged to take every word in the Bible literally.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: graylockV on November 03, 2006, 10:24:15 AM
 I heard this morning on C-span that John McCain has just made two commercials to be run in Arizona.  The first one supports a referendum on the Arizona ballot that outlaws gay marriage. 

In the second commercial McCain argues in favor of a separate referendum that would prohibit any Arizona city or county government or state university from offerring domestic partner benefits.

That goes too far.   Talk about your thirty pieces of silver.  I never expected him to champion gay rights, but I think it's pretty reprehensible to kow-tow the the far right and sell basic principles of human rights down the river. 

Another politician bites the dust, as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on November 03, 2006, 02:31:01 PM
I heard this morning on C-span that John McCain has just made two commercials to be run in Arizona.  The first one supports a referendum on the Arizona ballot that outlaws gay marriage. 

In the second commercial McCain argues in favor of a separate referendum that would prohibit any Arizona city or county government or state university from offerring domestic partner benefits.

That goes too far.   Talk about your thirty pieces of silver.  I never expected him to champion gay rights, but I think it's pretty reprehensible to kow-tow the the far right and sell basic principles of human rights down the river. 

Another politician bites the dust, as far as I am concerned.

Here's an article on this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/10/30/daily42.html?from_rss=1
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Jack Rance on November 03, 2006, 05:02:42 PM
Great take on all this on a blog linked from Huffington

Haggard, Foley and GOP Preaching Against the Very Vices they Can't Shake


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/haggard-foley-and-gop-pr_b_33179.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Brokeback_1 on November 03, 2006, 05:08:07 PM
One of the problems in Colorado is this:
Half the people who mention it and are in favor of the amendments, people who are not gay or lesbian, are so confused at the complexity of the presentation that they arent sure if yes means we  want it or NO means we want it. Just this afternoon a guy in the doctors waiting room was talking about that and NEITHER of us could figure out what the hell vote, on which amendment, would PASS IT. You should see the voters book they sent out, nobody in their right mind is gonna try to figure it out!

So in addition, there is a bit of CONFUSION here .....
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: melissasjack on November 03, 2006, 05:16:12 PM
Melissas two cents.
I just cannot wait for the day when this whole issue is NOT an issue.
When it just is.
Just how it should be.
Love, plain and simple.
And I know one day it will happen.
Thats my take on this folks.
I just wish so so damn bad it'd be sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Brokeback_1 on November 03, 2006, 05:19:29 PM
me too, the whole thing is idiotic.

Why the devil should there even ba a QUESTION about it?/
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: victopet on November 04, 2006, 06:33:24 AM
me too, the whole thing is idiotic.

Why the devil should there even ba a QUESTION about it?/
I agree wholeheartedly!
I live in a state (NJ) where polls consistently show that if gay marriage went on the ballots it would win.
Public opinion polls show that something like 70% of people in NJ  support gay marriage.

But instead of sending it to the voters, the courts have decided to make the politicians fight it out in the legislature.
At least now they're just wrangling over the semantics of the word "marriage." The courts just ruled everything else has to be equal.
And I'll give our governor credit too.  He doesn't personally agree with gay marriage but would not veto a bill if it passes the legislature.
At least he's in touch with what the people in his state want, rather than his own personal beliefs.  Unlike our lovely (rolls eyes) W.

On the other hand, our former "Gay American" governor caused many of the problems we're having now by NOT supporting gay marriage because he claimed he personally didn't believe in it.

I just don't get it.  Can't people just live and let live!

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chiaros on November 04, 2006, 07:14:13 AM
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_29-2006_11_04.shtml#1162396316

The single-topic link
http://volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on November 04, 2006, 08:34:30 AM
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_29-2006_11_04.shtml#1162396316

The single-topic link
http://volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml

Thanks, chiaros.  A good link. And just so we can claim the moral high ground, these are words to keep in mind:
Quote
Correlation is not causation, and it would presume too much from a mere correlation to conclude that a small number of gay marriages in these societies had a significant positive impact on marriage itself, just as it would presume too much from the opposite correlation (if one existed) that they had a significant negative effect on marriage. But it is at least possible from these numbers to say that gay marriage has not led to any significant harm to marriage as an institution (pace Stanley Kurtz). Every year that goes by adds to the strength of this conclusion.

ETA:  Warning: the following link is not for the juvenile or the faint of heart. It ain't pretty.  Proceed with caution.   This blogger doesn't come with a certificate of reliability. I think he knows what he's talking about re the sometime use of drugs in conjunction with gay sex, but he may or may not have access to more of  Mike Jones's  statement than the press has released.

http://creoleneworleans.typepad.com/creole_folks/2006/11/more_mess_from_.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Carissa on November 04, 2006, 07:44:43 PM
One of the problems in Colorado is this:
Half the people who mention it and are in favor of the amendments, people who are not gay or lesbian, are so confused at the complexity of the presentation that they arent sure if yes means we  want it or NO means we want it. Just this afternoon a guy in the doctors waiting room was talking about that and NEITHER of us could figure out what the hell vote, on which amendment, would PASS IT. You should see the voters book they sent out, nobody in their right mind is gonna try to figure it out!

So in addition, there is a bit of CONFUSION here .....
I had posted this on the Political Climate thread but I should've posted it here.  You can go to phonehome2006.org for explanations of the amemndments and referendums to be voted on.  They also have scripts, like the one below, to send to family and friends in those states.

Got this in my e-mail yesterday:  http://www.phonehome2006.org/?tr=y&auid=1999507 .  It's about states that have referendums and amendments on the ballots this November.

They have things already worded that you can forward on to family and friends.  I sent the following to my brother because he is in Colorado. 
Quote
I am asking you, as a current resident, to protect Colorado by voting FOR Referendum I on November 7th.

Referendum I is not about marriage, it is about basic legal rights. It provides committed couples with basic, common sense, legal protections and responsibilities, including the right to visit a partner in the hospital, make decisions for an incapacitated partner, make funeral arrangements, direct nursing home care and secure basic property and inheritance rights.

Currently, unmarried couples do not have access to any of these basic rights and responsibilities.  It?s not surprising that so many people just like me have left the state in search of more welcoming surroundings.  But we have not given up hope that our home will welcome us again, and neither have those of us who still live in Colorado.

The referendum would be a win for equality for all Coloradans. I hope you will take a stand on my behalf and encourage your friends and neighbors to join you in voting FOR Referendum I.


I am asking you, as a current resident to vote AGAINST Amendment 43 on November 7th.

This proposed amendment is a personal attack against me, and countless other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. It sends a signal that even though we have family and friends living in Colorado, even though it might have been our home, we are not welcome.

The amendment would deny many Coloradans the legal protections afforded to married couples. It is a strike against equality for all Coloradans.  I hope you will take a stand on my behalf and encourage your friends and neighbors to join you in voting NO on Amendment 43.

This was the response that I got from him.  :)
Quote
I read about them and its amazing how this is what people are fighting for these days.  Its these right wing christian evangelicals/pentecostals/fundamentalists who dont even believe in what Jesus' message really says.  If this is what is on ballots across America, the true issues are being ignored.  Its all designed to get their bases (which ever party) fired up.  I am so sick of our current state of politics.  No one really has the balls to stand up and speak for the people.  Especially whn corporations has taken over.  These issues have my support.  If I was stupid like I was in high school I never would of supported.  Growing up and seeing how you always held these issues close to you, I always respected that.  In turn that helped me open my mind and eyes.  Thanks.
[/i]
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Carissa on November 04, 2006, 07:50:14 PM
Some quotes from this article:

Quote
S. Dakota not so sure about gay-marriage ban
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
November 4, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gaymarry4nov04,1,4929395.story

BERESFORD, S.D. — This is an unlikely state to blaze a trail for gay rights.

[snip]

"I believe having gay sex is a sin. I'm a conservative Christian in many ways. But I'm voting no," said Amo Beal, 58, who runs a thrift shop. "I don't believe an amendment like that belongs in the constitution. I don't trust the government to mess with [relationships]."

A few doors down, at the bridal store, Jessica Ness, 31, offered a fervent plea for a ban on all abortions. But gay marriage? "I have no issue with that," Ness said. "Everybody in this country should have equal rights…. If churches don't want to sanction the relationships, fine, but the government shouldn't be using religion as a basis to say what's right and what's wrong."

[snip]

So voters here are not all that comfortable with the concept of same-sex unions. Many, however, are even less comfortable with an amendment declaring such relationships invalid.

A woman browsing the Beresford flower shop summed up the town's prevailing philosophy as: Don't judge anyone until you've walked in his shoes. She has no right to decide whether two gay men should marry, she said, "because I'm not one of 'em."

[snip]

"Government has gotten into things it just doesn't belong in."

[snip]

"You're not going to stop gays from existing. They'll still be here," she said. So why not let them formalize their relationships?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: rosa on November 05, 2006, 12:32:25 AM
Hey, good luck on this one, all of you in the U.S! We don't have gay marriage yet where I live, but we do have civil unions for all, which was the fallback position. There was lots of disgustingly prejudiced and ignorant opposition - and the religious right are still meddling in politics to get it reversed.  But it won't happen - amazingly (!), after a couple of years "the family"  ??? still hasn't been destroyed, and the sky hasn't fallen in  ;D.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on November 05, 2006, 10:57:43 AM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1162680610406&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630

Elton speaks out at his concert!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisW on November 07, 2006, 12:53:49 AM

one easy thing:

The ABC affiliate is running a poll to see if people "believe the Bible condemns committed gay and lesbian relationships". As of 7AM, we are losing 2-to-1. So drop by their site and add a few votes to our side, and spread the word:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/family/10218645/detail.html

[
thanks so much.

d

as they say in Ireland - vote early and often - it does seem to be helping, a bit anyway
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisW on November 07, 2006, 12:58:11 AM
Hey, good luck on this one, all of you in the U.S! We don't have gay marriage yet where I live, but we do have civil unions for all, which was the fallback position. There was lots of disgustingly prejudiced and ignorant opposition - and the religious right are still meddling in politics to get it reversed.  But it won't happen - amazingly (!), after a couple of years "the family"  ??? still hasn't been destroyed, and the sky hasn't fallen in  ;D.
exactly , the sky hasn't fallen in in the UK either, more or less the same scenario among the people i know, a rash of 'civil partnership' parties last summer and now everyone lost interest, life goes on the same..., two men in the supermarket, just another married couple...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on November 08, 2006, 12:47:08 AM
Here's the story so far on election night - 4 states turn banning Gay Marriage so far:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/07/politics/p202606S51.DTL&type=politics

Here's an update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061108/pl_nm/usa_elections_initiatives_dc_6
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on November 08, 2006, 01:42:48 AM
And here's the news from Colorado:

http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20061107/NEWS/61107024/-1/rss02
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on November 08, 2006, 01:48:20 AM
Here's the Arizona information:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061108/nyw086.html?.v=71
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on November 08, 2006, 02:17:00 AM
i hope i don't hurt any americans here, that is not my intention.

but when i read those articles - protecting families by banning gay marriage and abortions, banning stem cell research,.....

i have the feeling i only have to exchange "arizona", "colorado" and such to "afghanistan", "iran" etc. - the topics would be the same. this is a very sad thought to me. i found so many good friends here - and i'm so sorry for you that you have to live under such conditions. if i could only do something....
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Boris on November 08, 2006, 06:25:46 AM
There's interesting read:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/11/08/notes110806.DTL&nl=fix
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on November 08, 2006, 08:14:13 AM
I greatly appreciate the condolences and sentiments from all of you from more enlightened countries. These votes are setbacks, severe indeed, but not defeats. Basically nothing is ever completely settled in politics. As one must be ever vigilant to guard the rights you already have lest they be stealthily denied you, so must you continue struggling for what you believe to be right. As I was elsewhere telling Jari, our most wise, compassionate  and comforting sage here, the future will unfold as a couple, legally married in Massachusetts (and the new governor may well rescind the out-of-state ban that his predecessor enacted), being free to move to another state, will sue to have their marriage recognized in their new state. The full faith and credit clause of the Federal constitution will come into play, demanding fair treatment of all citizens, much as happened decades ago in regard to interracial marriage, which was also illegal in many states. The case will work its way through state and Federal courts and appeals courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, decades from now. Then we can only hope that the justices on duty at that time will be wise enough to recognize a new reality and declare the state constitution amendments illegal, since the Federal constitution trumps those of an individual state when a right is spelled out federally. Success is not assured by any means, but it is not impossible. Over the decades, when younger less biased people are in positions of authority, the harshest of laws can be ameliorated, changed or struck down.

Martina, I understand why you can equate some of our states with countries with oppressive regimes. But at least we can appeal to the rule of law and fairness which is not possible in those countries. Not all hope is yet lost.

I apologize to non-native speakers that my language tends to get a bit dense whenever I try to discuss a serious matter. I find it difficult to express myself otherwise.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on November 08, 2006, 08:30:36 AM
There's interesting read:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/11/08/notes110806.DTL&nl=fix

Thank you Jari for this, initially hilarious, finally thoughtful.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisW on November 08, 2006, 10:19:08 AM
quote author=Boris link=topic=31.msg574350#msg574350 date=1162992346]
Quote
There's interesting read:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/11/08/notes110806.DTL&nl=fix
Um, thanks for that. I can't quite believe it, that's my problem. I lived for many years in Ireland, which used to be a vey reactionary place, but these days...
you wouldn' read anything like that coming out of Ireland (I don't think). What changed everyithing was something similar in a way, the total hypocrisy of the Bishop of Galway was exposed when he was found to have a 17 year old son in the US, this was a few years ago now. Suddenly the populace were not fooled by all the celibacy stuff. It turned out the catholic church had a fund to pay for the children of supposedly celibate priests. I would like to think that something like this could happen in this case too.
Thanks Jari.
Chris




Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: emkay on November 08, 2006, 10:55:46 AM
hi everyone,

I'm lucky to be living in a country where everyone can get married, regardless their sexual preference. The editor of a known Dutch gay magazine put it this way: "We don't have gay marriage here. We have civil marriage, and it's the same for everyone." I hope this will soon be the case for the rest of the world...

I'm curious about the consequences of the elections in the U.S. for same-sex marriages. I understand the basics of the political system, but I have no clue whether gay marriage will become a possibility because the Democrats seem to be winning. So please enlighten me...
 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on November 08, 2006, 11:04:14 AM
I'm curious about the consequences of the elections in the U.S. for same-sex marriages. I understand the basics of the political system, but I have no clue whether gay marriage will become a possibility because the Democrats seem to be winning. So please enlighten me...

Unfortunately neither party has been very good on gay marriage in the United States.  Democrats generally are afraid to say they believe in it.  Bill Clinton was among the norm in his party when he said that he believed that marriage was between one man and one woman.  And, of course, being the great defender of marital vows that he is, he signed the 'Defense of marriage act' into law (on a Friday midnight so that it would get as little press coverage as possible):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

It's also enlightening to note that even in states that went for Kerry in 2004 measures against gay marriage passed - that means that people were willing to vote for the democratic candidate and vote against gay marriage.  States like that include Oregon and Michigan.  And in the last election another 'Blue' (democratic) state went against gay marriage - Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on November 08, 2006, 11:15:46 AM
"We don't have gay marriage here. We have civil marriage, and it's the same for everyone."

oh gosh, that is soooo beautiful.  :)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: emkay on November 08, 2006, 11:18:34 AM

It's also enlightening to note that even in states that went for Kerry in 2004 measures against gay marriage passed - that means that people were willing to vote for the democratic candidate and vote against gay marriage.  States like that include Oregon and Michigan.  And in the last election another 'Blue' (democratic) state went against gay marriage - Wisconsin.

thanks, though it's really depressing to read that so many people are against gay marriage.
I always get confused by the 'red' and 'blue' stuff because here red is the color of the democrats and socialist party. Blue is the color of the liberal party. I think dutch liberal ideas would be regarded as 'left' in the Sates, but here when we speak of the right, we mean small right winged parties and the liberal party. Typically, the liberal party is all for gay marriage, because according to them the government doesn't have anything to say on these issues.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: emkay on November 08, 2006, 11:20:05 AM
"We don't have gay marriage here. We have civil marriage, and it's the same for everyone."

oh gosh, that is soooo beautiful.  :)

yep, it is isn't it?  :) This is one of the very few things that makes me proud to be Dutch...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Melby on November 08, 2006, 01:45:26 PM
Here's the Arizona information:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061108/nyw086.html?.v=71

Gay marriage is still illegal here, but thankfully hatemongers were not able to change our state constitution to define marriage as only between a man & woman. Hate, ignorance, intolerance do not belong in any constitution.
Domestic partner benefits were left intact, thank God, for everyone.

Another good article can be found at: www.azcentral.com  -about Prop. 107. Most of the comments are very encouraging!

I'm sad about the other states....

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on November 08, 2006, 02:39:13 PM
Here's the Arizona information:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061108/nyw086.html?.v=71

Gay marriage is still illegal here, but thankfully hatemongers were not able to change our state constitution to define marriage as only between a man & woman. Hate, ignorance, intolerance do not belong in any constitution.
Domestic partner benefits were left intact, thank God, for everyone.

Another good article can be found at: www.azcentral.com  -about Prop. 107. Most of the comments are very encouraging!

I'm sad about the other states....

I find this whole situation very confusing.  Anti-gay marriage laws passed (in 2004) in Michigan and Oregon, and this time in Wisconsin - but not in Arizona?  Can you help shed any light on this - was it the domestic partner thing that turned the tide (which is again weird, as that passed in Michigan)?  Is it because there are lots of seniors who are in domestic partnerships?  I'm cornfused - I mean, I know that Arizona used to be the old sort of Republican state - small government and stay out of people's business (Barry Goldwater and Sandra Day O'Connor) but I thought that had changed.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on November 08, 2006, 02:54:34 PM
What's most dismaying about the way his erstwhile flock has reacted to Haggard's fall is this: they want to talk about his adultery in the same way as if it were with a woman. Or at least they are choosing to address it simplistically, because they dare not consider that sexual orientation isn't a choice. 





Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: whiskeyflask on November 08, 2006, 05:06:44 PM
What's most dismaying about the way his erstwhile flock has reacted to Haggard's fall is this: they want to talk about his adultery in the same way as if it were with a woman. Or at least they are choosing to address it simplistically, because they dare not consider that sexual orientation isn't a choice. 







Yes, they want to pray for and forgive Haggard, but Mike Jones is the evil liar.

Haggard says that he has "a repulsive and dark side."  I'm sure he is speaking of his attraction to men, not cheating on his wife.  He will probably pray himself into a straight person with that freaky group in Colorado.  Talk about setting gay rights backwards.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: MellorSJ on November 08, 2006, 06:33:01 PM
I find this whole situation very confusing.  Anti-gay marriage laws passed (in 2004) in Michigan and Oregon, and this time in Wisconsin - but not in Arizona?  Can you help shed any light on this - was it the domestic partner thing that turned the tide (which is again weird, as that passed in Michigan)?  Is it because there are lots of seniors who are in domestic partnerships?  I'm cornfused - I mean, I know that Arizona used to be the old sort of Republican state - small government and stay out of people's business (Barry Goldwater and Sandra Day O'Connor) but I thought that had changed.

My understanding, as an Arizona voter, is that Prop 107 prohibited all government entities from supporting any domestic partner benefits, gay or straight.

This 51% of voters in Arizona apparently thought extreme and discriminatory, so they voted it down.  Let's hope, when the crazies try again in a couple of years, that they'll realize that an identically worded proposition that only discriminates against gay people is still extreme and discriminatory. 

I'm not holding my breath,though.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Melby on November 08, 2006, 07:37:11 PM
Hi Michael & Mellor,
Yes, you are right about the domestic partner benefits being a big part of its defeat here. The list of both individuals like mayors and entities like insurance companies, colleges, etc. against it was long & very impressive. There was a good coalition working hard to defeat it. And yes, I think there a lot of seniors here living together but not married b/c its a better deal financially not to be married. I think there is also still some of the "old sm. govt. & stay out of people's business" surviving here, maybe quite a bit.

The Mormon church made a huge push for it. I haven't been to my church in awhile so don't know what was said or written (bulletins) about it, but the Catholic church here has recently pissed off a lot of people b/c of it's hardline stance against Planned Parenthood and any entity it deals w/....like for instance the Susan G. Komen Foundation which donates money to PP for low-cost mammograms. Other entities are being blackballed, too. This is pissing off people who don't see why poor woman shouldn't be able to get a cheap mammogram, etc.---or why the church is butting in (we have a new ultra conservative bishop, since our other one was convicted of a fatal hit & run). They would be inclined, like me, not to listen to their church. Off topic, didn't we used to live in a country that valued separation of church and state?!

The margin of victory was slim, and that worries me very much for the future. But am celebrating today.

Oh Mellor, just saw you are in AZ also, not trying to preach to you.

A good evening to all!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on November 09, 2006, 06:29:50 PM
Viva Ciudad de México!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6134730.stm
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on November 10, 2006, 12:21:25 PM
Much of this article deals with the political climate and speculation relevant to the marriage topic.

But to me, the gem is the revelation by the Oh-So-Reverend Lou Sheldon.  Seems he already knew Ted Haggard is gay.  You're gonna love how he knew:

Quote
Then, as if things could not get worse, there was the disgrace of Sheldon’s own friend and colleague, Rev. Ted Haggard, the Colorado mega-church leader and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an even bigger pillar of Republican support on the Christian right. Sheldon disclosed that he and “a lot” of others knew about Haggard’s homosexuality “for awhile ... but we weren’t sure just how to deal with it.”

Months before a male prostitute publicly revealed Haggard’s secret relationship with him, and the reverend’s drug use as well, “Ted and I had a discussion,” explained Sheldon, who said Haggard gave him a telltale signal then: “He said homosexuality is genetic. I said, no it isn’t. But I just knew he was covering up. They need to say that.”

http://thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13253
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chiaros on November 11, 2006, 10:06:50 AM
http://radaronline.com/features/2006/11/confessions_of_an_angry_hustler_rev_ted_haggard.php
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ImEnnisShesJack on November 25, 2006, 06:49:00 PM
Dave has an important announcement about the forum, which he asks all members to read:

http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=18085.msg602098#msg602098

We have set up a thread to discuss the situation. That discussion thread is linked from the post directly below the message from Dave. Follow the above link and you'll get to both.

Thanks
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Lola on November 27, 2006, 03:05:59 PM
Glad to see the sanctity of marriage is still being preserved!  :-\

TMZ has learned that Pamela Anderson has filed for divorce from husband Kid Rock.

Anderson, who is represented by celebrity hotshot lawyer Neal Hersh, cited irreconcilable differences.

The couple was married August 3, 2006. Earlier this month, Anderson suffered a miscarriage.

It looks like there was a rush to the courthouse. Kid Rock also filed divorce papers this morning, 53 minutes before her docs were stamped by the clerk.

Sources tell TMZ both Pam and Kid were in a race to get their papers filed first. The process server for Kid was at the courthouse when it opened at 8:30 AM and filed five minutes later.

Interestingly, Pam and Kid Rock gave different dates of separation. She says they split on November 21. He says November 26.

We've learned there was not a prenup, however, the two were married for such a brief period of time it will probably have little impact.

Pam's website offers a short statement confirming the divorce, saying "Yes, it's true. Unfortunately impossible."
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: graylockV on December 06, 2006, 06:43:02 PM
Now that Mary Cheney and her partner are expecting a baby I expect to see a gun-totin' Dick Cheney and his ole gal Lynne storming the ramparts in favor of gay marriage.

Did anyone notice that the announcement of the impending blessed event came about a month AFTER the elections!!!

Coincidence?  I think not.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: LSky94 on December 06, 2006, 10:43:21 PM
Gay is okay, as long as your the vice-Resident's daughter apparently.  I wonder what she would do if some born again Christian social worker got it into her head to take her kid away due to her "lifestyle"?  As far as I know there aren't many states with laws prohibiting such from happening.  Maybe then she will get her head out of her gay Republican fantasy land and see what time it is. 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on December 07, 2006, 07:17:14 AM
Any local social worker will be leaned on, but quietly, to let important people have their way. That way laws stay on the books and are held over people to terrorize them into performing in a certain way, but the powerful may ignore such laws with impunity. Everybody's happy. Yeah, riiiiiiiight.

 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on December 07, 2006, 08:43:53 AM
A bill that would make New Jersey one of a handful of states to give gay couples all the legal protections enjoyed by married couples is to receive its first formal debate by lawmakers today.

The proposal is the response of some of Trenton's most powerful politicians to the state Supreme Court's ruling in October that held that New Jersey must extend all the benefits of marriage to gay couples. The ruling left it to the Legislature to decide by April whether to call the same-sex unions "marriage" or something else.


Full story here.



http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061207/NEWS/61207019
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on December 07, 2006, 09:31:03 AM
Hoping for the best in NJ, Chuck. Here in VA, where the Cheneys live, it's still the dark ages.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: joycedavenport on December 08, 2006, 07:20:57 AM
The Scottish Parliament has today passed legislation legalising adoption by gay couples one year after the UK introduced Civil Partnership.

(The poster formerly known as JoyceDavenport)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on December 08, 2006, 07:25:12 AM
Well, it's not called "Marriage" here in NJ, but it's something.


A panel of New Jersey lawmakers approved a bill on Thursday that would create civil unions giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couple, shunning a push to call those partnerships "marriage."

The State Assembly's judiciary committee voted 4-2 for the bill, which would provide those unions with the legal rights of married couples.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061207/us_nm/gay_newjersey_dc_2
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chiaros on December 17, 2006, 10:26:07 PM
Some chit-chat regarding the continuing fallout from "gay marriage" tied in with the elevation of Robinson as Episcopal bishop in NH.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/us/17episcopal.html?hp&ex=1166418000&en=0849e2dc5db0755e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Note this passage:
Quote
In Virginia, the two large churches are voting on whether they want to report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant. Archbishop Akinola presides over the largest province in the 77-million-member Anglican Communion; it has more than 17 million members, dwarfing the Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million.
Some other links relating to Akinola:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_4186.php
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/nigeria-akinola.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440132006?open&of=ENG-347
So the wheel grinds on...
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: fritzkep on December 18, 2006, 08:33:05 AM
Seven parishes are in the process of separating themselves from the national Protestant Episcopal Church here in Virginia. It's the lead story in the Washington Post this morning, but I don't have a link to it.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on December 18, 2006, 12:58:23 PM
Seven parishes are in the process of separating themselves from the national Protestant Episcopal Church here in Virginia. It's the lead story in the Washington Post this morning, but I don't have a link to it.



Here ya go, courtesy the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/18/7_virginia_parishes_vote_to_quit_us_episcopal_church/

So the good Bishop Akinola doesn't really favor jailing of homosexuals, eh?  Just has to live with his local Muslims.  Well, maybe those Virginians will feel more at home with the likes of him as a spiritual leader than with those defilers of the faith who think Jesus abhorred homosexuals even if he didn't get around to saying so. 

I mourn for the Episcopal Church, which used to be urbane and humane and live-and-let-live.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: zth on December 20, 2006, 02:13:45 AM
Hi everyone,

Since it is on the media these days here, I thought I should write some words on this thread...
So, with great shame, I anounce that 80% of greeks are against gay marriage (!!!!!!), while only
14% thinks that gays should have the right to get married just like everybody else   >:(

Almost same percentages apply for gays adopting a child   >:(

My opinion : Gays DO have the right to get married AND adopt children, just like everybody else.
And NO, we should not take it slowly, and nicely, and kindly with the homophobic society and assholes about it.
Did they take it slowly and nicely and kindly when they took away the right to get married from gays?
Did they have any right to do such a thing? There should be a global revolution for that subject!

And I am not talking about religion. Religion is what it is, and it has it's rules. If religion does not accept gays, then
gays should not belong to those religions. But political marriage (I am not sure if I am using the right word here),
and child adoption, IS everybody's right, and it has been removed from gays! That is uncivilized, that is a fucking SHAME !
I am soooooo ungry!   >:(   >:(   >:(

Do you know what I have to say to this 80% of greeks?
"I don't give a fucking shit about your OPINION about someone else's RIGHTS!!!"
 Goverment must change the situation, regardless of that homophobic 80%.
 This is NOT democracy!   >:(
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: estefue on December 20, 2006, 05:51:03 PM
Please note the following announcement:

The administration has been working extremely hard to solve the slow down issue that has been plaguing the forum for some months now. It has been determined that to solve this we will have to change the host company of the forum. The new host server has now been contracted with by Dave as of today.

We are proceeding rapidly now and hope to have the conversion complete within a few weeks at the latest and hopefully much sooner. We will keep you (members) apprised. Please look for announcements in the Newsbox. Some changes will likely come up suddenly--that is the nature of computer conversions, so it is impossible to know before we test whether something will go flawlessly and take two hours, or uncover thorny issues that will take days. The testing process is being started. This will not affect the forum at this point.

So taking this into consideration, we don't want to give you timeframes that are unrealistic. As soon as we finish a stage, we'll proceed immediately to the next, and the exact changeover will likely come on very short notice to you (members). We will post this changeover time in the Newsbox as well as in the individual threads, and will give you as much lead time as we can manage. This will enable us to end the slowdown ASAP.

Thank you for your patience.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chiaros on December 25, 2006, 12:17:21 PM
Following on from the previous page's posts about the Episcopalian schismatics and their kissing Akinola's ring (figuratively), here's an Xmas present from them and A.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/africa/25episcopal.html?hp&ex=1167109200&en=ed16045828e5ecba&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Note the first line in the article:
Quote
The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on December 25, 2006, 05:08:32 PM
Despite laws, gay wedding industry booms


By Dionne Walker, The Associated Press


RICHMOND, Va. — He's no celebrity, but when Phillip McKee III tied the knot in September, he did it with all the pomp and circumstance of an A-lister: Custom-designed gold rings, a $2,000 kilt and a caviar-and-crepe reception at a five-star hotel.
McKee, 34, sank some $60,000 into his Scottish-themed nuptials, worth it he says for the chance to stand before a minister and be pronounced husband — and husband.

Even as lawmakers across the nation debate legislation banning same-sex marriage, couples are uniting in weddings both miniature and massive, fueling a growing industry peddling everything from pink triangle invitations to same-sex cake toppers.


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-12-25-gay-weddings_x.htm?csp=34
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chiaros on January 05, 2007, 07:08:13 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524441,00.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: desertrat on January 06, 2007, 02:11:10 AM
sad news from austria: it seems that gay marriage might become a scape goat in the forming of a new government. we had elections in october, no party gaining absolute majority, since then they tried to form a coalition. both parties in the game (conservative and liberal) have lost voters because it took so long. they promised to have an agreement ready by monday. yesterday they presented the topics they have so far. gay marriage was never even spoken of during the elections. we actually assumed as given that as soon as the liberal party would be in government, they would pass a marriage law, since almost every other country of the european union has gay marriage meanwhile.
well, yesterday they suddenly came up with gay marriage - the conservatives oppose, the liberals want it. why does it suddenly come up ? well, that's as easy explained as it is sad: no big lobby - nobody (well, except of those 10% of our population and those who feel with them) will give a hoot. the conservatives will be able to brag how they stood firm in their beliefs, thus calming down their voters, and the liberals will be able to demonstrate how they offered a hand to the conservatives to finally forge the coalition. gay marriage is the scape goat. sad, isn't it ?  :'( :'(
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on January 17, 2007, 07:39:03 PM
Further proof that the marrying folks better take whoever wants to do it - news today that 51% of women in the U.S. (as of 2005) live without a spouse:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/16/MNG5BNJ69L1.DTL&hw=women+marriage&sn=001&sc=1000

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 02, 2007, 04:42:30 PM
*sigh* - oh Michigan!

http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=11182

My former state, doing its best to make me glad I left 26 years ago.... >:(
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: kmich on February 06, 2007, 09:41:10 PM
That was the thing about that stupid amendment. It was much more restrictive than a lot of people realized when they voted for it. The language made it very clear that benefits would potentially be taken away from all unmarried couples--even straight couples. But, alas, this was in the midst of the gay marriage hysteria  ::) and no one really paid attention.

I remember there being a last-minute effort to educate the voters about just how restrictive the ban was but, obviously, it failed.  >:(  >:(

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 08, 2007, 06:20:50 AM
That was the thing about that stupid amendment. It was much more restrictive than a lot of people realized when they voted for it. The language made it very clear that benefits would potentially be taken away from all unmarried couples--even straight couples. But, alas, this was in the midst of the gay marriage hysteria  ::) and no one really paid attention.

I remember there being a last-minute effort to educate the voters about just how restrictive the ban was but, obviously, it failed.  >:(  >:(

It just seems so muddle headed, imho, for Michigan (a state which has lost population and continues to have problems related to the auto industry) to be alienating an intelligent segment of the population.  What are they thinking?  On issues like this people vote with their feet - I can easily see professors refusing jobs in Michigan and students deciding not to go to college there.

Here's a followup article - apparently people are worried this will have fallout in the other states that have banned gay marriage:

http://www.topix.net/content/ap/1606297673305568628636011356302653350555
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on February 10, 2007, 12:26:25 PM

Civil unions and legal confusion

Law on gay partnerships leaves many questions unanswered

Friday, February 09, 2007
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff

Donna Waliky and Lill Rimac of Rockaway Township are registered domestic partners. Steven Goldstein and Daniel Gross of Teaneck traveled to Vermont to form a civil union. Lianne Sullivan-Crowley and Julie Sullivan were married in Massachusetts before Princeton University made Lianne an irresistible job offer and they moved here.

They are among thousands of same-sex couples in New Jersey who have formed some sort of union recognized by some government. California, Hawaii and Maine also offer domestic partnerships; Connecticut authorized civil unions in 2005. Canada and some other countries recognize same-sex marriage.

Each of those arrangements will carry different legal consequences when New Jersey's civil union law goes into effect on Feb. 19. Some will automatically trigger all the benefits the new law provides; others will not. It remains an open question whether New Jersey will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-6/11710011429920.xml&coll=1
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on February 10, 2007, 12:28:39 PM
Hmmmmm.....just noticed....the civil unions law will be effective Feb. 19th.  Aren't the courthouses closed then for President's Day?

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: chiaros on February 11, 2007, 07:50:00 AM
Slightly OT but food for thought/grist for the mill, take your pick...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802435.html
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: graylockV on February 18, 2007, 04:37:50 PM
Of course, if the Catholic Church - of which I was once a member - allowed priests to marry perhaps there wouldn't be such difficult moral and ethical problems, like the following:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1590435,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Note that several of the offenders had "paramours,' both female and male.  If the Church would get realistic about its entire sexual paradigm - recognize how destructive it is to both gay and straight people - and put the emphasis on love and committment, where it belongs - the entire moral climate surrounding marriage and compelled celibacy could be made more honest and truly ethical.  Gay marriage could then be discussed from a true moral perspective.

Instead we get just more of the same authoritarianism.  Gay people are by definition broken and sick and so cannot have any sexual life whatsoever.  How compassionate and loving is that?

But being in denial about some issues - like priestly celibacy, gay marriage, honest financial accounting, to say nothing of the pedophilia scandals  - is the inevitable result when an organization refuses to take an honest look at itself.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Castro on February 22, 2007, 12:27:48 AM
Rhode Island's attorney general issues an opinion saying his state should recognize Massachusetts gay marriages:

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=184261
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on February 22, 2007, 10:06:15 AM
Civil Union ceremonies take place in NJCouples had to wait 72 hours after Monday's law took effect
 Eyewitness News
(New Jersey- WABC, Feb. 22, 2007) - Gay couples across New Jersey began claiming the same legal rights as married couples early Thursday in ceremonies that formalized their relationships as civil unions.

The state law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples took effect Monday. But because there is a 72-hour waiting period after applying for a license, most couples had to wait until Thursday to hold civil union ceremonies.



http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5057446
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 23, 2007, 09:52:41 AM
Of course, if the Catholic Church - of which I was once a member - allowed priests to marry perhaps there wouldn't be such difficult moral and ethical problems, like the following:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1590435,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Note that several of the offenders had "paramours,' both female and male.  If the Church would get realistic about its entire sexual paradigm - recognize how destructive it is to both gay and straight people - and put the emphasis on love and committment, where it belongs - the entire moral climate surrounding marriage and compelled celibacy could be made more honest and truly ethical.  Gay marriage could then be discussed from a true moral perspective.

Instead we get just more of the same authoritarianism.  Gay people are by definition broken and sick and so cannot have any sexual life whatsoever.  How compassionate and loving is that?

But being in denial about some issues - like priestly celibacy, gay marriage, honest financial accounting, to say nothing of the pedophilia scandals  - is the inevitable result when an organization refuses to take an honest look at itself.


There is nothing more fallen than a fallen Catholic, so the anger in your words are both expected and skewed by level of bias that comes from years of anti-church sentiments. Fact is, few other institutions have been as much under the microscope as the Catholic Church over the past several years, mostly due to the sexual abuse crises but extended to financial aspects as well. Yes, more watch-dogging is needed, more honest approaches to issues is needed, more rational views on modern life, also needed. but to suggest the Church is not at least trying to take an honest look at itself while the gay community refuses to, for example, allow them to be honest about the abuse scandal as it relates directly to gay priests and gay conduct is quite disingenous.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: graylockV on February 23, 2007, 01:30:27 PM
[quote author=HerrKaiser link=topic=31.msg754852#msg754852 date=117224956

There is nothing more fallen than a fallen Catholic...

but to suggest the Church is not at least trying to take an honest look at itself while the gay community refuses to, for example, allow them to be honest about the abuse scandal as it relates directly to gay priests and gay conduct is quite disingenous.
Quote

The self-examination was compelled by lay people and enormous financial settlements of law suits.  They never wanted to take a look at what has been going on for decades.  You know the saying about absolute power corrupting absolutely? 

It's still pay, pray - and obey.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 23, 2007, 05:56:00 PM
and still you do not speak to the responsibility of the gay community on this issue. The Church was protecting, mostly, gay men.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on February 24, 2007, 07:56:47 AM
and still you do not speak to the responsibility of the gay community on this issue. The Church was protecting, mostly, gay men.
Gay men, priests or not shouldn't abuse children. I don't see how the gay 'community' could defend rape and abuse.
Not all of these priests were gay. The Catholic Church was protecting itself not the children.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 24, 2007, 10:48:25 AM
the Catholic Church was covering up a gay scandal and the gay community knew it for decades and went along with it. Even when exposed and dragged through the courts and media, the homosexual behavior aspects and the lack of denouncements from gay men in general about what was going on was a signifcant denial.

t
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: graylockV on February 24, 2007, 09:56:20 PM
The Catholic Church was protecting itself

Totally agree!
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Sandy on February 24, 2007, 10:32:05 PM
the Catholic Church was covering up a gay scandal and the gay community knew it for decades and went along with it. Even when exposed and dragged through the courts and media, the homosexual behavior aspects and the lack of denouncements from gay men in general about what was going on was a signifcant denial.

t
I have to question your assertion that the gay community "knew" about it for decades. What evidence do you have for this? Also, I know plenty of gay media and mainstream media outlet who denounced this atrocious behavior, and who also denounced the equation of pedophilia with homosexuality. The church was effectively protecting its bureaucracy, its image and its ability to generate money. Protecting children, parishoners or scapegoated gays was not high on the agenda.

A great place to discuss this topic would be on the "Gay and Christian in the Modern World" thread.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: john john on February 25, 2007, 08:32:05 AM
In a land where gay marriage is now legal (Canada) i just learned that a gay man living with his mate was beaten up by a stranger in his own apartment. It is alleged that the landlord would have paid the assailant to do this in order to oust the couple from the apartment.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 26, 2007, 01:15:47 PM


t
Quote
I have to question your assertion that the gay community "knew" about it for decades. What evidence do you have for this? Also, I know plenty of gay media and mainstream media outlet who denounced this atrocious behavior, and who also denounced the equation of pedophilia with homosexuality. The church was effectively protecting its bureaucracy, its image and its ability to generate money. Protecting children, parishoners or scapegoated gays was not high on the agenda.

A great place to discuss this topic would be on the "Gay and Christian in the Modern World" thread.
Quote

yes, perhaps the other thread would be a better place for this, but, one has to remember that the 'gay community' prior to about the mid 1970s was very much clandestine and it was well known among gay men who lived amongst the circles of the gay underworld that the priesthood was largely made up of gay men and knew about the "alter boys" stories. Everyone turned a blind eye, and many did so because so many of the adult gay men over the years had themselves been aware or willing victims of church based sexual behavior.

Schools had the same problem but lesser in intensity because the teachers' groups were more diverse and many more women.

the outcry in the media about the church was not about gay pediophila, rather about the horrors of the church. that difference is the point. While the church had been protecting priests, the media ended up protecting against the idea the problem was gay-related.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Sandy on February 26, 2007, 04:10:41 PM

~snip~
 but, one has to remember that the 'gay community' prior to about the mid 1970s was very much clandestine and it was well known among gay men who lived amongst the circles of the gay underworld that the priesthood was largely made up of gay men and knew about the "alter boys" stories. Everyone turned a blind eye, and many did so because so many of the adult gay men over the years had themselves been aware or willing victims of church based sexual behavior.

Schools had the same problem but lesser in intensity because the teachers' groups were more diverse and many more women.

the outcry in the media about the church was not about gay pediophila, rather about the horrors of the church. that difference is the point. While the church had been protecting priests, the media ended up protecting against the idea the problem was gay-related.
Knowing a number of gay men from the pre-Stonewall days (not many of whom would have considered themselves part of an underworld), I cannot say that any of them had an idea of how extensive the abuse of children was in the (Roman Catholic) priesthood. Some may have known that some priests were gays.

But the issue is not about being gay or even acting on a gay orientation. I have to differ with you: The recent outcry was not about the "horrors of the church," but very specifically about the abuse of the priestly position, using it to sexually abuse children. Perhaps the media "protected" against the idea that the problem was gay-related (not all priestly pedophiles were gay), but that is merely to separate two different issues: (1) being a gay priest and (2) priests sexually abusing children. Your remarks seem to me to conflate the two. Or do you believe that a gay orientation is necessarily connected with pedophilia, or vice versa?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 26, 2007, 06:19:30 PM
We can agree to disagree, then, that the scandal quickly emerged as an anti church movement rather than focusing on the mroe narrow issue of pediophile problems.

My point was not to suggest being gay is related to pediophilia, rather that when abuse by men of boys occurs, it is a hush-hush issue in the media vs when men abuse girls.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Sandy on February 26, 2007, 07:39:01 PM
We can agree to disagree, then, that the scandal quickly emerged as an anti church movement rather than focusing on the mroe narrow issue of pediophile problems.

My point was not to suggest being gay is related to pediophilia, rather that when abuse by men of boys occurs, it is a hush-hush issue in the media vs when men abuse girls.
Our viewpoints probably depend on our input. The Boston Globe's excellent coverage of the scandal in the local archdiocese focused on the hierachy's cover up of priest's abuse of children, most of them boys. But I do not seem to remember much coverage--if any--of cover ups of priests abusing women or girls. When media coverage expanded to papers like The New York Times, the focus remained on the cover up of pedophilia.


Still not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that priests abusing boys is the same as men abusing women? Seems like a comparison of apples to oranges. Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: michaelflanagansf on June 14, 2007, 01:33:58 PM
Okay...this is good news:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/06/14/national/a102246D97.DTL

Love this paragraph:

Jean Chandler, 62, of Cambridge, came with fellow members of her Baptist church in an effort to rebuff the image that strict followers of the Bible are opposed to gay marriage."I think being gay is like being left-handed," Chandler said. "If we decided left-handed people couldn't marry, what kind of society would we be?"
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: ChrisW on June 14, 2007, 04:54:30 PM
Okay...this is good news:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/06/14/national/a102246D97.DTL

Love this paragraph:

Jean Chandler, 62, of Cambridge, came with fellow members of her Baptist church in an effort to rebuff the image that strict followers of the Bible are opposed to gay marriage."I think being gay is like being left-handed," Chandler said. "If we decided left-handed people couldn't marry, what kind of society would we be?"
- excellent, that's the sort of analogy I would use too.
They tried to make my dad right-handed. He was a strongly left-handed straight person. My son is a right-handed gay person.  I'll put money on him getting married at some point, hopefully when I am still around to hug the happy couple.
 
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: CellarDweller115 on June 14, 2007, 05:54:49 PM
BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers threw out a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.

The vote — which came amid heavy pressure to kill the measure from Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders — was a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

"Today's vote is not just a victory for marriage equality. It was a victory for equality itself," said Patrick, who had lobbied lawmakers up until the final hours to kill the measure.

As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in applause.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_12
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on May 15, 2008, 11:51:31 AM
Gay marriage legalized in California!

breaking news. HUGE:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

This is the entire AP story so far, from NYT, which is leading with it:

Quote
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

(AP) -- The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.


(fyi, just for chuckles. i was watching CNN live, and they GOT IT WRONG! they gave the anchor just a portion to read, the part that said the city of SF acted unlawfully, and they ran with that piece, assuming the decision was against gay marraige. they had their legal analyst on, who went by that, and they are getting it all wrong. it's tragic/comic.)

(update: i've got CNN tivo'd and it's about ten minutes later that the anchor came back and said "this is a very complicated story," and we're getting some conflicting information and . . . they're starting to grasp that they got it backwards. god. please keep this in mind if you ever go into live television.)

(I initially posted this news in the Primaries thread, but the discussion should probably go here. I'm re-opening thread.)
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on May 15, 2008, 11:54:19 AM
more background--and future--from SF Chronicle, in their pre-decision story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAMH10MC8M.DTL

Quote
But the decision, due at 10 a.m., may not be the last word. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, a tally that is due by mid-June, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on May 15, 2008, 11:54:50 AM
The SF Chronicle is reporting that gay marraige will now be legal in CA in 30 days, when the ruling takes effect.

That could then be reversed by a constitutionial amendment in November:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL

Quote
(05-15) 10:31 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall. As the decision came down, out-of-breath staff members ran into the mayor's office where Gavin Newsom read the decision.

Outside the city clerk's office, three opposite-sex couples were waiting at 10 a.m. for marriage certificates. City officials had prepared for a possible rush on certificates by same-sex couples, but hadn't yet changed the forms that ask couples to fill out the name of the "bride" and "groom."

Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on May 15, 2008, 12:04:36 PM
New update from AP, in NYT:

Quote
In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."


While agreeing with many arguments of the majority, Justice Marvin Baxter said in a dissenting opinion that the high court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan joined in dissenting.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on May 15, 2008, 12:06:53 PM
Salon just put a new cover up: a picture of two men in tuxes, holding hands.

it links to their first quickie War Room blog entry:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Quote
Thursday, May 15, 2008 13:33 EDT
California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court handed down a decision that legalized gay marriage in the state. A press release accompanying the decision says:

Quote
The court concluded that permitting opposite-sex couples to marry while affording same-sex couples access only to the novel and less-recognized status of domestic partnership improperly infringes a same-sex couple's constitutional rights to marry and to the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the California Constitution.

The decision directs state officials who supervise the enforcement of the state's marriage laws to ensure that local officials comply with the court's ruling and permit same-sex couples to marry. The decision becomes final in 30 days unless that period is extended by court order.


I'm still reading through the opinion -- it's quite long -- so I'll have more on this later, but for now my first impression is that the political implications here could be big for November and beyond. (This is, after all, a political blog, so that's what I'll be focusing on here.) First of all, this decision will undoubtedly be used by the Republican Party to try to re-energize its base. Secondly, it puts the Democratic Party in an uncomfortable position. The party has largely tried to split the baby by opposing outright legalization of gay marriage, which is still very dangerous politically, and supporting civil unions as an equitable solution. But this decision says civil unions are not the same thing as marriage and shouldn't be treated that way. It'll be very interesting to see what the reaction is from the party and the presidential candidates.

― Alex Koppelman
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: Dave Cullen on May 15, 2008, 12:18:10 PM
HRC released/emailed this statement:

Quote
Today, California's highest court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, granting loving, committed gay and lesbian couples the dignity and support their relationships have so long been denied.
Two words sum up how I feel at this moment: proud and determined.
I'm proud of Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued this case, and all the advocates who worked tirelessly to make this day possible. More than anything, I am proud of you and all of HRC's supporters who, rather than backing down in response to bigotry and hate, have continued this fight.
And I'm determined to make this win stick. Our right-wing opponents are using this moment to build a $10 million war chest for an amendment this November to ban same-sex marriage in California.
That's why we've set up a special fund to direct 100% of your gift today to this fight in California. Don't let them use our victory to get the upper hand.
Donate today and send your dollars straight to California to protect this victory for equality!
I would love to tell you to take a day to sit back and enjoy this momentous victory. While this win is certainly a reason to celebrate, this is not a day to rest easy.
In fact, sitting back is exactly the reaction the right-wing is hoping for. We can't afford to let them turn our success into their win.
Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage and their anti-gay friends want to write discrimination into the constitution of the most populous state in our country and undo what we've achieved today.
The National Organization for Marriage's own web site is calling on their supporters to give $10 million so they can blanket the state with anti-gay messages in the coming months.
They think you'll be too busy celebrating to notice as they amass their millions. I think they're wrong.
HRC is a member of Equality for All, the coalition of groups working together to defeat the marriage ban in California. Funds raised today will go to support Equality for All's efforts.
Click here to make a gift that will go straight to California to keep discrimination out of the constitution!
 
This is a momentous day. Let's make sure it doesn't become a piece of history this November.
Thanks for your generous support,

NGLTF's statement by acting exec director:

Quote
"This is an extraordinary victory for Californians and all Americans who hold fairness and opportunity as fundamental American values. Thank you California for standing up for safety, respect and dignity for our families. In 1948, California became the first state to strike down anti-miscegenation laws and in 1999 it was the first to establish statewide domestic partnerships. Today, once again, California is leading the way in affirming the inherent dignity of all people. Today, in our hearts, we are all Californians.

“The high court’s decision comes down to this simple yet profound principle: All Californians should be treated equally under the law.

“We thank the plaintiffs for their tremendous courage and our colleagues at the National Center for Lesbian Rights and their cooperating counsel for outstanding legal advocacy on behalf of our community. We also applaud the years of work undertaken by our state partner, Equality California, and all of the organizations involved in the Let California Ring coalition, which played a pivotal role in creating a climate in California that made today’s historic decision possible.”
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: brokebacktom on May 15, 2008, 12:24:01 PM
Under a Republican Governor, Just like Massachusetts. Its so funny and ironic.
Title: Re: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?
Post by: NWWaguy on May 15, 2008, 12:29:08 PM
A huge percentage of Republicans agree ... it is just left-wing bs that will suggest otherwise ... and I believe Arnold has said he would not support another amendment ... the only irony is the distorted views pushed by some to smear others ... the best way to 'fix' stuff like this is to run for office yo