why does a country that finally got it together to put an african-american in the oval office still hate gays?

the california precincts are still weighing in on prop 8 but the bigots are winning. it's embarrassing how conservative california is in the main once you get past the liberal/educated coastal counties.

supposed liberal hotbed l.a. county is 52.9% "yes" on the ban so far (with 10% of precincts reporting).

again, blame the church of hater day saints and their $20 million campaign ...it's not a done deal yet though. the last report i saw from a half hour ago said 21% of precincts reporting it's passing 54 o 46%, but which precincts are still counting is the question

very disheartening.

Also this is v interesting: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/democracy/106102/the_man_behind_proposition_8/

"The Man Behind Proposition 8" - >

While the Church of Latter Day Saints’ public role in Prop 8 has engendered a growing backlash from its more liberal members, and Broekhuizen’s involvement attracted some media attention, the extreme politics of Prop 8’s third largest private donor, Howard F. Ahmanson, reclusive heir to a banking fortune, have passed almost completely below the media’s radar. Ahmanson has donated $900,000 to the passage of Prop 8 so far.

i am assuming this is unrelated to the ahmanson center

ah, manson

Sucks if it passes, but it's just a momentary setback in the march to the inevitable.

Sadly, unsurprising. It's the big reason why I'm not all whoo-hoo! about today -- gains are often conditional and asynchronous.

^^^^ exactly how i feel, ned

^^^^^

i still don't understand how the marriages performed between May and now are going to be deemed illegitimate now...will someone just take this to court?

i KNOW actual people who've gotten married, and my heart really goes out to them... IF this passes. i still want to clutch onto a small glimmer of hope

cmon west hollywood

Don't get me wrong, a great day on many levels -- just not on all.

Also, as I argued on my blog a while back, I still think this -- fifty years ago if you had thought there'd be a political wrangle this widespread over gay marriage that was actually closeish in the polls, you would have been the member of an extreme minority. There is progress, there just isn't always a smooth, clear road, and it will always come too late for many.

prop 8 and the presidential election are not really analogous in any real way. It's not like this election was a grand referendum on tolerance and all outcomes would point in the same direction.

ya know, i get some people being a bit o_O about gays... i don't think it's right, but i can understand it... but to ACTIVELY vote for something like this... it just blows my mind that people can be so ignorant and selfish and hateful.

The more heartbreaking story here is Florida, where the lead was unfortunately clear. :(
I'm still holding out hope against Prop 8.

i have just spent so much time parsing this phrase "traditional marriage" and wondering if there's actually one unequivocal, categorical definition for what it is.

Much like desegregation of schools in the 1950s (bad analogy maybe), public opinion may trail legal proceedings by a generation. Gay marriage is going to happen, and people who oppose it will just have to get over their prejudices eventually.

hey! i just got a txt saying that LA County is yet to be counted...that's huge!

i'm holding out on a prayer (to Ganymedes, teh GAY god of gheys)

counted in full

Come on LA!!!!!

minor question, but have any of the bay area counties been counted yet?

They might go against this proposition I gather. just a hunch.

gay is the new black

"domestic gay" is the new "trendy bi"

Obama is the new president!

gay divorce is the new cockring

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0

hope that works

I thought it was a pretty big deal that he said "gay or straight" in his speech. Srsly has anyone ever said something like that in a presidential victory speech?

Nope.

president of the log cabin?

Not even 10% of Alameda County counted yet!!!
And that's including a whole lotta L.A. County that's not counted yet too.

Please please please please

he first included gays in his convention speech 4 years ago, and on the national stage that was unprecedented

l.a. is very meaningful here -- many of the winning counties are large geographically but small in population, so it only looks like they're collectively clobbering the "no" counties.

I wonder if he'll soften his gay marriage position now that the election is over.

Except for SF and Marin counties, several Bay Area counties are low in counts. You never know, guys.

gains are often conditional and asynchronous

iirc the day of the 06 dem sweep was a totally shitty day prop-wise, i just hate the proposition system as currently configured, i mean prop 13 is still sacrosanct ffs. we got a mailer last week saying obama was for prop 8 fwiw, got a robocall correcting it today, dunno how widely they spread that shit.

barney frank for treasury secretary?

that la times real-time update link...is making my heart beat fast. i've just gotten a hell of a more nervous just since clicking on it

t-t-trepidations

San Bernardino looks really badass compared to even some U.S. STATES! So, yeah, big car/little dick, etc. ok maybe not best analogy but buzzed again lol

wtf is up w/ mono county?

at least you guys have finally embraced not-disabled people on the national stage, be proud

PS in case you were interested in any other state ballot initiatives...

< 1 oz. of marijuana now decriminalized

mono

(sorry)

Mono county has like 300 people, I think, anyway. I've driven through it, and it made Inyo county seem like a metropolis.

i am assuming this is unrelated to the ahmanson center

I *think* the Ahmanson Center guy is Howard Ahmanson's father. (not 100% sure)

i am SO gonna rip some gay nuptial bonghits if i ever get hitched in MA

who lives in Kern County? 75% yes

wtf is up w/ mono county?

Mono County is one of the few remaining Republican majority counties left (which in itself is weird because of all the hippies who work for the Mono Lake committee).

It's still pretty much farmers angry at big cities and the Metropolitan Water District.

The LA times link gives me hope. And scares me silly. I may not sleep tonight...

who lives in Kern County? 75% yes

I talked with a No On 8 canvasser outside my polling place this morning and he said that there was a lot of last-minute campaigning in the Latino/Catholic community (which is a lot of folks in Kern)

Most surprised and disappointed in Sacramento and Placer counties. WTF.

Kern, like Inyo and SB counties, is large and vacuous, mostly. It has Bakersfield, but that's about it.

LA County has the most registered voters in the state but ranks average in voter turnout.
Nearly 4 million of LA County adults are registered to vote – over 2.5 million more than the counties with the next largest numbers of registered voters (San Diego and Orange). Seventy percent of eligible adults in LA County are registered to vote. Among California’s 58 counties, LA County’s voter turnout in the November 2004 general election ranked 33rd as a percentage of registered voters (78%), a higher level of participation than in San Diego (76%) and Orange (73%) Counties.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LACountyJTF.pdf

Kern also has a couple of prisons, military bases, etc.

xxpost re Sacramento and Placer... those Yes on 8 people were like a cult in the last couple of weeks. Standing on footbridges over hwy 50 with their creepy signs staring at me every morning as I drove to work. We ended up having a morning ritual of flipping them off as we drove by. There seemed to be a lot more NO mobilization earlier, and then the YES folks just went nuts.
All my hope now rests in the big cities. Come on elitists!

I was in the Inland Empire last weekend and the Yes On 8 people were out in force. Let's go LA and SF!

As in the national election, demographics are on our side. Young people are overwhelmingly against prop 8 and it's the 60+ cohort that will push this through if it passes. To be blunt, less people who vote for it today will be around next year, and the year after that, and this will be put right, because those fuckers have already lost.

the "yes on 8" ppl haven't been campaigning too hard in the parts of l.a. county i frequent, and i've mostly seen "no" signs. but tonight there were were dozens of latino "yes" supporters (and their young kids) walking around hollywood with sandwich boards, and lots of drivers honked their horns as they passed by.

i wanted to ask one of the children if she knew what a homosexual was.

ok, mono county is in, and is a strong NO!!!

but tonight there were were dozens of latino "yes" supporters (and their young kids) walking around hollywood with sandwich boards, and lots of drivers honked their horns as they passed by.

More or less what was happening in Koreatown also.

what was REALLY infuriating to me today was

...getting a robocall on my cell using Obama's "i am against gay marriage" quote out of context, and then urging me to vote yes - seemingly targeted specifically at minorities. how did they ever get my cell? it's depressing to think if this'll push it over the edge

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Good_for_Obama_bad_for_samesex_marriage.html

so in l.a. county, about 500,000 votes have been reported so far, and that PPIC document estimates an 78% turnout of the county's 4,000,000 registered voters. that's 3,120,000, so there's a whole bunch of people left to count.

give it a few years. the arc of history always leans towards good.

Come on LA!!

grr

Marriage Amendment Watch [Maggie Gallagher]
Like Jonah, I'm going to bed. But it looks like a marriage sweep. If we win in California, Arizona and Florida, what will this mean?

I'm telling the press: “This vote, like earlier votes in Wisconsin, Oregon, and Michigan, affirms that when it comes to marriage there is no such thing as a blue state or a red state. Americans support marriage as the union of husband and wife.”

More tomorrow when we know for sure.

the irony here is that african-americans voted "yes" on prop 8 in large numbers

Obama is in exactly the right position to change that.

The next few years are going to be fantastic.

xpost Such are the ironies of life, if that's indeed true.

LOL yes votes on Prop R just surged - hoping that means SF ballots are coming in...

the irony here is that african-americans voted "yes" on prop 8 in large numbers

i don't know if it's irony... african-american and latino-american culture are full of "macho" men and unwavering christians.

roger: Prop R - is that different than Measure R? thats the LA transpo prop

maybe 1A -- that's the statewide prop.

oops yes SF prop R is the sewage plant renaming thing

in further news, ugly Prop 4 is winning by approx the same margin as Prop 8. Coincidence?

yeah 1A has just shifted from narrow no to narrow yes

i don't know if it's irony... african-american and latino-american culture are full of "macho" men and unwavering christians.

i meant it was ironic in light of the thread's title

well amst i don't wanna speak for blacks/latinos but i do o_O a bit at their voters' lack of empathy with a population that's getting fucked over.

"too close to call" - story from 15 mins? ago

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story

Australia faced exactly the same issue a few years ago, except instead of holding a public ballot our greasy racialist war-criminal cunt of a prime minister CHANGED THE LAW without consulting the public AT ALL. Aforementioned greasy cunt has been gone almost a year but the fucking law remains in place for some fucking reason.

France's High Court ruled that marriage is just a man-woman thing in early 2007. Likely not to change for a while. :-/

Yeah well that's France and it's run by Sarkozy, you can't expect much.

Cal. proposition results

Well, it was ruled under Chirac's final year, I believe... but under Sarkozy, I doubt there will be a movement to overturn it.

While I believe gay people have a right to marriage underneath willing churches, at this point, while I understand the icky second-class feeling, civil unions is probably the more dare-I-say pragmatic approach? I can't understand for the life of me why people are so protective of a steadily failing religious sacrament anyway, but it's the sacrament that people *say* they are protecting when they are voting against same-sex marriage. Perhaps if people start going for civil unions only, we'll start to see less conflict?

I left a question mark there, because this would be a litmus test. Perhaps the same religious right nutjobs would still come out of the woodwork, which would confirm some unsurprising suspicions.. but what if they didn't?

TV just said it went down to 52 / 48 from 53% - and about 53% reporting...so they just have to keep counting, yes?

I'm hoping for the best, but knowing L.A.'s cultural makeup, it's not like there's a goldmine of potential anti-Prop 8 votes waiting to be unearthed... unless West Hollywood, Hollywood, Echo Park, Silver Lake, pockets of Long Beach, Laguna Beach, Hillcrest, etc. have just not been counted yet at all by chance.

yeah, la (county) as savior not likely scenario

at least the no votes are ahead on prop 4 (parental notification for teen abortions)

and l.a. county got measure R!

it's minority-majority and ethnically quite different from san francisco (not to mention the largest county in the country)

Howard F. Ahmanson, reclusive heir to a banking fortune = gay?

at least the no votes are ahead on prop 4 (parental notification for teen abortions)

I find 4 nastier in a lot of ways than 8 (sees 8 on small-minded and mean and adds authoritarian, invasive, and counter to the privacy rights affirmed by Roe v. Wade).

Really glad I popped in one more time before sleep to see your post - I'll hope to wake up in the best of all possible Californias.

Why would anyone go out of their way to prevent other people minding their own business?

Whether this gets through or not, the fact is something like eight million people voted to stop people doing what they want to do with their own fucking lives.

as of right now (with 79.2 percent of precincts reporting), it's down to about 300,000 voters, and l.a. is still in play. the wingnut counties are mostly spoken for.

i just read that many absentee ballots that came in yesterday have yet to be opened!! there's still that glimmer...

but i think that's statewide absentee ballots, not los angeles. i read it in the chronicle

and santa clara county will be very helpful

wow - LA came down from 54% yes to 50.8% yes in just the last two hours...83% precincts reporting now

...i'd say there's hope yet

honestly if the nos got l.a. it'd be a personal victory. i think we can do it.

if we lose, i will have nothing to do but blame organized religion. my polling place (new! as i moved back towards usc/downtown) was this weirdo korean church down the street from me, and in the newsletters there were Yes on 8 signs in korean, smack on the first page. by targeting religious minorities the conservatives really got their strategy down, but i am crossing my fingers and listening to Kylie for inspiration/my own divine solace

down to 50.6 for LA!!! but 90% of the city-precincts now reporting...

...but only 83.2% of the state's! is this ominous, as more of the state-wide stuff could widen the gap?

yeah,look at san bernadino, riverside, san diego, all solid yes and with big chunks still to count. don't see how you make up 300,000 at this point

well.. santa clara and yolo are still only 65, 67% counted, and voted solidly no..

but ventura and san benito are not going to help. :(

wow San Diego County only has 59% counted..and it's 54 yes 46 no...

...but Riverside is 63 yes 36 no... and only 60% counted

this is sad

the one silver lining there is a lot more people live in San Diego county than Riverside...

it may come down to San Diego in the end if the gap continues to shrink, and the absentee ballots. i hope

Oh nvrmind....San Bernardino is only 29% counted, wtf.

Fuck Riverside, they're really relishing this: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-temecula5-2008nov05,0,3230826.story

"This area is super-conservative, which is fine, but the extremely anti-gay stuff is out of control," he said.

Michael Johnson, 21, experienced some of the passion first hand when he and several others held an anti-Bush rally in a Temecula park.

"People drove by and spit on us, they threw eggs on us, one guy got out and wanted to fight us," he said. "There is a high level of intolerance among some elements."

omg l.a. county is almost tied with 97% of the votes in

25,523 votes separating that yes from a no

just speaking for the county alone, but when it's this close, aren't they required to count the absentees?

cmon college-educated heathens!

WHY IS IT CLOSE

omg l.a. county is almost tied with 97% of the votes in

weird that an hour later they're still stuck at 97.4%. someone must have gone to sleep!

Okay it's officially done, i think: 88% of all state precincts reporting - and 100% of LA County (50.4 yes 49.6 no) and 70% San Diego County (54.3% yes 45.7% no) - and statewide, it's still 51.7% yes 48.3% no

i dont know how to come out of this now, even when only 29.2% of San Bernardino is counted. unless there are hundreds of thousands of absentees somewhere

:(

and the ban squeaks by in l.a. county with 50.4% of the vote. recount?

xpost

why are people trying to go back in time? Haven't they seen Will and Grace?

i think the absentees can still overturn it in la county, but with san diego, ventura and san bernardino counties in that condition, i don't see any way forward for the state

unless we have a do-over!

i've given up on the state, i just wanted that pretty orange color for my county.

same here. i'd like to think the city voted one way, but the county diluted that. i think the main difference to remember between la and san francisco (and san diego & its military base is a whole different other beast, culturally closer to orange, fwiw) in all the hand-wringing/analysis that's to come though is the amount of Catholics/religious minorities here vs. up north -> go anywhere east of downtown and you're reminded with the ubiquitous images of the Virgin everywhere that the city was named after Guadalupe, after all

why that translates into bigotry is still shameful, all the same. oh and speaking of the college degrees, the amount of white vs. blue collar professionals is another difference

orange county almost went for obama btw, 47 to 51% !!! (la was 69 / 29 obama.)

welcome gentelman
must be from the furniture convention

who recommended me
just wanna know
welcome gentleman
here to buy some fun

that's what i sell
i sell fuckin fun
take a look at these ladies
see somethin you want

they call me the ratfucker
welcome to my block
they call me the fuckin ratfucker
and you're standin in my fuckin block!

take a look at this picture
dig nice clean college lookin broads?
y'know look at this black girl with rhythm y'dig that?
i sell fun
yeah you know y want some highs for the lady?
personalities i don't know anything about that i never got that involved

they call me the ratfucker!
welcome to my block
welcome to the city man
you're standing in my fuckin blooocccck!!

whatchu waannnt now!
everything's for c.o.d on my block

oh mr. and mrs. john your order is here
one blue eyed white baby
on you don't have to explain nothing to me
just for thousand dollars and you got your ever-loving fucking son
c.o.d.

they call me the rat fucker
welcome to our fucking city
welcome to the city man

welcome to my fucking block
welcome to my fucking block

anything you want, c.o.d. baabbbyy
c.o.d on my block
now this block wasn't easy to get now no no
this was a hard block to get
i uh i uh personally grew up without........

i give up now but you get the drill

the redistricting prop is very close now, with 90.8% of the state reporting: 50.5% for / 49.5% against. i voted against.

FUCK THIS STATE IN ITS TITE ASS I CAN'T WAIT TO MOVE FROM THIS SHITHOLE

back to utah, matt?

YES

GOOD OLE CARBON COUNTY, 53% MCCAIN, 43% OBAMA, THE LOWEST IN THE STATE BESIDES SALT LAKE COUNTY AND PARK CITY, WHO WANTS TO LIVE THERE

jody i also voted against that, and i voted for the lowering of the drug sentencing one, i think #5 - which also lost! (but not close)

at least the chickens won (#2)

seriously though vic, i think you're underestimating how much $ the mormon church put into this thing in socal. it's a lot of religions i guess and a lot of orange county and inland conservatism but the really plowed this thing through and i hate them for it.

no i've been acknowledging the mormons with my cheesy "church of hater day gays" phrase since yesterday! also, look at the third post on this thread

i am sorry, good night!

also: Howard F. Ahmanson, reclusive heir to a banking fortune = gay?

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Wednesday, November 5, 2008 12:47 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

the sad-lol is this omg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_F._Ahmanson,_Jr

He has been married to journalist Roberta Green Ahmanson since 1986. He is somewhat reclusive and has Tourette syndrome;[1] his wife usually communicates with the media and others on his behalf.

i'm picturing a cross between howard hughes and eric cartman.

GREAT IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL

Ahmanson seems to have moderated his views to adopt a broader but still extremely far-right Dominionist political theology. He is reported to have "never supported his mentor's calls for the death penalty for homosexuals";[1] rather, as the Orange County Register reported in 2004, "he stops just short of condemning the idea", saying that he "no longer considers it essential" to stone people who are deemed to have committed certain immoral acts. Ahmanson also told the Register, "It would still be a little hard to say that if one stumbled on a country that was doing that, that it is inherently immoral, to stone people for these things. But I don't think it's at all a necessity."[7]

Also in 2004, when asked by Max Blumenthal for Salon if "she and her husband would still want to install the supremacy of biblical law", Roberta Ahmanson replied: "I'm not suggesting we have an amendment to the Constitution that says we now follow all 613 of the case laws of the Old Testament ... But if by biblical law you mean the last seven of the Ten Commandments, you know, yeah."[3]

okay that was enough for me. i'll be happy with the fucking 48.2% now after being reminded of THOSE in the world.

time to try and force sleep

Uh, cause a lot of African-Americans (and Hispanics) and people who vote their economic interests don't like the gays?and maybe because a lot of socal moneycons are more socially conservative than their east coast counterparts?

i guess a "why are gays so threatening to america in late 2008" discussion would be better suited to a gender studies seminar.

gabbneb we've already brought up the "ooh minority factor" like in 70% of this thread... and before that becomes the one catch-all scapegoat, can we remember this absurd cruelty? how many minorities played a part here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures

... gay rights forces suffered a loss in Arkansas, where voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

i dont think thats the first state to outlaw even adopting though. but still... there were too many expectations maybe for a state that had voted almost 60% anti- on Prop 22 just 8 years ago...

and from the same story:

With 90 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, the ban had 4,922,675 votes, or 52 percent, to 4,577,453 votes, or 48 percent, against.
Late absentee and provisional ballots meant as many as 3 million ballots were left to be counted after all precinct votes were tallied.

so maybe it's not done. but i should be...asleep!

can i be unrealistic and hope these 3 million ballots are all from coastal communities?

>voted almost 60% anti-

anti-gay

One of my best friends has spent a sleepless several days, dreading the outcome. He married his partner three weeks ago. Meanwhile, in Florida, Amendment 2 passed comfortably. This is why I can't celebrate.

why does a country that finally got it together to put an african-american in the oval office still hate gays?
Because gays muck about, attract sharks & nudge you when you're shooting.

If this amendment passes in California, can they really nullify all the gay marriages that have been bound before the law changed? I though it was one of the basic tenets of Western jurisprudence that laws can't be retroactive like that.

Happy that Obama won, but I'm with the Californians: there's some rotten stuff getting passed.

My fair state deigned that no unmarried couples may adopt foster children. That of course includes the gay folk who can't get married in the first place. I'm sure that the fair-minded righteous pastors who supported this act will be opening their doors to the foster kids who now find their choices severely limited.

And Sunny's mentioned it on other threads, but her company's buy-out was narrowly approved by the Republican-majority FCC commission yesterday, despite some 70+ US Senators urging a postponement until all possible monopolies and potential conflicts of interest. Now, it looks like 3000 jobs will vanish from Little Rock (pop. 180,000), likely including Sunny's.

And though the nation picked the right guy last night, my state went for the guy who was going to continue this bizarre way of doing business. Maybe once our capitol city starts looking like Flint, we'll go blue again.

I'm very happy that Obama won, but the only streets available for me to dance in are filled with potholes.

That's quite sad to hear, I'm wishing you and Sunny all the best!

Animals of Gay Hope in the west coast states:

California - The Unstable Rabbit of Gay Hope
Pros: ability to jump ahead and progress gay union issues quickly and decisively, California non-traditional state on social issues
Cons: rabbit unstable, ability to run in opposite direction and undo the progress mentioned above, lots of suburban church power to counteract the large urban population
Gay Union Status: Unknown, but leaning towards no gay marriage. Civil Unions allowed in certain cities, counties(?)

Oregon - The Distracted Turtle of Gay Hope
Pros: low church power, progressive state legislation
Cons: way too easy to appeal, throw court actions against government actions, delaying things and keeping them up in the air often
Gay Union Status: Civil Unions -- at long last, after just months ago, a final court challenge was finally thrown out

Washington - The Resilient Slug of Gay Hope
Pros: low church power, relatively progressive state legislation, Democrat Rep. Ed "Awesome Mutha" Murray, Gov. Christine Gregoire being relatively progressive and supportive on gay union issues (supports civil unions, prefers churches decide the marriage validity)
Cons: Defense of Marriage state act preventing full Civil Unions
Gay Union Status: "65%" Civil Unions -- like Oregon but not with all the full tenets, due to having to dance around the Defense Of Marriage act yet to be undone/repealed.

the answer is that it is still socially acceptable to be prejudiced against gay people because so many view it as a 'choice' that people make. It's much more acceptable across society to say "faggot" than "nigger".

At any rate I see Obama's win as the chink in america's prejudicial armor. This will turn around at some point.

I'm sorry, did you say "chink"?

(bad joke sorry)

the answer is that it is still socially acceptable to be prejudiced against gay people because so many view it as a 'choice' that people make. It's much more acceptable across society to say "faggot" than "nigger".

At any rate I see Obama's win as the chink in america's prejudicial armor. This will turn around at some point.

― akm, Wednesday, November 5, 2008 12:45 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol xp

ban sarah silverman

This will go federal QUICKLY.

Which is not a good thing, considering the tenor of the Court right now.

Three years from now, much better.

Such a disappointing feeling...

I just heard that the influx of new Obama voters in Florida basically put the antigay measure over.

The victory of one man is not a panacea for all bigotry, agreed?

agreed, sadly

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-11/43202678.jpg

l-r: selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing, selfish cunt who wants stabbing

"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.

Oh suck my cock you repressed bum spelunker.

prop 8, what's on your ipod: "sometimes love just ain't enough"

xxpost re Sacramento and Placer... those Yes on 8 people were like a cult in the last couple of weeks. Standing on footbridges over hwy 50 with their creepy signs staring at me every morning as I drove to work.

― VegemiteGrrrl

this was also true in san diego ... not a cult, probably just mormons? but they were out there every morning and night, rain or shine. and most of them looked like nice people, smiling and waving. your friends and neighbors! i only saw "no on 8" protests the last couple of days (monday and tuesday night) and they were very shoddily-done. homemade spraypainted "no on 8" signs on plywood, mostly scruffy teenagers and college students instead of families.

what if they ... what if we... had started a month earlier?

The divisiveness of the election results is kind of fucking me up.
Missouri overwhelmingly voted to amend the constitution over a very petty and xenophobic language thing that seems like nothing but bigotry.

Dan Savage on Slog has been doing mostly good coverage on Prop 8 fallout.

I totally agree with him 90% of the time and totally think he's batshit insane the other 10%.

Here's where the latter applies, as far as impulse posting:

Black Homophobia

On the flip side, Savage's post on Prop 8:

Not Conceding

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/no_on_prop_8_campaign_it_aint_over

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ all this is a legacy of the bush era, which will be well and truly forgotten in a few years. HOPEFULLY.

xpost - exit polling is a flawed system. sometimes people lie about who they voted for, and sometimes one side is more eager to report its vote than the other.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I want to lay more anger & blame at the feet of our mentally-ill fundie-funder, Mr. Ahmanson, who'd wouldnt mind seeing me stoned to death (apparent upthread)

it's kind of rueful to note they're still reporting it as "too close to call" coz of the absentee ballots

yeah, that margin is not going to be made up by provisional ballots, but do the counting anyway

i'd love to send a "care package" to that little tourette hermit dickwipe.

i also hate this woman

Marriage Victory Thoughts [Maggie Gallagher]
California is huge, of course. It proves that when it comes to marriage, there are no blue states/red states. Americans believe unions of husband and wife really are unique and deserve a unique status in our culture and law.

Florida is huge because we had to get to 60 percent — and we surpassed that with 62 percent of the vote.

Arizona is huge because Arizona was the only state ever to reject a marriage amendment in 2006. This year, Arizonans decided to correct that anomaly, bringing to 30 the number of states that protect marriage in their state constitutions.

And also: giving marriage a perfect 30 out of 30 record of victory at the ballot box.

All victories are temporary in a fallen world. But this one is sweet.

i don't understand how some humans in modern, industrialized economies exhibit such glee in oppressing the rights of others. sickening

I just heard that the influx of new Obama voters in Florida basically put the antigay measure over.

You might be right, and one of the election's most devastating ironies. I posted in the other thread that a student on Sunday heard pretty horrible things at the polling station in the overwhelmingly black part of town where she voted, all of which involved Amendment 2.

hate disguised as "concern" is even sicker than bigots that are upfront about their hate. i see this in urban planning circles -- CONCERNED homeowner associations against the possibility of a black person taking the train into their neighborhood and STEALING THEIR TV and taking it back into their ghetto on the train, so no trains for anybody ever

CONCERNED citizens against the new mental health facility in the neighborhood LOWERING THEIR PROPERTY TAXES (and bringing in nutjobs who will wander the streets and abduct YOUR CHILDREN), etc

gah, property values, not taxes

Its always about the children, isn't it?

I bet the children wouldn't have voted in favour of such a fucking stupid proposition.

the power's back in our hands now. yeah! kids rule!

wrong thread. California is made up of the redneckiest of rednecks in America, aside from the coasts. Kinda like Florida - you have those ultra liberal New Yorkery sections, and then the rest of it makes Alabama look like Cape Cod.

The phrasing of this question bugs me -- it tries to draw an equivalence between two things that just don't work that way. I.e., I don't think people's feeling about the competence of African-Americans for national office really operate very similarly to their feelings about, e.g., gay marriage; they're very different dynamics; beyond which one significant constituency largely voting for a black president -- namely, black people -- is not particularly supportive of or hugely motivated by gay-rights issues.

is the black/latino non-support of gay-rights issues something america should be working to change, or is it one of those non-starter elephants in the room that we should just accept because of the pervasiveness of religious fervor and bad education?

i know underserved communities have a lot to worry about without adding these largely semantic discussions to their plates, so it's understandable that "where's my next paycheck coming from" is more important than whether gays can call themselves married.

still, it's a false binary in this particular case.

then the rest of it makes Alabama look like Cape Cod.

Is this your new slur for Latinos then?

I know about California rednecks.. I was raised by them as a kid briefly. And you are incredibly wrong.

xpost - I don't think you need "black/latino" (or "bad education") in that question. I mean, obviously those of us who are in favor of equal inclusion here should be working to change the attitudes of others about that, while at the same time accepting that there are demographics of all sorts who are just plain religiously and culturally resistant to that (and their opinions have to be taken seriously and respected). Is there really an either/or about that?

i'll post more on this later -- gotta run for now.

Once you get out into the Valley or into the Sierras, there are some seriously redneck sections. I think it's a little unfair to say that white people can be backwards fucktards but somehow expect Latinos or African Americans to get on the 'liberal' bandwagon on everything just 'cause they are wrt to many other issues but I slightly disagree w/nabisco's concern, here. Okay, it's not for me to tell anybody what religion to adhere to nor what what that religion's values are but if someone has endured centuries of abuse and oppression merely due to their genetics, it may be understandable that it looks hypocritical not to mention just self-serving to invoke equality under the law in one case and not in another in a secular state.

self serving of that person, that is.

Michael, putting it that way projects the way you frame the issue onto other people who might not frame it that way (or really "frame" it at all). I think you understand and get at my main point, though, with that first part; this is an issue on which the beliefs of a lot of lower-income minorities are parallel to those of a lot of lower-income whites.

Im just pissed we voted to give rights to fucking cows but took them away from, you know, people.

I don't have a problem framing it as I see best, though, nabisco. As I see it, marriage to them is between a man, a woman, and God so why do they care what the state says? And if they don't necessarily care what the state does why besmirch our state's constitution with limitations on the civil rights of a whole class of people? A divorced Catholic can remarry under California law even though, according to the Church, his second marriage is a sham.

Also sexual orientation isn't a choice, idiots. Deal.

Also, if your so interested in faith and family, why do you always end up being tools to people looking to divide everybody all the time? Why worry about the vague potential for evil of gay marriage when you could work for the concrete good of the poor or the downtrodden? $73 million to fight about this? Way to do the Tempter's bidding, cretins.

(Can you tell I'm pissed off? I spent all morning trying to think of how I could make life in Utah worse than it already is. It took me a while to realize that (a) I probably couldn't and, (b) I should probably concentrate on the idiots in this state first.

I don't necessarily disagree with your framing. Just saying it doesn't work to look at other people and say "this is an issue of X Principle, and how can you support X Principle in that case but not this one" -- we know the response, and it's usually that said people actually don't see this as an issue of X Principle; it's framed in their heads as something else entirely.

I kind of wonder how these sorts of amendments are going to function, legally speaking -- they seem to operate as a very strong statement about the intent of the population, the kind no politician and 99% of judges are going to defer to, but pretty much unless you want to strip sexual orientation out of your state's equal-protection clauses, I'm not sure how legally settled these things can ever make it.

Also sexual orientation isn't a choice, idiots. Deal.

haha no it's a decadent lifestyle that some of us have the moral fiber to resist despite the obvious temptation

Also let's keep in mind this wasn't a vote against civil rights for the gays, it was a vote against teaching homosexuality to our children in the schools. The schools!

Teacher, how do I shot ghey?

man now I'll never be able to marry that box turtle

To be fair, the anti Prop 8 people were slow to mobilize and preached to the choir for far too long. The way you win this (or defeat it, to be exact) in California is not to make it about being progressive about homosexuality, you make this about eugenics and racism and a long history of denying people their rights and using religion to justify it and then say 'don't enshrine hate/discrimination in the constittuion!' Alas, that came out a little too late.

Hey, cheer up, Shakey. Y'all can still live in sin.

it's kind of beautiful though that with nothing on their side but 37 million dollars and a pack of lies the Knights of Columbus and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were able to cement together a coalition of African-American Baptists, Latino Catholics, Korean Presbyterians, rural rednecks and old people into a gorgeous mosaic of panic, just long enough to keep the gays out of City Hall for another few years. I'm tellin' ya, only in America!

To be fair, the anti Prop 8 people were slow to mobilize and preached to the choir for far too long. The way you win this (or defeat it, to be exact) in California is not to make it about being progressive about homosexuality, you make this about eugenics and racism and a long history of denying people their rights and using religion to justify it and then say 'don't enshrine hate/discrimination in the constittuion!' Alas, that came out a little too late.

So painfully OTM. Unfortunately, high ranking California Democrats, in general ,haven't taken this advice since Jerry Brown was governor.

M. WHITE FOR GOV

Get Bent, go start an intiative! I think it only takes 37 signatures in California or something like that.

REPEAL THE GOVERNATOR!

He is obviously the GAYernator! Then somehow, find some incredibly dumb people to fund your initiative making them think they will replace Arnold as Governor, then just go nelson.laf and elect M. White. Easy.

I mean, it worked against Gray Davis, right?

Also sexual orientation isn't a choice, idiots.

I'm not a big fan of this line of thinking. Even if it were a choice (and I'd like to make some vague nod towards free will as to whether you act upon your "orientation") this is America, and we should be free to choose such things. There's no good reason for denying people that choice.

truthbombing ahoy!

Also the term "sexual orientation" sounds like it involves a compass.

That people feel the need to put these laws on the books (or in the state constitutions) strongly suggests that gay marriage is becoming more and more of a reality. As much as I'd like to see it progress faster, and sad as I am about Prop 8 passing, the fact that a civil rights measure lost so narrowly (as it lost so narrowly in OR in 2004) suggests to me that while the situation now is still not so good, it is clearly getting better. Gay people who want to get married will still either get legally married in MA or CT, or they will get married and not be recognized by the state like they have been for decades, in ever increasing numbers, with more and more people getting used to the idea, creeping into the more homophobic areas, until people become more and more used to the idea and it becomes more normalized.

^^^ this

Patt Morrison's topic today was the legal next steps of the prop. 8 battle, including the three lawsuits introduced today. Erwin Chemerinsky weighs in, among others, which won't mean anything to non-L.A. folks but it made for a somewhat hopeful discussion. Larry Mantle discussed it also this morning but it's one of the cases where his stringent sense of neutrality made you want to throttle him when he let some callers' illogic slip by (which he's usually good about not doing but he had a lot to cover i guess). anyway:

http://www.scpr.org/programs/pattmorrison/

4th topic down.

The thing that seems to come up in judicial terms is maybe a step away from "choice" and into the realm of what constitutes a fundamental point of identity. I mean, this is the fascinating semantic thing that sits at the base of all legal decisions on gay marriage, right: you could easily argue that equal protection is satisfied by all citizens being equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex ... but it seems like every court that's decided it isn't has had to decide that (a) sexual orientation is a characteristic fundamental and immutable enough that this doesn't work, and/or (b) the state in question has equal-protection language that already names/covers sexual orientation, closing this point.

This is an obvious and meaningless thing to point out, I know, but part of what interests me about this issue is that there's this really huge gulf in treatment of it -- you have courts who have to sort out existing law and come up with some kind of rational, coherent system that either does or doesn't allow for marriage ... and then you have a desire among many to put the question in the hands of voters or legislatures to render a democratic decision on it, which decision won't be coherent, won't struggle to create a rational network of rights, and is basically just a gut-level thumbs-up or thumbs-down on whether you think gay people should be able to marry.

Santa Barbara was the only county south of Monterey that voted against the gay marriage ban.

Shades of Duh Govahnator voting patterns.

guys Prop 8 has not passed (yet)

Per usual with the main frustration here is that it's the oldest of the oppressed I feel the most sorry for...

It's sad that there might be gay couples old enough to never live to see a day where gay unions are just an assumed right in the country they love. This also applies to other civil liberties/courtesies involving women, people who aren't white, etc.

And this isn't limited to the U.S. either, too, obviously. etc.

you sick fuck why aren't you thinking about TEH CHILDREN

Frankly I'd be perfectly happy to just see the state get out of the "marriage" business, let civil unions be the law of the land for everyone, and let churches call marriage whatever they want to.

well yeah but that would make sense, wouldn't it

that we have any business ratifying anyone's choice of mate is pretty weird, in general

ut it seems like every court that's decided it isn't has had to decide that (a) sexual orientation is a characteristic fundamental and immutable enough that this doesn't work, and/or (b) the state in question has equal-protection language that already names/covers sexual orientation, closing this point.

fwiw one of the lambda attorneys touched upon the fact that man and woman haven't actually been defined in the ca constitution but she presented it more as an aside that probably won't play into the current legal challenges but will obv. in transgender cases in the near future. just thought it was interesting.

Frankly I'd be perfectly happy to just see the state get out of the "marriage" business, let civil unions be the law of the land for everyone, and let churches call marriage whatever they want to.

How about tax forms?

^^ sorry: what this lame rhetorical question is supposed to point up is that without a deep, complete, and implausible overhaul of things ranging from the tax code to common law, the state is hopelessly and not unjustifiably entrenched in the business of defining people as married or not

and so while the "why does the state decide anyway" line seems simple and common-sensical, what it actually would ask is for Americans to have to re-learn and re-frame everything about their family structures for the sole purpose of not getting anything special that gay people don't -- which strikes me as a billion times more trouble and harder to convince anyone of than just letting gay people marry in the first place

When OR looked like it was going to decide that denying gay marriage was unconstitutional, one of the best (or, my favorite) arguments is that it was unconstitutionally sexist to allow someone to marry a man but not to marry a woman.

Nabisco OTM about state/marriage, there are many intermediary steps that need to be worked out before that solution is plausible.

what it actually would ask is for Americans to have to re-learn and re-frame everything about their family structures for the sole purpose of not getting anything special that gay people don't

not that i don't agree with the all-in approach in principle but I think in light of the vote some part of the movement has to be concentrated on what works on the ground and i think batting down the relatively new, relatively rickety 'assault on marriage' thrust of the opposing argument is relatively low-hanging fruit in the short term, even if it means the term 'civil union' has to be bandied about for a couple more years, relative.

xpost

Oh ALSO the other thing about that solution is that it nearly makes true one of the big arguments for opponents of gay marriage, which is that it would somehow erode the significance of marriage as a social institution.

And I agree that marriage is a significant social institution! I do sorta think it's an important social system that has long been a basic ordering point of our culture and should continue to be perfected into an even better one! Which is actually a large part of why I feel like allowing as many people as possible access to it really strengthens it and maintains it as a point of social organization -- far more than it does to cast millions of people outside of it and let the old organization shrink and wither!

xpost - queef, if I understand what you're saying correctly, I completely agree -- I was talking about the often-heard argument that the state should have some kind of all-purpose "civil union" for all couples of all orientations, and leave the rest to people's religion or social space. (Which answers far fewer questions than it raises.)

sigh

nabisco otm

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1856872,00.html?iid=tsmodule

Part of the reason is that Obama inspired unprecedented numbers of African Americans to vote. Polls show that black voters are more likely to attend church than whites and less likely to be comfortable with equality for gay people. According to CNN, African Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin, 69% to 31%. High turnout of African Americans in Florida probably help explain that state's lopsided vote to ban same-sex weddings.

Oh, the children thing is in there too:

A symbolic low point for the gay side came on Oct. 13, when the Sacramento Bee ran a remarkable story about Rick and Pam Patterson, a Mormon couple of modest means — he drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic, she raises their five boys — who had withdrawn $50,000 from their savings account and given it to the pro-8 campaign. "It was a decision we made very prayerfully," Pam Patterson, 48, told the Bee's Jennifer Garza. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children."

You could argue that marriage equality has little to do with children, but Patterson seemed to speak to Californians' inchoate phobias about gays and kids. On the Friday before the Bee story appeared, a group of San Francisco first-graders was taken to city hall to see their lesbian teacher marry her partner. Apparently the field trip was a parent's idea — not the teacher's — but the optics of the event were terrible for the gay side. It seemed like so much indoctrination.

hm, maybe we should stick to the museum next time

fuck reading comprehension

Why did Blacks Vote Yes on Prop 8? Why, please explain, I am so hurt.

Reply to: pers-907380✧✧✧@craigsl✧✧✧.o✧✧ [?]
Date: 2008-11-05, 3:59PM PST

Well as you probably should know, if you've worked in the "poor" black community, blacks are historically christian. Many will not vote that way. It's in our culture.

However, here's the other part. The proposal was written in a way such that it was so confusing for many people. I told many of my friends (black ones) that yes means no, and no means yes. A whole lot of people didn't get it.

I voted No on prop 8 and I am a black woman. Eliminating rights is just wrong in my opinion.

However, don't withdraw your support because of this. Do what you do because it fulfills you, not because you expect to get something back. The kind of work you do demands it.

It seemed like so much indoctrination.

Fortunately the Mormon church was there to protect the little ones of California from indoctrination. And just in time, too.

69 to 31% kind of what i'd expect, frankly

i should be attending the No on 8 rally on San Vicente Boulevard right now but i'm too tired and i blame this thread

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL

Darryl Scott, a 46-year-old father from Patterson, voted for Obama and yes on Proposition 8. Scott said he has no hatred for gays but was raised to believe marriage is between a man and woman.

"People should do what they want to do, but it shouldn't be forced on others," said Scott...

I mean, I just, I... aaaaaaaaaaargh

I'm going to cry, this is moving

More than 600 show up in Salt Lake City to rally against Prop. 8
By Rosemary Winters
The Salt Lake Tribune
11/03/2008

Forget Joe the Plumber. Never mind Joe 6-pack. This election, says one Provo mom of two gay children, has spawned yet another political icon: "Mother bears who defend their cubs."

Millie Watts, who has six kids total, rallied Mormon mothers and their gay and straight, LDS and non-LDS, allies for a candlelight vigil Sunday night in protest of California's Proposition 8. If it passes Tuesday, the ballot measure would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the Golden State.

More than 600 people attended the vigil at Salt Lake City's Library Square, despite drizzling rain. A satellite event in St. George drew 100-plus.

Watts greeted the Salt Lake crowd with tears.

"I am so touched that you would be here," she said. "This is what happens when people in California say mean things about our gay kids. The mothers come out of the closet."

Watts organized the event after a four-hour lunch with some friends, who also are LDS and mothers of gay children. She said she has felt "disappointment and betrayal" from the actions taken by the LDS Church to get Prop. 8 passed. The campaign, she said, is "dividing families."

Billie Christiansen traveled from Kaysville to attend the rally with her husband and two daughters. Her 22-year-old, gay son, Alex Lewis, moved to San Francisco last month, but she wanted to be there to support him and other LDS families who are struggling to accept gay children.

Even at age 3, she sensed her child was gay. As an LDS mom, she believed being gay was "wrong," and she tried to change him. When he wanted to play with his sister's Barbies, Christiansen signed him up for soccer. When he tried to help her bake cookies, she rounded up fishing poles.

"I was hard on him. I had so much guilt," she said, but later, her worldview shifted, after he formally came out at age 18. "We're so grateful that we've accepted him now. We knew there wasn't a finer person. He didn't choose [to be gay]."

But the conflict was part of the reason she quit attending LDS services. Her daughter, 21-year-old Tiffany Lewis, still practices the faith, and she voiced whole-hearted support for her brother.

"Everyone should have equal rights," she said holding a candle in opposition of Prop. 8. "You can't help who you love. People deserve to be together."

Linda Barney, part of Watts' band of Mormon moms who spoke at the event, said her heart "reaches out to young Californians, teens who are not out of the closet who are alone ... listening to hateful rhetoric."

"They need to hear from us," she said. "They need to know there are people with loving hearts."

Salt Lake City resident Erik Steffensen, who is gay, was impressed by the large turnout. His mother, Kathryn Steffensen, spoke at the rally.

"To realize you're part of more people than you see in your daily life, that we do have allies in the straight community," he said, "is really meaningful." rwint✧✧✧@slt✧✧✧.c✧✧

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/articl...312&siteId=297

thank you!

xpost - queef, if I understand what you're saying correctly, I completely agree -- I was talking about the often-heard argument that the state should have some kind of all-purpose "civil union" for all couples of all orientations, and leave the rest to people's religion or social space. (Which answers far fewer questions than it raises.)

oh ok yeah that would def. be a loser. to be clear i do mean creating a civil union category as an adjunct to civil 'marriage' should be the next face the movement shows to the public, and not, say, dueling with propositions every two years which might threaten to harden the battle lines further; leading with fairness rather than status, as bitter and demeaning a pill that is to have to swallow in the wake of LOSING rights and i understand it may not be my place to say that but we're working with lots of hearts and minds. i mean it's already proven (incidentally)uncontroversial in a national election, perhaps the only semi-sweet byproduct of mccain's candidacy (and no doubt the republican core's rush to slough off mc's 'moderation' in such matters digs them a meaner deeper retrograde hole in all kinds of ways that this and other progressive constituencies can seize upon). I take solace in remembering that the conversation hasn't even really happened yet in earnest (looking at you, O) and it's theirs to lose, sooner than we think.

"I am so touched that you would be here," she said. "This is what happens when people in California say mean things about our gay kids. The mothers come out of the closet."

I hope people in California mobilize earlier and more effectively next time against homobigotry initiatives, and tattoo the above quote underneath their eyelids. The fact that this quote is coming from a Mormon mother in Utah...

lol @ calling him 'queef'

haha made my day

I'm not a big fan of this line of thinking. Even if it were a choice (and I'd like to make some vague nod towards free will as to whether you act upon your "orientation") this is America, and we should be free to choose such things. There's no good reason for denying people that choice.

OTM.

How much actual organizing did the No on 8 people do? Or did they mostly rely on tv ads?

Pretty active e-mail database at least -- been hearing from them for months now.

OK, but did they knock on doors?

they were very active in preaching to the choir and the tourists in sf

Also they seemed to have ads designed to appeal to Mac users, assuming those were on the air.

am only catching up on all of the prop 8 stories now...makes the entire thing so bittersweet. i'm cheering on the protests from afar, especially the ones taking it to the temple - burn that motherfucker down, seriously

I need to find the link, but apparently those gay couples in Cali married already will stay married, I just read.

if the rumors of the protesters wanting to "block the 405" are true, they are the stupidest of the stupid. Sorry. Anger is one thing, but making half of your supporters hate you in the process is just fucking inane.

there are demographics of all sorts who are just plain religiously and culturally resistant to that (and their opinions have to be taken seriously and respected)

totally understand the need to be cool-headed and rational about it but NNNGGGHHH how much longer do gay people have to extend these courtesies to people who actively seek to deny them basic civil rights.

the various items i've seen blaming african-americans for this are weird and slightly scary...that's not the direction anyone needs to be going in.

I should add "needlessly making half of your supporters hate you" in the above.

we're not 'blaming' african-americans for it, we're recognizing that they voted the wrong way on this

while at the same time accepting that there are demographics of all sorts who are just plain religiously and culturally resistant to that (and their opinions have to be taken seriously and respected)

http://www.gbmnews.com/content_images/2361/Loving.JPG

Not that I'm in the US but I'm usually reasonably across yr big issues thanks to politically active friends and I have to say, prop8 slipped way under my radar until the very day of the election... I had to look it up the other day, I'd not heard about it.

The "dont force your agenda on us" argument is so mind-bendingly illogical and stupid I don't know where to start. You nice christian folk can still marry in your nice churches! You can still go off and cheat on your wives and treat your kids bad, no one is taking that damn shit away from you.

i know it's easy & fun to gang up on xtian conservatives but not everyone who voted yes fits that demo - anti-gay feelings kinda run the gamut altho yes some segments more actively homophobic than others

Thats true. But the argument "marriage is only for a man and a woman" is a christian construct.

(And I know plenty of xians who wouldnt be against gay marriage, fwiw)

I have no idea whether I'm right about this, but it seems to me that the gay rights movement would benefit from a concerted effort to point out that if you vote against marriage rights, then you do have something against gay people. Because you've just done something against them.

The issue has been successfully framed on the center-right so as to mean that somehow whether two men getting married will effect you, the socially moderate or conservative voter, more than it will effect them, and that you can be perfectly tolerant in your everyday life and still vote for Prop. 8.

Also, tying it to interracial marriage in the 60's seems to be the message to be stressing when making it a civil rights issue. All others come off as false equivalencies.

Basically, some Axelrod-style "find the right message the first time and stick to it" strategist should be working for the HRC who should be closely coordinating with other GLBT groups.

this will be a mystery I will take to the grave. I just don't effing get it either. One of the BEST signs/banners that I saw today, while fighting HORRID traffic due to protests at the mormon church in westwood (one of the few times I was not pissed off by a protest halting traffic and I'm not even gay!) But I digress...
The sign held by a woman said: "You can have two or three dozen wives, why can't I have just one?"

This is such a backward and anti-civil rights proposition that I am ashamed of my state.

I also want to know what happens to the people who got married in the last few months when in was "legal" are their marriages dissolved, or are they "grandfathered" in? I don't get it. Explanations are welcome.

i know it's easy & fun to gang up on xtian conservatives but not everyone who voted yes fits that demo

I'll stick to ganging up on the Catholic and Mormon conservatives who put up the $35+ million to buy the airtime to launch a nasty "but oh the children" tv campaign.

those groups needed collaborators outside of their own churches to get to 52% is all i'm saying.

yup, 37 million of them, all named george washington

$$22MM donated by the mormon church for prop 8 my local (ABC)network just said. Where do they get this kind of money???

http://silverfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/mitt_romney.jpg

everybody needs to calm the fuck down. this will get struck down by the courts (they just explicitly confirmed that gays have equal marriage rights under the CA constitution this past May!)

but by all means give the Mormons a bunch of shit. totally loathsome organization.

comparing it to interracial marriage is just going to offend ppl like the black "church folk" who may have been decisive in Florida.

I've found the HRC very clueless for years (since their Al D'Amato endorsement).

A somewhat easier question, btw, is "why does a country that finally got it together to put an african-american (who explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman) in the oval office still hate gays?"

Why does Dr Morbius hate gays?

everybody needs to calm the fuck down. this will get struck down by the courts (they just explicitly confirmed that gays have equal marriage rights under the CA constitution this past May!)

Isn't the proposal an amendment to the constitution though? I thought that was the whole point.

yeah that's what i thought, too

the argument "marriage is only for a man and a woman" is a christian construct.

^^ is this some kind of joke?

A somewhat easier question, btw, is "why does a country that finally got it together to put an african-american (who explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman) in the oval office still hate gays?"

A somewhat harder question, btw, is "why did a State that voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama vote narrowly for the Proposition he opposed?"

Also yes, please do not go dropping Loving references like they explain everything in the universe here; the dynamic and the questions that are meaningful to people are very, very different, and any discussion of this stuff that seeks to ignore that is kind of a pointless echo-chamber self-congratulation!

Even at age 3, she sensed her child was gay.

Seriously, who writes this shit?

yeah its amended the constitution but it will still face legal challenges (current one is to try and force it to be voted on by the state legislature) - may not result in its immediate repeal, but best-case scenario it gets challenged under the 14th Amendment/Full Faith and Credit Clause and goes to the federal supreme court.

if the rumors of the protesters wanting to "block the 405"...

It's taken me this long to realise that the 405 is a road not another proposition.

and goes to the federal supreme court

This does not sound like a best case.

but best-case scenario it gets challenged under the 14th Amendment/Full Faith and Credit Clause and goes to the federal supreme court.

Doesn't DOMA kind of exempt states from full faith and credit re: marriages? Wasn't that the entire point of it?

DOMA has yet to be challenged before the SC and obviously any gay-marriage-is-a-constitutional-right argument is gonna run into it and require its being overturned. Its hard to say what the prospects are for the SC to overturn this stuff - I think if the conservatives on the bench had a rational legal argument for denying gays the right to marry, they would have already legitimized the DOMA as Constitutional. Instead, they've demurred from ruling on it. Dunno how long they can keep that up. Depends how well prepared the briefs challenging it are, I suppose.

Laurel, I have met many gays who I'm sure were unmistakably flamboyant by 3.

Dearest Morbs, I'm sure that is true! However, the sentence is written to suggest that when she was 3, she already had a son whom she knew to be gay.

Lawrence v. Texas would seem to imply there's hope the SC would overturn DOMA, but it depends how many votes could be marshalled against Scalia and Thomas.

x-post

"I sense, someday, that I will have a gay child... JUICE BOX! GIMME JUICE BOX!"

xxp: haha! I'm a bb reader, not a proofrea-- Oh, never mind.

My niece is almost 2, i should ask her what she knows about her kids.

I'm not a proofreader either but I have more than three brain cells (despite my best efforts) which is all it should take. You must be having an off day. Perhaps a lie-down?

Also yes, please do not go dropping Loving references like they explain everything in the universe here

lolz I thought you were referring to Loving v. Virginia here (or maybe you were...?)

A somewhat harder question, btw, is "why did a State that voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama vote narrowly for the Proposition he opposed?"

It's not a hard question.

The No On 8 forces, overall, were just too complacent to allow this to happen, unfortunately.

Umm yes, I was responding to rogermexico's sideswipe visual reference of Loving

v. Virginia

The landmark Supreme Court ruling concerning whether Virginia was, indeed, for lovers

she was.

sorry I R confused, didn't get the pic ref carry on

I have been sleeping like crap, Laurel, and it's not even like I wanna get married.

I'm not a proofreader either

no, see....

Lawrence v. Texas would seem to imply there's hope the SC would overturn DOMA, but it depends how many votes could be marshalled against Scalia and Thomas.

Lawrence was under the previous regime of the Court, though, and included wording designed to close off the marriage issue: "[The case] does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." This might have been intended to placate one or more justices to build the coalition. With O'Connor swapped for Alito, Lawrence if ruled today would be 5-4; I wouldn't put great confidence in a marriage issue getting through.

This kind of raises the question of what Obama will really be able to do with the court. Scalia doesn't seem like he's going anywhere any time soon, and the rest of the conservative wing is quite young, so O's best hope would be replacing the liberal members with equally liberal members, a holding action at best. (Of course, some of the "liberal" members aren't so much - again, looking at the language in Lawrence, so maybe there's some hope here.)

Dan Savage is out for blood

Utah Is The New Coors

Basically, major plans to boycott Mormons and Utah.

Um... :-/

That's idiotic, unproductive, and hypocritical to a degree a five-year-old could understand, and I hope every gay reader in Utah gives him shit about it.

um, i wish people would stop saying things like "forcibly divorced" because the status of those already married is up in the air. at least that's the latest i read on this.

The whole thing is up in the air. This thing is going to be in court for ages. That said, I wouldn't visit Provo.

doesn't seem at all unproductive to me considering that 10% of the money every Mormon business makes goes to a church that bankrolls measures like this...

by which I mean: boycott Mormon businesses: sure. boycott Utah: maybe not so much.

isn't utah becoming increasingly non-LDS?

Parts of it, sure.

can someone give me an example of a Mormon business I can boycott?

Anybody gay living in Utah is insane.

Well duh. Most of them are closeted and Mormon.

awful,closeted,gay,insane,mormon

or are teenagers

I actually don't know any Mormon businesses which is pretty insidious now that I think about it.

I'm sure there's any number of gay couples here in SF who would love to adopt gay closeted Mormon kids. Let's set up a non-profit!

I actually don't know any Mormon businesses which is pretty insidious now that I think about it.

I'm assuming there's some casinos...? I don't go to casinos.

haha

http://www.lassens.com/

this company gave "yes on 8" a shitload of money

oh duh Kroger's. Of course.

"Boycott Mormon businesses?" I'm sorry, but I have trouble considering it non-reprehensible to boycott business based solely on the faiths of their owners; and outside of public corporations it's difficult to confirm that a given businessperson actively directs his/her profits to things you disagree with; and while the Mormon church is organized enough that you might want to think of tithing to the church as complicity in some kind of activism, I'm not sure that thinking holds up, and it's really suspect to me for other reasons, many of them basic and moral.

Beyond which the impulse here to identify and hurt some kind of enemy, no matter how loosely the category is drawn, is just ... it's not a good impulse; it's an impulse a lot of us spend our time looking at conservatives and despairing over! It's, you know, not a good look.

For the record, identifying business and business owners who are on-record supporters of this legislation and declining to buy stuff from them = A-OK, this sounds excellent to me

"supporters" in the above meaning "gave money or was otherwise publicly active"

NNN's special comment is otm

oh fuck the Mormon Church. for real. A horrible racist, sexist, anti-semite, homophobic moneygrubbing organization.

yeah this is kind of like the argument that boycotting really evil corporations hurts their innocent workers, which might be true to a degree but from my viewpoint doesn't trump the reasons for boycotting in many cases.

although I get what nabisco is saying here and agree that any boycott action should be directed at those who were obvious supporters.

i have met decent mormons

The LDS is still pretty repellent (exceptional individuals not withstanding.)

I don't know, I think pressuring people to change an organization they're a part of, whether or not they're directly supportive of its objectionable activities, is a fine goal. The organization being a religious one makes it seem reprehensible, but I think the point that it's about the Church's activities in civil affairs and not the beliefs of its individual members is important, because the Church IS intervening in civil affairs in ways that non-members have every right to object to.

Also yes, please do not go dropping Loving references like they explain everything in the universe here; the dynamic and the questions that are meaningful to people are very, very different, and any discussion of this stuff that seeks to ignore that is kind of a pointless echo-chamber self-congratulation!

I was a bit torn on that, and it was totally a sideswipe (nabisco OTM) and kind of a dick move and I knew it. Because I totally agree that the parallels break down almost immediately.

BUT I did it and I'd do it again b/c the one place where the parallels are absolutely rock-solid is wrt the below, which is so not OTM that I strongly suspect I'm either just badly misreading it or someone hacked nabisco's account:

while at the same time accepting that there are demographics of all sorts who are just plain religiously and culturally resistant to that (and their opinions have to be taken seriously and respected)

I mean, I get that in many truly critical ways gays and lesbians didn't even exist in America 50 years ago and that it's kind of amazing just how quickly the marriage issue has gained momentum (like, not even on the table 20 years ago and now a reality in some states), and that the real way to get over the line will be to sympathetically engage with No voters, many of whom still think the only gays they've ever seen are those scary one in the West Hollywood halloween parade with the nipples. And it wouldn't take a lot, 151,000 would do it, and frankly No on 8 might have still won the day if the campaign hadn't been so complacent.

Except that you know what, fuck that. Because when one group's religious beliefs or beliefs about what's "natural" (and the latter are often dressed up as the former because we're (rightly) conditioned to treat even the most batshit "religous" beliefs with respect) are used to TAKE AWAY another group's civil rights which is to say (because civil rights is a phrase that's almost inert from overuse) the right to equal stature before the law, then seriously, fuck their sincere and deeply-held beliefs because said beliefs are not only A) bigoted and B) ignorant but C) irrelevant wrt the law thanks to our 100% Grade A USA Constitution.

Or at least they were irrelevant wrt the law until this past Nov. 4 in California. And I may be overreacting a touch here because I'm a Californian and endured the vile misinformation campaign and experienced on the ground in a way that nabisco could't have that the deeply held beliefs we're talking about here are the deeply held belief that children will be made to learn about the ghey in teh schools! Teh schools! Teh children!

So apologies for the low blow, but damn man, when is enough enough?

ps that should read "100% Grade A God-given USA Constitution"

Has a boycott ever done much besides make those who were boycotting feel like they were "doing something"?

Really I think capitalism is just too complex for something like that to work. Company X is bad, so you boycott them, and company Y is good, so you support them. But company X buys its raw materials from companies A B and C, who are all good, and company Y buys from companies L M and N, who are all bad. So, oopsy.

Anyway don't boycott Utah, go there and change some minds and organize and do all that ground work. Did Obama teach you nothing?

http://www.africanaonline.com/Graphic/rosa_parks_bus.gif

Yes, OK, technically that is a boycott. That's not quite the same thing as "don't order from Dominos" -- in contexts where a "boycott" literally amounts to "the majority of the customers going on strike", it can work, but most boycotts are not that.

I mean jesus I'm trying to back away from the civil rights movement analogies here but come on.

Anyway, I completely agree with you re: Boycott Utah. I'm just pissed off and grumpy :(

A friend of mine who worked at a big law firm once exhaustively read documents concerning a case involving Big Oil companies. These documents were primarily e-mail correspondence within the oil companies After completing this assignment, he told me that an alarming number of execs within Big Oil are Mormons. Just sayin'

Oh, I don't think this "boycott Utah" plan would actually be useful. I just don't think it's objectionable in principle.

It's worth noting that Dan Savage is a master of fueling dumb-on-surface-level, provocative campaigns mainly to force the public to deal with the issue, which ends up being more civilized when finally tackled. Well, it works in Seattle from time to time. Anyway, Savage has studied his enemies' tactics on TV very closely, that's for sure.

Although, the "redefine Santorum" campaign ended up being fully realised nationally. (maybe internationally?)

Then again, it's much easier to tarnish one dumbass politician than to tarnish a very rich, organized religious organization, much less an entire state that's seen as the defacto home thereof and is more multi-faceted as a whole than said church.

a message for potential utah boycotters, please start by by not booking any fishing trips/fishing guides for the provo river, it's been real crowded lately. thanks!

On the other hand, this guy was elected mayor of a small town in Oregon.

Or, whatever s/he prefers to be called.

Has a boycott ever done much besides make those who were boycotting feel like they were "doing something"?

HI DERE!

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/61/92961-004-4F2C3BDB.jpg

Hm. Yes, there, the boycott was part of the media strategy, and a way to encourage people to associate the struggle with something they saw every day (or often enough). There was a lot more to that campaign than the boycott.

I guess I just have spent a lot of time around crunchy lefties who had endless lists of things they were boycotting which they had to keep in their wallets, and none of which seemed to be getting anything done, so in my mind impotent boycotts far outnumber successful ones, and people often use it in place of organizing, rather than (with Selma or with Chávez) as part of organizing.

it's my theory that all these things - civil rights movements, boycotts, etc. - work much better when their primary narrative is people standing up for themselves, rather than people standing up for others. perhaps No on 8 would have been more successful if the narrative had involved more gay people saying why the marriage right is personally important to them, and fewer gay or non-gay people arguing that voting No on 8 was the right thing to do. then again, perhaps the problem is there just aren't enough gay people.

That is certainly my problem as far as finding a date goes.

boycott utah is an awful idea that only makes it harder to convince people within the state that your cause is righteous

rly like this nayland blake piece re: prop 8, race and empathy:

http://naylandblake.livejournal.com/423238.html

In my bleakest moments it has seemed to me that some people think Obama's election now gives them a free pass on racism. As if one election is enough to undo the behavior of centuries. Casting that vote doesn't prove that any of us are free from prejudice. We still have to do the difficult internal work of uprooting it from our thoughts and deeds. And if you ask "Why should I have to when I see someone else who isn't?" then you are doing it for the wrong reasons. It has to be an end in itself or it is meaningless. Treating your moral struggle as a bargaining chip to control other people's behavior is not only disingenuous, it's futile.

Boycotts are always, or should always be, part of a larger strategy.

Hi dere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa

That said, I'm doing a pretty good job of boycotting Mormonism already.

Not to mention Utah. I went to Moab one time, though.

look, anyone who thinks that it would be a good idea to boycott an entire state due to the actions of the dominant religion within it is someone who i'd rather not come visit anyway

Today, as the U.S. bishops begin their meeting in Baltimore, we express our dismay regarding the bishops' use of significant resources - including $200,000 toward Proposition 8 in California - to block same-gender couples from access to the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. We are opposed to ballot initiatives against same-gender marriage because this takes the dangerous path of putting the fundamental civil rights of a class of U.S. citizens up for a vote. As faithful Catholics, we support the broadening of the definition of civil marriage to be inclusive of same-gender couples.

We believe strongly that efforts to "protect marriage" must focus on expanding legislation and programs that protect all families and aid them in the areas where they most need it - education, child care, healthcare, and employment. To ignore the real challenges faced by all families, and to demonize families headed by same-gender couples, is offensive to all who follow the Catholic social justice tradition. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people want and will continue to form families - with and without children. To grant equal rights and responsibilities provided by civil marriage to these individuals will only serve to strengthen the very family and social ties that our bishops say they so passionately want to protect. To do less contradicts the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

We ask the bishops as they meet this week in Baltimore to address the issues that actually contribute to the breakdown in the family. We state our unequivocal support for marriage, which includes expanding the definition of civil marriage rights to be inclusive of same-gender couples. Supporting marriage equality is the right and just thing to do. It is the Catholic thing to do.

Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church
Call To Action
Catholics For Choice
CORPUS, Linda Pinto
DignityUSA
National Coalition of American Nuns
Southeastern Pennsylvania Women's Ordination Conference
New Ways Ministry
Pax Christi Maine
RAPPORT
Women's Ordination Conference
WomenChurch Convergence

A glimpse of Time Mag from 1938.

In fact, women who managed households during the Depression and after were a HUGE purchasing force, and several effective boycotts were held through circulars, newsletters, including one in 1951 in NYC, Philly, and Chicago in which women boycotted meat to protest high food costs. Wholesalers were unable to move a million pounds of meat PER WEEK, and soon BEGGED the government to impose price controls (ie "regulate", that dirty, dirty word).

http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Brock/prop%208%20hot%20guy.jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/166bwoo.jpg

http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html

ha

gay protesters have the fabbest signs

Boycotts are always, or should always be, part of a larger strategy.

Hi dere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, November 9, 2008 8:37 PM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

that is not a good parallel with boycotting the state of utah, at all

blacks hate fags, what's the mystery guys

(goes both ways obv, here is a secret: white gays HATE blacks)

my brother doesn't

i think we should do a poll

sweater-wearing hipster gays hate blacks

i prob coulda phrased that differently (lol) but racialism is a big problem w/i the gay community!!!!!!! anyway my point is that these people are like the snake and the mongoose w/each other u know how it goes

i blame sean john combs. he could have changed things

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits
welcome back

yay welcome back our courageous moral crusader!

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

i'm kind of hopeful about this whole thing now though, i mean it's the same court that ruled in favor of marriage in May that will listen to these arguments and have the final say:

The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

Not looking good for reversal of Prop 8... :(

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008815852_apsamesexmarriage.html

yeah very disappointing.

back to the ballot box

everybody needs to calm the fuck down. this will get struck down by the courts (they just explicitly confirmed that gays have equal marriage rights under the CA constitution this past May!)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, November 7, 2008 9:27 AM (3 months ago) Bookmark

still applicable?

jynx

hey guess what. there are other courts

higher courts, even

The entire concept of "marriage" needs to be divorced from religion.

or what if in the eyes of the govt, everybody's "marriage" was simply a civil union. Marriage could still be the province of the church, e.g. Southern Baptists can refuse to 'marry' gays all day long, that's their business. Progressive churches could 'marry' whomever they wanted, etc...

You would think it should be that easy, but the Southern Baptists really want to prevent anyone who isn't like them from being allowed out in public anywhere in the country, and this is just the little corner of hatred they can still sink their teeth into.

Never underestimate how much conservative Christians really wish you didn't exist.

still applicable?

I've been known to be wrong about things.

higher courts, even

this is true too but I don't really foresee the Supreme Court meddling w/a state constitutional issue, seems unlikely.

"What I am picking up from the oral arguments is that this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people," said Kennard

yes, Kennard, when it comes to civil rights, that's it exactly. because if it were left to the 'will of the people', bans on inter-racial marriages, and quite possibly "colored" drinking fountains etc, might very well still fucking fly in places like Alabama.

Why is this so hard to get???
xxposts

i really don't think there is anything on earth that makes me angrier than this right now.

this is true too but I don't really foresee the Supreme Court meddling w/a state constitutional issue, seems unlikely.

9th circuit would get it first, i think

Never underestimate how much conservative Christians really wish you didn't exist.

― How can there be male ladybugs? (Laurel), Friday, March 6, 2009 9:12 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

and

i really don't think there is anything on earth that makes me angrier than this right now.

― now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Friday, March 6, 2009 9:19 AM (33 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i came out to my lds family a month ago, and i've been blown away by how much shit it stirred w/ my parents. they've known for years, or i thought they "knew" but it turns out these fucking retards honestly don't think gays have any right to exist because they honestly believe w/ all their hearts its a choice, nothing will EVER convince them otherwise. i'm living w/ them now, in utah, which is like the anus hole of all this shit. easy to be optimistic about marriage's chances when you don't have to see/hear about these pathetic wastes of human life every day.

Shakey, I wasn't trying to nelson.laf you. I was wondering if that parenthetical in your original quote was still applicable, and perhaps still allowed hope in reversal of Prop 8.. but you just expressed doubt, so you answered my question.

Anyway, I feel really bad for all my Cali friends right now. :(

they honestly believe w/ all their hearts its a choice,

it's fucking madness, but hardly surprising. my sincere condolences. the courts rolled over the "will of the people" hardcore in the South during the 60s-70s - just as they should have. how this is any different, I haven't a fucking clue. can any of the legal minds of ILX shed any light?

just checking in to say that i still really hate this thread title

. the courts rolled over the "will of the people" hardcore in the South during the 60s-70s

this is true but is was not without its battles and the Supreme Court of that period was composed of quite a different batch, ideologically speaking, than today's - plus civil rights legal arguments started way earlier than that, I mean the NAACP was founded in 1909. This is gonna take a long time.

also lolz in no way am I a legal scholar - Alfred's read way more about the history of the SC than I have

good points, Shakey. Even so, that we're talking California 2009 is so totally o_O

you guys need to get over your "disbelief" at this shit

"but it's california" means exactly jack shit

Homosexuality will end when there are no more fatty foods. So will heterosexuality, don't get it twisted.

yeah loads of CA is socially conservative. SF and LA are not the entirety of the state.

and yeah being surprised that people hate other people for being different is kinda uh waht

not even that, but there's this blockhead liberal assumption that since we've secured rights for women and minorities that something so specific as GAY MARRIAGE EQUALITY RIGHTS was already part and parcel of those previous struggles? and this sean penn "don't u see your grandchildren thinking back on you with SHAME" sort of historical inevitability argument really doesn't really help win people over

We went over the whole "why is government even involved in defining marriage" thing when this thread first started ... the state is legitimately enmeshed in defining marriage for billions of really concrete, practical reasons, so I don't think that's easily gotten away from. If the idea is that the state should have a neutral, all-purpose concept of a "union" that all people are able to enter into, whatever the church thinks about it, then ... well, this is the same as saying "gay people should be allowed to marry," because the state already has a concept of a union, and it would (a) be an insane legal overhaul to revise it, plus (b) kind of just prove conservatives' point that gay marriage is undermining the structure of traditional marriage. Trying to rethink the definition strikes me as a worse plan than just letting more people take part in the traditional conception of things.

^^ although oddly I do think it's good as a form of argument -- to remind opponents of gay marriage that they and their conscience/religion/values can think whatever they want, that's up to them, but the state's secular mechanics of marriage will work differently

I actually take the fact that that significantly fewer CA people hate gays last year than they did eight years as rather hopeful.

fair enough... I'm not terribly surprised by the way prop 8 turned out, as i'm well aware that Cali =/ LA & SF.

I am surprised by what a hard sell it seems to be to get these justices to recognize the parallels with the civil rights movement. In 2009.

obv i don't know anything about these dudes, but damn.

because the similarities to the civil rights movement are moralistic in nature, rather than legal?

just saying, it may benefit the cause of gay marriage equality to (a) treat it as its own unique political challenge, and not as a retread of some prior struggle, (b) identify, recognize, and engage the opposition on the substance of the issue, rather than shouting them down or pretending their views don't matter / are outdated and (c) maybe not treat the outcome as an inevitable moral victory??

Are you volunteering to move to Evangelical-ville to be their friend and change their minds about gays, one conservative at a time?

w/ you on 'a' & 'c', Elmo. 'b' is pissing in nthe wind

xpost

The substance of the issue is that they think your existence is either a) a mistake in god's Creation or b) your choice to do evil in the world and be depraved and ungodly. There's kind of no point in engaging that.

yeah I think b) is a lost cause. what is on our side is time and demographics. old homophobes be dyin and the younger generation is way more amenable to gay rights as a given.

xp Except really by moving in next door and being much like a normal person until they cave.

Yeah I'm a bit confused how (b) is supposed to be accomplished. Obv there are a few super confrontational gay rights groups and public figure, but I think for the most part the gay rights movement and gay individuals are pretty classy and try their best at out-reach to groups that frankly want to see them dead. This is a bit like arguing that blacks should have been trying for frank conversations with the KKK rather than those dang boycotts.

yeah the civil rights tactic was to make the opposition look like a bunch of violent, immoral wackjobs.

(not really difficult given that the opposition was more than happy to play into that stereotype)

(c) maybe not treat the outcome as an inevitable moral victory??

yeah and don't get me started on all that 'we shall overcome' malarkey. dude if nothing else that rhetoric keeps people in the game and in the fight. you make other good points but this type of sour shit just irks me

okay, to follow up on (b) above, do you guys actually think that every person who voted against marriage equality is a homophobic Evangelical?

homophobe = yes, evangelical = no. The level of irrational revulsion towards homosexuality is pretty high and doesn't really have that much to do with Jesus.

For every die-hard, I have no doubt whatsoever that there were MORE individuals who were swept up in misinformation about what gay marriage would actually, legally entail. I mean, you've seen the batshit arguments about how gay marriage opens the door to polygamy, or to legalizing pedophilia, or that gay marriage will somehow prevent you from getting insurance through your spouse's employer, or that it will lead to institutional instruction of homosexuality in schools, or any other number of insane bullshit?

what i said about "identifying, targeting, and addressing" the opposition is finding out who these people are, what their concerns are about gay marriage, and disabusing them of any falshoods and scare tactics they may be prey to! you know -- what they call "campaigning".

Yeah I'm a bit confused how (b) is supposed to be accomplished.

It's accomplished by steering away from a lot of the types of rhetoric that (understandably, and frustratedly) appeared after Prop 8, some on this page, where it's treated as an a-priori moral failing for some people to have reasons for being against gay marriage, where such people are lectured on their wrongness and hatred instead of substantively engaged, and where we pretend -- for the sake of making ourselves feel better and righter -- that everyone who opposes gay marriage is acting out of some sort of antipathy, rather than admitting that there are a lot of fairly normal and un-radical people who have just always had a particular social conception of marriage and are fairly blandly resistant and change-fearing about having that conception change in ways that feel, to them, pretty radical.

In terms of arguments that have shaped people's opinions on these sorts of matters over the past few decades, the most effective ones have not been ones that make presumptuous arguments about this being an inevitable expansion of rights (to be against which is the equivalent of being against the civil rights movement) -- the most effective ones have been the earnest and concrete examples of people saying things like "I just want to be able to visit my partner in the hospital like you can; I just want to be able to set up a family insurance plan like you can; etc. etc." ... a type of argument that's just as valid and concrete with the difference between marriage and unions as with anything else.

Making this some sort of symbolic and historical argument strikes me as counterproductive, because it activates exactly the kind of symbolic/historical values issues that make people resistant to these changes -- but when you put these things in concrete terms of what some people can do and some people can't, a whole lot more average Americans become willing to say okay, that's true, you deserve that right as much as anyone ... which is an important step to their being able to say, well, okay, if it's only full recognition of marriage that affords you that right, I guess I can see a purpose to that besides what feels to me like a radical redefinition of the whole world my brain lives in.

Elmo OTM here, I think, definitely

elmo otm

and re (c) not treating this shit as inevitable, i just mean don't get all "what happened? i am confused" when a poorly-run campaign fails. being right doesn't win you any prizes, you know?

xpost

I mean, I feel like everyone was saying that the Oscars gave a perfect example of these two forms of argument -- which was a more effective pitch for gay marriage, Sean Penn scolding you on historical/symbolic grounds or a gay screenwriter saying that he'd always hoped he might one day be able to fall in love and get married just like everyone else can?

actually nabisco for me it was hugh jackman's singing and dancing

In my experience, if people are unquestioning/prejudiced/dim enough to believe ANY of that, they're already beyond help except by personal outreach. If you're dumb enough to think gay couples affect your insurance AT ALL, you're probably not rly open to rational arguments for the other side. But maybe I'm just being angry about Evangelicals and people who live in places without much exposure to the outside world.

Umm wait what? I don't think many people are resistant to gay marriage on the primary grounds that it'll mess with their insurance

Nabisco, I see what you're talking about as "making the issue personal" which is what I meant by having to be in communities with resistant people and just gradually win them over by being NONE of the things they fear. I'm not sure that gay people in the media/news have the same effect because someone who's already very reluctant/conservative doesn't KNOW that Hollywood director personally. But yeah, every little bit of real-life exposure helps.

Oh, that was in reference to

For every die-hard, I have no doubt whatsoever that there were MORE individuals who were swept up in misinformation about what gay marriage would actually, legally entail. I mean, you've seen the batshit arguments about how gay marriage opens the door to polygamy, or to legalizing pedophilia, or that gay marriage will somehow prevent you from getting insurance through your spouse's employer, or that it will lead to institutional instruction of homosexuality in schools, or any other number of insane bullshit?

I would be willing to move next door to a homophobe and open a dungeon.

my concern is that even a lot of "faily normal and un-radical" people are fairly stuck on the notion that homosexuality is a choice, which makes these dicussions especially thorny

but i definitely see where you're coming from (elmo & nabisco )

elmo totally OTM, esp. re: the terrible anti- prop 8 campaign; two of my friends (business and life partners) attempted to coordinate fundraising for that and the level of backstabbing/sabotage amongst the various sub-groups in a blatant attempt to grab credit for the measure's defeat 4 weeks before the vote due to some optimistic poll numbers was astounding to them, to the point where both have flatly stated that they will never work with an impressive number of gay rights groups ever again and will remain in the comparatively saner realm of Democratic Party candidates.

HI DERE spot on. Said bunch of anti-prop 8 folks were useless. Even a little bit of forethought and modelling after, say, the Obama campaign organization in terms of feet-on-ground would have been enough to result in a much, much closer vote at the very least.

Laurel, I don't know that you really have to be interacting with people face to face to dispel these fears -- it can happen in the public rhetoric or your campaigns and your overall cultural messages, too. Like Elmo says, one of the ways movements against gay marriage have worked is to present it to people as some sort of cataclysmic change to everything that will completely upend the social order -- one step to living in some upside-down liberal caricature world like the one Elmo refers to. Even in public rhetoric, which works better to counter this fear: (a) suggesting to people that they're bullheaded and hate-filled and beyond talking to and will be beaten, or (b) suggesting to people that most of these couples just want to do mundane paperwork-heavy things that hetero couples take for granted, and letting them do so is probably not going to be a huge world-ending deal?

For every die-hard, I have no doubt whatsoever that there were MORE individuals who were swept up in misinformation about what gay marriage would actually, legally entail

I think this is questionable. Like I said, the level of completely irrational antipathy towards homosexuality is pretty high. My dad, for example, who in all other respects is a liberal/progressive Jew politically, has often expressed to me his inability to get over his gut-level reaction that homosexuality is a wrong, an aberration. He's had gay friends/acquaintances, he does not have any misconceptions about gay marriage interfering with his rights or whatever. But he has described to me, for example, how uncomfortable he felt finding out that one of his boy scout troop leaders as a child was gay, and how that seemed deeply wrong to him. I dunno how he voted on Prop 8, but this sort of deeply ingrained homophobia is fairly common in older demographics, and has nothing to do with misinformation or evangelism, it just has to do with being raised in a "GAYS R WRONG" environment.

(Because the truth is that most hetero couples probably really don't think much about the rights and privileges of marriage, and probably don't recognize what's kept from gay couples unless it's specifically and reasonably pointed out to them -- barring that their reaction to gay marriage is likely to be a knee-jerk response based on their very abstract conceptions of what the world is "supposed" to look like. And we've already seen how people are quite willing to revisit those abstract conceptions when presented with, e.g., someone who's kept out of the hospital room while her partner's dying -- concrete examples of the very simple, human things that people want but aren't always getting.)

I'd like to point out, though, that while I personally am not a revolutionary, I would never underestimate the power of revolutionary rhetoric. I think the firebrandism would work better were it directed more like the Civil Rights campaign into goading opponents into flat-out jack-booted thuggery rather than the venomous, on-the-attack dismissals/attempts to shame that get press attention now (and I know these efforts are out there and are being covered, I just think there need to be more of them).

Well, okay, whatever! In my experience, opposition to all things homosexual is either a) 100% of the gross-out variety that doesn't like to even consider the rights of people b/c it would require admitting that there are sex acts between men, and b) religious types.

haha yeah Laurel OTM

When I see this thread title I hear: "Come on maaaaaan .... FONK DAT!"

"opposition to all things homosexual" is NOT the same thing as "opposition to gay marriage"

who are these mythical people that are okay with homosexuality but against gay marriage, cuz I've never met any of them

"I mean, I feel like everyone was saying that the Oscars gave a perfect example of these two forms of argument -- which was a more effective pitch for gay marriage, Sean Penn scolding you on historical/symbolic grounds or a gay screenwriter saying that he'd always hoped he might one day be able to fall in love and get married just like everyone else can?"

While on the one level I agree with this cuz Penn comes off as a complete twat on another level I think it's pretty silly to think that Sean Penn's scolding (or for that matter Lance Ian Black's speech) makes one iota of difference short-term, long-term, or any-term and that people are going to be threatened by it or whatever or become more entrenched in their viewpoints (or magically change.) Frankly I think the worst argument you can make against some of the sentiments on this thread or Savage Love or whoever you are talking about, is that they are pointless. Big whoop.

I do agree that the poorly organized Prop 8 campaign was poorly organized and messaged. And it still only barely lost which is pretty hopeful short and long term.

For some people, yes, homosexuality is an abomination, and this is their primary reason for opposing gay marriage.

On the other hand, and for I think for a greater number of people, it's because marriage is SACRED, essentially unchanged since the beginning of history, and they just don't feel comfortable tampering with that!

essentially unchanged since the beginning of history,

that is a load of bullshit do these people even read history books

xpost - part of my whole point on both segments of this thread has been that I don't get the habit of using these things as interchangeable ("opposing gay marriage" and "opposing gays") -- doing that means acting as if the whole argument is settled, like it's already universally agreed that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is out of a desire to punish gay people ... it's so presumptuous, the way it argues as if the argument is already settled! I would get resentful if anyone argued with my beliefs that way, too

xpost - I didn't say the Oscar speeches made any difference, I said they were good examples of two different kinds of rhetoric, and one of them seems clearly more persuasive to me than the other

who are these mythical people that are okay with homosexuality but against gay marriage, cuz I've never met any of them

you realize shitloads of Americans would self-identify as having something like this position? maybe as expressed in terms of like "it's none of my business how homosexuals choose to live their lives, and I agree they should not be discriminated against in any way, but my understanding of marriage is that it's between a man and a woman, and I don't think that should change?" This is a LOT of people's viewpoint! Like Elmo says, it often has nothing to do with a desire to disadvantage anyone, and everything to do with being really resistant to changing one's conception of what marriage is

exactly -- it's not always about people's personal feelings about queers -- it's also about the traditions and institutions that have shaped their own lives, and their own attempts to respect those mores -- whether or not we (who are on the right side of history, blah blah blah) think them foolish or outdated.

Actually the last line of BS I got went more like this: "I don't care what gay people do in their own lives, but I could never be roommates with one because I can't have them having sex in my house. I am still a conservative Catholic and that is not okay." So that's pretty much ick factor plus religion = kablooey.

That's not really being okay with homosexuality then, I would say.

I mean being okay with homosexuality kind of has to include understanding that why gay people want to be married and not wanting to prevent them from doing so.

That was a long xp to nabisco.

some people have trouble getting over the "love --> marriage --> procreation" teleology

Oh right, so I guess that person isn't in the category under discussion, anyway.

The thing is, nabs, that what you say SEEMS to make sense, but I can't imagine anyone I know who's opposed to gay marriage actually SAYING that...because it's so tied up in disapproving of gayness in general. I think it's more like "If I don't have to see it or hear about it or think about it, aka it is something that happens Over There to Other People, then fine, they can do as they wish." But allowing gay marriage means it comes closer to home because hey, what do you know, YOU have a marriage -- and that's too close for comfort.

you realize shitloads of Americans would self-identify as having something like this position?

I think this is some bullshit - akin to people who say "I'm not racist but [insert racist bullshit]"

iow I agree with Laurel and Alex

"some people have trouble getting over the "love --> marriage --> procreation" teleology"

Sure. And those people have a problem with gays and gay marriage. Pretending that the problem is only with the latter just seems myopic.

JESUS YOU PEOPLE.

let me assure you that these (are okay with homosexuality but oppose gay marriage) people exist, and one of them is my MOTHER.

and i'm sure countless loving parents of gay people fall into this same category.

It's the Jesus people that I'm worried about, actually.

first person to suggest that my mom doesn't REALLY support me gets the full force of my untethered rage, btw.

I think maybe you have to get people to be okay w homosexuality FIRST through personal knowledge of totally harmless people who they like/love/may even be related to who just HAPPEN to be gay...and then work on the marriage thing via an emotional appeal to your rights as a human being.

Your mom is already a big step ahead of the kind of people I'm thinking about.

yeah, this idea that such people "don't exist" is blowing my mind

also, strictly in terms of the gay marriage issue, you don't need the majority of Americans to be 100% comfortable or positive about homosexuality, you just a good number to admit that so long as there are going to be gay relationships, why not let them file taxes together

Those people exist, my mom is one of them.

I'm not married and I'm an atheist and I think all the government should oversee is civil partnerships, whether between opposite or same sex partners. Government, stop calling what you grant at state level a 'marriage license'.

^^^
sooooooo realistic I know!

These hypothetical people, is it sort of assumed that they know, or have known, someone who was actually gay?

good points, all.. but again, for me, it comes down to the Supreme Court's (perceived) hesitance to overturn a vote that is a slap in the face of equality. i'm thinking we could put several issues to a vote and see what "the will of the people" says. i promise you the results would be problematic (on a state level, in certain areas at least), even in 2009...

i'd like to rely on the constitution + the courts for making sure this doesn't fly. but a constitutional ammendment restricting rights? that's some real bullshit.

Sinatra ruined everything w/ that stupid "Love and Marriage" record

For what it's worth, like Elmo, I can think of countless older people I know who have no antipathy to homosexuality, are full-throatedly against negative discrimination against gay people, have no weird ideas about the gay people in their personal lives, and yet, when it comes to marriage, hit a point of major internal conflict, because it threatens one of their basic understandings of how society operates

I mean, seriously, guys, we all agree on the merits of this issue, and yet I'm finding it really frustrating, condescending, presumptuous, and sneering that you're resistant to admit that many fairly decent people feel this way -- now just imagine how they must feel!

Maybe it just never comes up with the more moderate people I know, because moderate people don't discuss religion/sexuality/politics in polite social settings. The slightly crazy ones much more likely to.

I'm not resistant to admit it, I've just never met any!

granted I live in Gayopolis, the gayest city in america

nabisco OTM -- the inability to perceive a middle ground here is a HUGE roadblock in any attempt to change how these individuals feel and/or get their votes. you don't have to agree with them! their viewpoints may not even be internally consistent! but you have to recognize where people are coming from before you can change their minds.

"I mean, seriously, guys, we all agree on the merits of this issue, and yet I'm finding it really frustrating, condescending, presumptuous, and sneering that you're resistant to admit that many fairly decent people feel this way -- now just imagine how they must feel!"

I'm not resistant to admitting that they are fairly decent people. I am resistant to labelling them as people who are "okay with homosexuality".

One particular sore spot of hypocrisy for me is that there are those who defend the sanctitiy of marriage as a procreational bond under God but who will recognize as married barren people or two straight people who have been divorced and should by all rights be denied communion - they will be 'tolerant' of other such people's right to marriage (even though they must admit at some level that they are adulterers) but not of two people who are of the same sex. If the state does have a compelling reason to discriminate between unmarried and married people (promotion of stable families, child welfare, social stability, I haven't the faintest what the ostensible reasons are, now) how do they sort through the myriad different religious taboos amongst all the religions willing to limit themselves to the one man/one woman formula? Surely we can say that this country isn't ready for polygamy right now (to the consternation of Muslims and certain old-school Mormons, not to mention other more 'exotic' schools of religious thought) but suzy's stand is the only logical one I can think of: the state recognizes committed relationships between two individuals and the ceremony, just as it is now, is performed by a 'holy' person of whatever ilk under the purportedly benign eye of God who is NOT a representative of the state.

I guess what it is nabisco is that there is just such a huge cognitive dissonance issue with being "full-throatedly against negative discrimination against gay people" and then, y'know, being okay with negatively discriminating against them ie ACTIVELY voting to strip rights out of state constitutions and whatnot. These are like mutually exclusive positions any way you cut it.

I think you we can all agree that the best tactic is by not acting like a self-righteous lunatics en masse. That said I am okay with people venting self-righteously occassionally. Some people need to vent sometimes. Getting all scoldy "you are not helping anything with this behavior" strikes me as just about as lame as the self-righteous venting if you ask me.

M. White otm with just a smattering of the logical fallacies inherent in such a position re: the "sanctity" of marriage

Nabisco, they are ok with homosexuals being second class.

ie, the thing about gays doing it is the "sanctity" can't be faked. and we love plausible [sic] deniability in Athis land.

guys, you know that telling other people what they believe based on your own definitions is a really bad way to win support for anything, right?

Shakey, in terms of who you've met: consider how many polls in this country come back with really striking amounts of people saying they're in favor of civil unions that give gay couples loads of the basic rights of married straight ones -- but a lot of those people drawing the line at marriage. This is a pretty clear indication of something. It indicates that there are a lot of people who want to be fair to gay couples, and feel like those couples should be offered a legal status that's as close as possible to that of married hetero couples -- but that these people draw back right when you get to the word "marriage." This suggests to me that their problem isn't with the homosexuality, it's with their idea of that one word. I mean, there's a significant number of people out there who would be fine with gay couples being treated exactly like married hetero couples, just as long as no one used the magic word "marriage" about it! For them the issue is social organization, not sexuality.

I guess what it is nabisco is that there is just such a huge cognitive dissonance issue with being "full-throatedly against negative discrimination against gay people" and then, y'know, being okay with negatively discriminating against them ie ACTIVELY voting to strip rights out of state constitutions and whatnot. These are like mutually exclusive positions any way you cut it.

This is, once again just presuming the truth of your argument; it's completely circular. We may think they're wrong, but there are a whole lot of people in this country who have ways of cutting it that do not add up this way, and if you want to argue with them, you have to actually argue with them.

(p.s., just for the record, I think we are talking nationally now -- being "against gay marriage" does not, for non-californians, necessarily equate to actively stripping out previously granted rights)

but a lot of those people drawing the line at marriage. This is a pretty clear indication of something.

yeah its a pretty clear indication of confusing semantics, ie what the fuck do they mean by "marriage" if they're okay with gays having all the same legal rights as married couples but not letting them be actually "married"

suzy's position is the real only logical one and should be the endgoal.

what the fuck do they mean by "marriage" if they're okay with gays having all the same legal rights as married couples but not letting them be actually "married"

here's a hint: they mean gays should still be second class citizens who are excluded from the society's explicit approval

I'm not sure that the California Supreme Court shouldn't uphold Prop 8, btw, but the 'logic' (not all the current legal arguments, mind you) behind its backers is such special pleading, pseudo- or anti-science gibberish and its intent is either such specific promotion of religious values or such 'at-least-we're-not-freaks' half-baked misunderstood Darwinism, that it really should be shredded mercilessly.

shakey, i'll remind you that you're talking about my mother and to go fuck yourself.

(M. White otm about the court's legal logic - which is why my initial post recommended going back to the ballot box. Amendments can be repealed ya know)

elmo I'm sorry your mother is crazy

mine is too if that's any consolation

Nabisco, I have a feeling that Shakey and I (whatever our other views on Federalism) are kind of arguing to Californians about this - the people who only voted Prop 8 in with 52%.

(okay that was uncalled for sorry)

I *know* that the viewpoint is flawed in a major way, and I don't savor it any more than you, but this is POLITICS. It's about getting shit done. It's about engaging people about their beliefs without writing them off or taking them for granted or pegging people as morally wrong because their opinions aren't in line with your own. Believe it or not, with the right arguments, a lot of minds CAN be changed and marriage equality IS possible. These people are REALLY not half as unreasonable as you think they are!

I just... how do you defeat something that's totally illogical with logic? it breaks my brane

Shakey manages to recommend, at the same time:

(a) going back to the ballot box! repeal it!
(b) make the case for repeal by telling people they are insane and bigoted, because voters love that!

no replace b) with "run an organized, well-funded, ethically compelling campaign"

%52 is not a huge margin of victory and could be easily beaten under the right circumstances

Shakey, that was crass and you are right to apologize but elmo your affection for your mother is not a proper refuge from the essential point: this enshrines in the Constitution of my state a kind of obscurantist discrimination that sits badly with me given its history of genocide of indigenous people, contempt for the local population from whom it was 'stolen' and outright legalized racism against various peoples of Asian origin. If one thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman then marry that way but get your religiously based intolerance out of the legal foundation of the land.

I would like to point out for all the nonsense on this thread about how pro-gay marriage people are completely fucking up and alienating people left and right, a similar passed in CA eight years ago with 70 some-odd % of the vote and it just barely squeaked by last year with 52%.

getting it on the ballot in a non-presidential election year would probably help, for ex

x-post

tryin to keep it positive here

hugs all around!

I guess my approach is just what I've been using on my parents and siblings for the last 12 years, which is: I will have gay friends and roommates and etc and I'm going to put them in your life and you will be polite to them, and eventually you'll realize that you know (closeted) gay people too, and that you like them without thinking about their sexuality, and therefore it's hypocritical to suddenly decide they're bad and going to hell just because YOU just realized they prefer to sleep with men.

So once you get someone to that state, it's equally hypocritical for them to start caviling about some made-up definition of "marriage"??

I used to work with a guy who was deaf and gay. Unfortunately he asked a coworker out once (who was straight) so word got out that he was gay. But he didn't know the word got out. Since he was deaf everyone (including team leaders and boss) would make fun of him for it WITH HIM STANDING RIGHT THERE but with his back turned. It came out that he thought my coworker/roommate was really cute so our team leader cornered my roommate and asked him if he was afraid of getting raped. Such a disgusting place. In good ol progressive California. I guess it was ok because all races united in their homosexual bashing.

I *know* that the viewpoint is flawed in a major way, and I don't savor it any more than you, but this is POLITICS. It's about getting shit done. It's about engaging people about their beliefs without writing them off or taking them for granted or pegging people as morally wrong

See, my point is that to mix church and state is to corrupt both. How is that not sufficiently 'conservative'? If you really think that, in the end, there is a God who has revealed the proper path, take it, governments and majorities be damned, but to try to impose it just leads to hypocrisy. To prefer to enforce a code on a man who has not faith is not to save him but merely to compel him, to 'take him for granted or peg him as morally wrong'.

"I'm finding it really frustrating, condescending, presumptuous, and sneering..."

I feel this way about most posts on ILX, esp yours.

;) ;) ;)

helpful

michael, i think we may be talking at cross-purposes here -- I was referring to the practice of persuading others, which in my experience necessitates being at least initially open and non-judgemental about hearing and engaging their opinions & values, no matter how repugnant they may be. not sure where you went with that, tho?

no more or less helpful than arguing over the fact that people have different gut reactions to gay marriage due to a wide range of complicating factors from religion to upbringing to politics to etcetcetc. your posts in general seem so self-assured that you SEE THE BIG PICTURE that you don't realize that the BIG PICTURE is actually just a mess of loose ends and assorted opinions. i am glad you can see that different viewpoints exist on nearly ever topic, but it's not constructive to equivocate endlessly.

"i can't believe you guys don't see it my way! i mean, i see it your way, but c'mon look at this!"

good fucking work ilx, you are a melting pop of tradition and cultural experience.

http://www.solwerks.net/blog/images/melted-popsicle.jpg

But why are we letting these people off the hook? Why is a bigot not a bigot? A person who is against gay marriage is against homosexuality. Period. You can't parse the two. It's like saying "I'm okay with interracial couples and people who date outside of their race, I just..." or "I think blacks should be able to go everywhere except...restaurants." Prejudice is prejudice.

not sure where you went with that, tho?

Rambling, perhaps. ;)

My pont is that I will not concede to them (and I do debate this often and respectfully - as always - with anti Prop 8 folks) that their current position is either more conservative nor more friendly to religion.

open and non-judgemental about hearing and engaging their opinions & values, no matter how repugnant bigoted they may be

melting pop goes the weasel.

Damn, Daylight Savings -- one less hour for this unmarriageable sod to get laid. Toodles!

That's odd, Ian, as I feel like I've been making the opposite argument here, and haven't really ever presented my way of looking at things -- my main goal here has been to point out that (a) I think a lot of the blanket claims made here about gay marriage's opponents aren't necessarily accurate, and that (b) there are certain kinds of rhetoric that don't strike me as helpful in winning over those opponents.

I don't think either of those things constitute equivocation.

Also, elmo, frankly I think I will tailor my approach wrt the person I'm trying to persuade. If it were my mother, I might use this approach but if it were someone else with whatever rationale for their support of Prop 8, I would use another.

xp That might be your main goal, but the overall effect is come off as big ol' scold.

ok, michael, i guess i hear that.

we're going in circles here now but it really doesn't surprise me that political expediency is a completely alien concept to some people here.

nice chat, guys. i'm out.

well christ, aight, check y'all later

Ian and nabisco, I think about this a lot. One the one had, as the Prop 8 proponents have pointed out, they have been vilified and called bigots (hardly as popular as it once was), threatened and made to quit their jobs (the man from the Sacto Opera, iirc) and there is something potentially unseemly about such self-righteous vociferousness but, otoh, many issues have been turned by just such people, people who refused to be polite and play by the rules and conventions that societies construct to protect themsleves from their own inconsistencies and unspoken rationales.

I am again going to point out that 70 some odd % of Californians voted for a gay marriage ban eight years ago and 52% voted for Prop 8 six months ago. Unless you really think that Sean Penn or Shakey Mo Collier and their ilk were responsible for not getting that down below 50%, I think the hysteria over political expediency is kind of misplaced.

However, Alex, and you may recall this in the aftermath of the vote when there were accusations that Black Churches fucked the no-on-8-as-a-discrimination issue that the campaign against 8 infamously neglected to engage with those congragations thinking, 'Oh, we'll never persuade them anyway.'

So?

I dunno the details on the above, but I'm not there if 'oh we'll never persuade them anyway' is really that bad a strategy - considering a finite amount of time, resources etc, it makes the most sense to target the demographic that is most likely to change their vote.

I take your point, iatee, but my understanding was that the no on 8 folks alienated a few churches needlessly and who knows it might have cost them 2%.

They alienated by deciding that they will never persuade them anyway?

they alienated them by having hot gay sex in their parking lots

^^^ best GOTV campaign ever

they paved paradise and put up a glory hole

lolz

it's just hard, i've found, to engage folks on the other side in any kind of productive debate. often you have fundies at the ready with unfounded, ridiculous, hateful suppositions, eg gay marriage > polygamy (or pedophilia! or BESTIALITY!!), and it seems that when the argument against gay marriage ISN'T rooted in religious doctrine, people's justifications become vague and arbitrary. or as Shakey suggested upthread, this ill-defined place of just "grossed-out". just my experience...

You guys should talk to my parents: I can't talk about gayness at all.

elmo, you've been insanely OTM all day on this thread, and I now want to buy you a beer and shot.

For what it's worth, like Elmo, I can think of countless older people I know who have no antipathy to homosexuality, are full-throatedly against negative discrimination against gay people, have no weird ideas about the gay people in their personal lives, and yet, when it comes to marriage, hit a point of major internal conflict, because it threatens one of their basic understandings of how society operates

This must be repeated over and over again.

Ian the only thing I said on this thread was met with "is this some kind of joke?" so you know, yeah. Go ILX. Gotta love it.

that was a serious question!

trayce i have not directed a single comment at you for this entire thread.

it's cool, Ian, she's agreeing with you about me / ILX

you're right--that is cool.

dude, if I have super-offended you recently, or something, you have my apologies

Yeah Ian I was supporting your comment sorry.

Nabisco: ok, what I think I meant was "marriage is a religious construct". I said christian though because my understanding is the concept of "marriage" as used by the people in this context against gay marriage, is the whole "wedding at Caana" invention of "marriage" in the bible. Hence, christian construct.

If I am totally wrong on that count blame the people who taught me this ie churchies lol.

haha no you haven't super offended me at all, but if you feel like you can complain about the posting style of others then it's only fair that you get to put up with people complaining about your posting style--ya dig?

what happened? I'm confused.

I should also apologise and say I knee jerked - I just get a bit frustrated on ILX because its hard to participate in serious threads without being shot at unless you know the topic 300% inside out.

But I dont want to get all Dee about it.

I see -- yeah, I phrased my comment badly back in fall but I actually couldn't tell if there was some level of irony involved there.

Ian -- not to belabor this but I don't think I've complained about anyone's posting style on here! When I said I felt like something was frustrating/presumptuous/condescending I didn't mean anyone's posts (I have no issue with the way anyone's expressed themselves here), I meant the attitudes and stances we were arguing about. I didn't say anyone here was personally frustrating, I said I found certain positions frustrating! (Also I said so fairly earnestly, rather than putting in sly zingers.) Honestly, if I made a list of ILX threads where I felt like I was being snippy, this would be way far down the list.

^^ whatever, I take that back, never mind I posted, it's not a big deal

I mean, seriously, guys, we all agree on the merits of this issue, and yet I'm finding it really frustrating, condescending, presumptuous, and sneering that you're resistant to admit that many fairly decent people feel this way -- now just imagine how they must feel!

― nabisco, Friday, March 6, 2009 9:43 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Seems pretty clear you were denigrating the validity of certain ILXors opinions.

but whatever man, you otm so let's move on.

dude, I apologize if it seems that way, but my point was that if I could find find those arguments frustrating, despite agreeing with them, then imagine how they'd sound to people who weren't sure

it certainly wasn't intended as a personal criticism, and I apologize to anyone who received it as one -- it was a comment, ironically enough, about how rhetoric can be received

^^ which kinda shows me, in terms of petard-hoisting

can't really fathom elmo's mother thing on this thread. Can't tell if you were joking, but did you insert your mother into this argument as a way of making it a personal attack on you if someone disagrees with you? I'm pretty glad this isn't a usual ilx tactic.

For what it's worth, like Elmo, I can think of countless older people I know who have no antipathy to homosexuality, are full-throatedly against negative discrimination against gay people, have no weird ideas about the gay people in their personal lives, and yet, when it comes to marriage, hit a point of major internal conflict, because it threatens one of their basic understandings of how society operates

this seems inherently paradoxical to me.

like, just because y'all are taking a "hay guyz there's shades of grey" line, doesn't mean that the waters aren't muddied with bad shit. Like basically why does this change "their basic understandings of how society operates". Its like you're not following the tail all the way.

Just quick: Elmo was responding to the claim that it was impossible for someone to be generally "okay" with homosexuality but still have reservations about gay marriage specifically. He wasn't inserting family members as a way of making it a personal attack -- he was mentioning a family member as a way of saying "these people exist, and I know because I know one of them very closely."

This is kind of just an argument about what we mean by "okay," but I really do strongly feel that Elmo's right here -- that there are any number of people whose basic impulse here is to try and be fair-minded, who aren't harboring any immense bigotry, but have a big cultural idea about the issue of marriage. If you want to argue that that's objectively anti-gay, then yes, there's a fair argument there; but I think Elmo's point here is that it's more productive to engage those people more directly, and not just say "well if you're against gay marriage then you are anti-gay, period."

first person to suggest that my mom doesn't REALLY support me gets the full force of my untethered rage, btw.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, March 6, 2009 9:35 PM (Yesterday)

Fine, but if the root of their position is bigotry, then isn't trying to appeal in a way that doesn't take this into consideration a bit daft. Like if its a spade, and you think it might be then let's call it that, you know, for the sake of argument.

also, you know when you call such a wide swath of the voting population "bigots" you are calling potential voters dead to you on ideological grounds? my argument this whole time is that we have to engage these people and maybe get votes out of it

what is so hard to understand here

why does everyone have this pissy need to be RIGHT about shit, and why doesn't anybody want to get it DONE

I suppose I don't really care, I don't live in your country so whatevs.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/03/06/rank_incompetence

I'm just going to quote the OTM WTF? part of Dan Savage's piece here, all emphasis and link by Dan:

While the "Yes on 8" campaign was telling African Americans that Barack Obama opposed same-sex marriage, the "No on 8" campaign was sitting on a letter by BARACK FUCKING OBAMA that said this:

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law... And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. ...

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.

One of the "No on 8" campaign's highly-paid consultants says now—now—that "maybe we should have" used the letter during the campaign, perhaps in an effort to reach out to African American voters, or black preachers.

YEAH, THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN A GOOD FUCKING IDEA, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE.

Haha see that's rank fucking incompetence though. The issue wasn't that they didn't think it was a good idea to reach out to people, it's that they had no fucking clue how to run a successful campaign in any fashion. I mean you don't think using a letter by a guy who got close to 60% of the vote in the state of CA in some positive fashion for your campaign was a GOOD IDEA!?!?!

yes, but that rank incompetence did not play in the media cycle very well, leading to things like, say, the title of this thread

Lance Ian Black's speech

^^no one has commented on this yet?

also, you know when you call such a wide swath of the voting population "bigots" you are calling potential voters dead to you on ideological grounds? my argument this whole time is that we have to engage these people and maybe get votes out of it

what is so hard to understand here

elmo, what's so hard to understand about the fact that shame and the seizing some measure of moral high ground was a component of like all the civil rights issues heretofore in this country, if not ever country ever??? Not that it needs to be in the mix in the same proportion or expressed in the same way but there's something wtf about fleeing from any hint of moral certitude. it's like, all politics are about when you get down to it. no you don't lead with calling persuadable voters bigots obv. or being obnoxious etc but part of the black civil rights movement was about grabbing the semi-soft-bigots and pointing to say "whoa, look at those bigots over there, buncha savages", puts people's own attidudes in stark relief in a way that doesn't necessarily involve direct castigation. there's no villain that offers that type of traction here (until/unless the state california decides to officially become one here shortly) and if you're just uncomfortable with 'march of history' narratives altogether we'll just have to disagree but there's not *nothing* to this approach

okay, but if that moral certitude is possible, wouldn't it be most productive to have that be positively defined rather than being striking an oppositional stance towards opposing viewpoints in such a way that totally obscures how varied they are -- both varied on the reasons WHY people oppose gay marriage, as well as the DEGREE OF STRENGTH of their opposition

i'm not going to retread my entire argument but there were people on this thread completely resistant to the very simple concept of plurality amongst the opposition

I would like to point out that most of the people on this thread who were so resistant also have little to no contact with the "opposition". We SFers lead pretty sheltered lives.

And the opposition we do see tends to be the lunatic sign waving variety outside of our public buildings. It's distorting, ya know.

Moral certitude is not only possible, but obligatory.

it's fucking madness, but hardly surprising. my sincere condolences. the courts rolled over the "will of the people" hardcore in the South during the 60s-70s - just as they should have. how this is any different, I haven't a fucking clue. can any of the legal minds of ILX shed any light?

If all that the southern states had to do to stop civil rights was amend their own state constitutions, they would have. The problem for the southern states was that their actions violated the U.S. Constitution, and that's why the "will of the people" did not matter. If you can convince the U.S. Supreme Court that denying equal marriage rights to gays violates the U.S. Constitution, then that would be analagous.

RE: "marriage is a religious construct"

That's true, but for thousands of years and only up until the last couple of centuries, governments derived their authorities from religion. We've been trying to untangle the two since the enlightenment. But it's not really surprising that there are still knots to be untangled, and that some people are mentally unable to reconcile the notion of how a secular society might construct marriage with their sense of their own religious tradition AND how things have always been.

here's a hint: they mean gays should still be second class citizens who are excluded from the society's explicit approval

In my experience this goes the other way. It seems to me that for a lot of the most ardent gay marriage supporters that I know, the issue serves as a proxy for society's explicit acceptance of gays. But for the opponents that I know, it doesn't seem to be about using government in an expressive way about gays; it seems to be about a kind of Burkean discomfort with changing institutions + laziness and a lack of empathy. There's probably an ickiness factor involved too, but that seems to operate at a subconscious level for some.

there were people on this thread completely resistant to the very simple concept of plurality amongst the opposition

the plurarity amongst the opposition absolutely needs to be acknowledged and interrogated to a point but the message on the ground just isn't going to end up as granular as all this (except on a personal level, which is not what i've been talking about personally) is all i'm saying, and there's a way to wear self-righteousness well. it's jsut the challenge of any progressive movement.
i'm just getting visions of you and nabisco bankrolling 4-foot bumper stickers, i mean i'll buy one cuz youre the homies but dude :)

mister jim otm

shame and the seizing some measure of moral high ground was a component of like all the civil rights issues heretofore in this country, if not ever country ever???

In the terms that we've been having this conversation, this comparison is just absolutely untrue, I think! At NO point did the Civil Rights movement of the 60s have much ground to stand up and say that, e.g., segregation was wrong and anyone who thought otherwise was a rank bigot who wasn't worth talking to. Have you ever heard MLK talking that way about anyone? The mainstream of rhetoric in that movement was exactly the kind of rhetoric I was talking about way upthread, which involved (a) explaining the very simple human things you want, and why, (b) physically demonstrating exactly the ways those simple things were denied to you (lunch-counter sit-ins, marches, "I AM A MAN") and (c) calling on people positively to support that -- this is a moral high ground that invites people up onto it, not one that shames and shuns anyone who's even slightly down the slope. (Certainly not one that tells people they're either 100% on the high ground or else a bigot.) If black people in the 1960s south had taken the position that most everyone who opposed them was a bigot not worth bothering with, there would have been no Civil Rights movement on the streets.

One important reason for that, that's maybe relevant here: the mere fact of getting courts or the federal government to acknowledge the rights of African-Americans wouldn't be a complete victory if the actual white majority around them weren't on some level brought along; people needed to be won over as much as the state, for reasons that should be kind of obvious and empirical here. This isn't as much of an issue with gay marriage, it's true, because a lot of the rights involved are sort of privately exercised. But still, even if the Supreme Court magically conferred the right, and the possibility of a Constitutional amendment getting through was zero, the very next challenge would still be a social one, of working to get the people around you to respect those marriages. And this brings things right back to the level of engaging with people, a bit, doesn't it? I mean, maybe this doesn't matter, given the age factor, the way older people who are resistant to this stuff are constantly replaced by younger people who aren't -- but it seems to me that while it'd be a victory to win rights over the backs of people who oppose them, by beating them and going nyah-nyah-nyah bigots, it'd be a much bigger victory to win rights by engaging people, recognizing their stumbling blocks on the issue, and bringing them along with you.

(Alex, as far as places where you might find the non-lunatic opposition, I feel like if you went to any number of more-educated medium-sized Midwestern towns -- say, if you went to a middle-class neighborhood in Bloomington, Illinois and talked to some families -- you'd find plenty of the type we were talking about: people who want to be fair and non-discriminatory, but aren't sure about marriage, and aren't convinced that defining marriage the way they're used to defining it is really "discriminatory" so long as people can have civil unions or something. The best argument I can imagine making to them is "well, here are some specific things gay couples are deprived of by being excluded from the word 'marriage,' and do you really think they should be deprived of those things?")

^^^i really do like the points you've made here, nabisco...

my main concern with: the mere fact of getting courts or the federal government to acknowledge the rights of African-Americans wouldn't be a complete victory if the actual white majority around them weren't on some level brought along -- is that i would imagine there were probably 3-4 states in the deep south where it took until the 90s for a nominal majority of whites to truly appreciate the importance of equality for all. i say that because it likely took that long for enough people born after desegregation to reach adulthood, or enough of the old guard to simply pass away. Trent Lott's wistfulness for an alternate reality where Strom Thurmond had been president wasn't just good 'ol boy ball-fondling: he meant that stuff. Being from here, I can guarantee literally millions of others - even "normal", pleasant, white power group-disdaining, neighborly folk - feel similarly, even if they do so privately. Thank heavens for the Constitution and those willing to uphold it.

If you can convince the U.S. Supreme Court that denying equal marriage rights to gays violates the U.S. Constitution, then that would be analagous.

i'm certainly no master of Con Law, but my understanding leads me to the conclusion that it does violate the Constitution. Here's hoping for enough Justices to eventually agree.

my understanding

**in fairness - my brittle, child-like understanding

The mainstream of rhetoric in that movement was exactly the kind of rhetoric I was talking about way upthread, which involved (a) explaining the very simple human things you want, and why, (b) physically demonstrating exactly the ways those simple things were denied to you (lunch-counter sit-ins, marches, "I AM A MAN") and (c) calling on people positively to support that

dude ^ this is the message, not the takeaway, and if the movement started out thinking this and this alone was going to bring us home (if only), the movement was also smart enough as conditions changed to make stark the contrasts between itself v. the ugliness of the opposition and persuadable america themselves and the ugliness of their neighbors.
not that anyone welcomed that level of oppressive reaction but mlk, gandhi obv. understood the value of moral positioning in the midst of just those conditions and how it would play, i mean that seems like a great deal of the (tactical) purpose of nonviolent resistance, it's not rocket science. the movement was smart enough to drive the point home by not driving the point home as such but if you think the above affirmatives were all white onlookers were meant (or even likely) to take away from all those situations, and that that alone was enough to shift public support as planned i don't know what to say. i don't get the nyah nyah/not talking to bigots part, this may be a silly argument that deserves that type of extrapolation but that's not what i've heard here? btw at this point i'm reallly not looking to plow any of this into what this thread is about i just think your analysis is weird on this point

If you can convince the U.S. Supreme Court that denying equal marriage rights to gays violates the U.S. Constitution, then that would be analagous.

i'm certainly no master of Con Law, but my understanding leads me to the conclusion that it does violate the Constitution. Here's hoping for enough Justices to eventually agree.

Expect pro-gay marriage lawyers to base their case on the Fourteenth Amendment when it eventually goes before SCOTUS.

BUT HOW DOES IT AFFECT THEM PERSONALLY IF ONLY ONE EVEN ONE GAY COUPLE IS MARRIED?

This is how we will convince them. We will show them how it doesn't even fucking impact their life.

I personally have little patience with these idiots. I'd rather shit on them in bed at night.

But I know there are people out there who are not me who have the patience and a certain state of mind that could effectively persuade these fools, and I salute these people, I really do. I just don't have it. Me, personnally, I don't feel I have much to contribute. But there will be others who will, I feel sure of that. People who can persuade.

This is how we will convince them. We will show them how it doesn't even fucking impact their life.

i don't think this is true - people can be as insular as imaginable and still object to what they perceive to be society's ills: it's 'the breakdown of family' not the breakdown of my family, and i think family fits with marriage as being something that touches an awkward spot with nay-sayers (or yay-sayers, as it's prop 8). people aren't going to opt out and just deal with their own thing, as there's a general concern with what's happening to the society, and a tangential effect of thinking about how they'd interact with that society (which i know i know wouldn't affect them, but it might seem to in bogey-man terms). people object like they object to a thousand other things that won't affect them - rap music video game knife violence and underage pregnancy &c.

will, you're absolutely right about the civil rights movement not exactly bringing everybody magically along -- still, I think the (mainstream) tactics were up framed in a way that tried to get the job done while minimizing the inevitable resentments; I mean, take the rhetoric of the mainstream movement, which was really low on recriminations and really high on hopeful talk about a better future

tremendoid I don't know what distinction you're making between my saying "rhetoric" and your saying "message!" -- I agree completely with what you're saying about "making stark the contrasts between itself v. the ugliness of the opposition," which is actually what I feel like I've been urging on this thread, really. If supporters of gay marriage were to take the extreme position that their opponents were uniformly lunatics and bigots, surely that decreases the moral contrast between them and the opposite extreme, who'd claim (just as aggressively) that they were immoral and marriage-corrupting. (And it decreases it in a way that makes it easier for mainstream trying-to-be-fair hesitant-about-marriage people to fence-sit, because both sides' arguments start to look like they're about aggressive condemnation rather than friendly persuasion. Which is weird to me in part because I think the merits of the substantive arguments for gay marriage are in fact the more persuasive ones!)

Part of what we've argued about by proxy on this thread might be a minor difference of opinion here about the issue itself: I'm willing to say that I don't think everyone who has issues with gay marriage is a fool or a lunatic or motivated primarily by bigotry. (And before anyone asks I think I might actually say the same thing about integration.) I think bigotry and discomfort are in there for sure, but there's a number of people who struggle with this stuff earnestly and based on stuff that's important to them that I can't entirely gainsay, and while I disagree with their conclusions I don't think they're crazy or not worth talking to.

Maggie Gallagher, fuck you and your self-pity.

Gay marriage is the point where we as a society decide collectively and publicly that many, many other things are more important to us than connecting mothers and fathers to their children. We discard marriage as an idea prior to and bigger than government. Marriage becomes something that was dreamed up by legislators on a good day, rather than rooted in creation itself.

To be sure, it works in both directions: The only reason gay marriage is plausible is because we were already losing the idea that marriage is bigger than government, that its "sanctity" comes from the intrinsic sacredness of bringing together male and female in the service of making the future happen. But officially endorsing gay unions as marriages is a very big marker of cultural change: It visibly discards as false this once honored and honorable ideal, now considered stigmatized, backwards, and discriminatory.

Not to mention, thanks solely to gay marriage, we've now reached the point where getting government out of the marriage business is being advanced by conservative intellectuals. Just a few short years ago, that idea was solely the province of the radical Left. (The conservatives who do this do so as part of a futile attempt to reduce the law's power to redefine marriage's intrinsic meaning). And I'm supposed to believe this whole gay marriage thing doesn't matter?

I understand why gay marriage advocates like Deroy attempt to make people feel ashamed or embarrassed about caring so much about the meaning of marriage. This is, to my mind, one of the most corrupting things about the way the gay marriage debate is being conducted: Not only do so many now try to make people afraid to speak up for the good, they seek to make people ashamed of the good itself.

If marriage is "the good", why doesn't she want everyone to make use of it? You'd think the more people that got married/cared about marriage, the better it wd be for the institution. Otherwise it's goin the way of the allosaurus, lady.

Why don't these people actively campaign to abolish divorce, is my question. (or do they and I'm just missing it)

divorce is a sacred institution between a man and a woman

we've now reached the point where getting government out of the marriage business is being advanced by conservative intellectuals. Just a few short years ago, that idea was solely the province of the radical Left. (The conservatives who do this do so as part of a futile attempt to reduce the law's power to redefine marriage's intrinsic meaning). And I'm supposed to believe this whole gay marriage thing doesn't matter?

what's the problem? you guys at NRO are always going on about how the govt ruins everything. here's your chance to put up or shut up. i forget 'liberty' and 'freedom' are just vague platitudes to you. assholes.

I understand why gay marriage divorce advocates like Dan Perry attempt to make people feel ashamed or embarrassed about caring so much about the meaning of marriage.

If marriage is "the good", why doesn't she want everyone to make use of it? You'd think the more people that got married/cared about marriage, the better it wd be for the institution. Otherwise it's goin the way of the allosaurus, lady.

― How can there be male ladybugs? (Laurel), Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:50 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is part of an argument that has always appealed to me even if it doesn't make all that much sense. i.e. if marriage is the only place sex can happen and it's the best way to make straight people behave sexually, why not let gays do it because that way they're not out fucking everyone in sight or on the news or whatever, they're at home fixing dinner.

i think i'm attracted to this faulty reasoning bcz i really really hate the 'omg gays have so much more/more casual sex than straight people, think about it, two horny guys, where's the girl to feel like she's loved?" bullshit that is accepted for truth among pretty much everyone. if there was a society-dictated thing, accepted by everyone, that you could just do like marriage and follow along, play the part, have someone to keep you from being lonely even if you hate them sometimes and want to split up but you don't, you work on it because you're supposed to make it work, even if you fuck around on the side and keep it a secret like every other straight hypocrite, i bet it would be easier to 'settle down' and maybe make life easier in general, idk.

should have been 'if marriage is the only place sex can happen for religious pro-fam people' in the first graf

alfred you skipped the best para!

Is it mere coincidence that this resurgence in illegitimacy happened during the five years in which gay marriage has become (not thanks to me or my choice) the most prominent marriage issue in America — and the one marriage idea endorsed by the tastemakers to the young in particular? I don't think we can ever know for sure because the cultural changes that affect sexual behavior consist of myriad inputs that social science will seldom be able to tease out. Marriage was already in crisis.

trans: "can we blame fags for this? no, but i'm going to!"

Since no scientific evidence conclusively proves that gays have so poisoned my marriage that my husband ogles Kathryn-Jean Lopez on the Bill Buckley Alaska Cruise, can I make gays into scapegoats? Sure!"

To be fair he's staring at the spectacle, not out of any sort of attraction.

http://www.tourcart.net/tourmate/img/tours/10264-1.jpg

I think seeing Kathryn Jean Lopez would probably make my husband gay.

snap. but guys, you gotta figure gay marriage could potentially fuck with one's shot of at least being a beard.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/july-dec03/0731gaygallagher1.jpg

^gallagher

(i'm sorry that was over the line)

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/clashofthetitans-medusa.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/26/schmidt-gay-marriage/

Former McCain campaign chief strategist Steve Schmidt told the Washington Blade in an interview last week that he is “personally supportive” of same-sex marriage rights. Schmidt, who spoke to the Log Cabin Republicans at the Republican National Convention last year, added that he thinks Americans are “troubled” when they see Republicans “trying to stigmatize” the gay community:

“I’m personally supportive of [marriage] equality for gay couples and I believe that it will happen over time,” he said. “I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hardworking, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they’re troubled by it.” […]

“I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage,” he said. “The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues.”

Schmidt, who is a California resident, also told the Blade that he voted against Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage ballot initiative that McCain supported as a candidate.

good on him.