What, specifically, is the satirical point being made in this Onion article?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Gay marraige Proponents Hope To Send Message To Religious Right Before Election

BOSTON (Aug. 11)—With the presidential election approaching, gay rights advocates are working in Massachusetts and across the nation to bring national attention to the issue of same-sex marriage.

"This election year, we want to make sure everybody hears us loud and clear: Marriage is a civil right owed to all couples—gay, straight, or otherwise," said Mary Kleibold of the Boston-based advocacy group The Future Belongs To Us. "This year, the nation's gays and lesbians will be sending a clear message to the religious right: You can no longer ignore us."

Proponents of gay marriage have reason to be optimistic. Earlier this year, state judges in Massachusetts and California ruled to permit same-sex unions, and President Bush's subsequent proposal for a constitutional ban on gay marriage was voted down by Congress.

Invigorated by victories like these, Bill Yaeger, a lawyer and co-chairman of the activist group Pride Now, said his group "plans to throw a spotlight on the gay-marriage issue" before November.

"My group plans to use the next election to galvanize support for our cause," Yaeger said. "Every concerned voter in America needs to realize that the gay-rights movement is growing larger every day. It's time to sit up, take notice, and do something."

Yaeger said he does not expect the battle to legalize gay marriage to be easy.

"Even if we don't win any serious legislative battles, we'll get people talking," Yaeger said. "The issue might help to mobilize political forces in America. I just have the feeling that we're onto something big right now, and that this year will go down in history as the year the tide turned for gay rights."

Columbus, OH, activist Jerry Farmer said "it's ridiculously outdated" to deny gays the right to file joint tax returns, receive family health-insurance benefits, and enjoy inheritance rights.

"Many politicians are frightened by the taboo topic of gay marriage," Farmer said. "But we're not going to let the bigotry of a handful of conservative policy makers silence us. It's time to let America tell Washington what it thinks about gay men and women. We're not living in the dark ages anymore. From Oregon to Ohio, it's time for the people to stand up and be heard."

Farmer said the issue could motivate more Americans to vote.

"The gay marriage issue might even show up on the ballots as a referendum in some states," Farmer said. "If so, we may influence voters in ways we never imagined."

"Even if the gay-marriage issue only motivates a few thousand people to come out to the polls, we'll be able to look back and know we've done our part to influence this country," Farmer added.

San Francisco gay options trader Barry Dilham supports the idea of making same-sex marriage a larger part of the national dialogue.

"Conservatives don't want us to be heard," Dilham said. "But, if we keep up the pressure, the religious right will be forced to acknowledge that this controversial issue is out there and respond."

wha, Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:28 (twenty years ago)

From the I'm Dumb and I'm British Dept.

wha, Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:29 (twenty years ago)

the people bringing national attention to gay marriage are members of the religious right, not gay marriage advocates

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:34 (twenty years ago)

also the whole "we can influence the election" bit maybe, considering the issue is thought to perhaps have galvanized the religious right and helped GWB win.

Riot Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:35 (twenty years ago)

Liberals cannot use conservative tactics? (They are not mainstream.) Or, who is setting the terms of the debate?

youn, Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:40 (twenty years ago)

it's widely believed that the gay marriage question was a factor in getting followers of the religious right, many of whom don't normally vote, to get out and vote, thereby helping bush to get reelected. so, the "joke" is that gay marriage proponents succeeded in making it an issue, in getting people to stop ignoring them, and so on, but that the results weren't what they'd hoped.

it's one of the weaker onion pieces i've seen.

dan (dan), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:41 (twenty years ago)

Wow, this is the subtlest Onion article I've ever seen. If there is a point at all ...

Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:42 (twenty years ago)

the point is in my previous post. it's not subtle. the sarcasm would be obvious if someone spoke it instead of writing it.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:43 (twenty years ago)

But that's sort of silly, because gay rights activists really HAVE bringing a lot of attention to the issue in the last couple of years -- maybe not specifically before the election, but they weren't exactly keeping quiet about it.

Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:48 (twenty years ago)

gay rights advocates are not the people who sought to make it a national political issue. some major gay political figures opposed even state and local political and legal activity.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:50 (twenty years ago)

Um, I'm really not trying to be critical of the gay rights movement, but usually protests, civil unions as civil disobedience, etc. are intended to get attention, and that's what's been going on, even if some leaders were against it.

Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:54 (twenty years ago)

um, you're totally wrong.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 05:01 (twenty years ago)

gay people sought to draw wider attention to gay marriage ceremonies after they were attacked by the right wing. no one was making Vermont a national issue, a year earlier.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 05:03 (twenty years ago)

I thought it just got attention because the media gave it attention. It's not really surprising that the media did.

Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 6 January 2005 05:10 (twenty years ago)

"entitlement"

youn, Thursday, 6 January 2005 05:13 (twenty years ago)

"But, if we keep up the pressure, the religious right will be forced to acknowledge that this controversial issue is out there and respond."

And respond they did, didn't they?

I think that this article is in the same vein as the Bodybuilder Strongman Becomes Governor of Most Populous State one they had in 2003. Not one word of the piece was satirical, making it one of the funniest pieces they've published.

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:32 (twenty years ago)

The payoff is presumably that this wasn't actually from the Onion but from a genuine ploitical opinion site?

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

Gabbneb is OTM.

Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 6 January 2005 19:42 (twenty years ago)

It's definitely one of those 'life is stranger than fiction' pieces they do.

Kevan (Kevan), Thursday, 6 January 2005 20:01 (twenty years ago)

I don't think dan's and gabbneb's interpretations are completely consistent. I think gabbneb assumes that the gay marriage ceremonies that initially occurred were not political acts, i.e., the intention of the parties involved was not to succeed in making it an issue. And there's the deeper question of whether or not going about what you think should be your normal daily life is calling attention to something.

youn, Thursday, 6 January 2005 20:09 (twenty years ago)

This should be totally obvious from the line about the ballot measures, which were added by ri*ht-win*ers to *et their base to the polls in swin* states and those with hot senate races.

abbnab, Thursday, 6 January 2005 20:20 (twenty years ago)

Or, yes, my interpretation is inconsistent with Dan's. His is incorrect.

abbnab, Thursday, 6 January 2005 20:23 (twenty years ago)

was it actually written before the election? very prescient if it was.

Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Thursday, 6 January 2005 21:04 (twenty years ago)

Rlevant anecdote... there are a host of major races in AZ in '06 and the state Republicans want a ballot measure (const amdt, I believe) to draw people to the polls. Ok, says Dem *overnor Janet Napolitano, if this is so important, let's do it this year, which takes it off the '06 ballot. Now the Republicans are pissed.

abbnab, Thursday, 6 January 2005 21:15 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.