Asher Bertrand

She didn't say masses. She said majorities.

__________________

Shyotl

They'll teach our kids gay marriage in school! Institutionalized gayness will make Billy want to hook up at the local truckstop!

Well, at least that's what the campaign for repealing gay marriage spun(Just like in California. Fancy that).

I'm honestly beyond caring anymore, and hell, gay marriage is legal in my state. Really means jack to me, since it wouldn't be federally recognized. Gay couple, AND bi-national? Hah, no immigration rights for you! I fully expect Iowa to repeal gay marriage in 2012 as well.

The fact that so many people would deny other people rights, even though it would have zero affect on themselves, just makes me more bitter every time I see it happen.

__________________

Hana

Not in the block of text you quoted as her.....

__________________

Ceiri

If you think legislatures act in the will of the majority, you haven't been paying attention to the health care debate.

Ceiri

Makes no difference. 100 senators don't outnumber 300 million people.

Exactly.

Asher Bertrand

o.O

First she said majorities.

I responded to majorities.

Then she changed to masses.

Pick a term and stick to it, maybe? I'm not going to run in circles over this.

Sooz Pascale

Interesting article Bard, but is it just me? I read it and it said nothing. Nothing, other than gay marriage is a bad thing. There were no cogent reasons as to WHY it is a bad thing.

Sooz

__________________
Nothing sickens me more than the closed door of a library - Barbara Tuchman

Shyotl

Yes, the fact that it didn't end up that way is representative democracy in action. Of course, referendums are missing that component entirely... need not look further than California to see why that can be a very bad thing.

Ceiri

Yah, just the idea that people's civil rights should be put up for a vote is offensive.

CoyoteMomiji

Asher, suffrage was granted to women under such a small minority that it was a squeaker.

I'm exhausted, this really hurts. And Washington's not much more comforting. Come on. Separate but equal? *sigh*

__________________

Slick closed until further notice.

Recidivist Sideways: YOU'LL TAKE MY ROUGH, BUTTERY FRIENDSHIP, AND YOU'LL LIKE IT

Asher Bertrand

I'm not saying it was an easy ride and I'm not saying it's a great thing that civil rights can be voted on, but I don't think the fatalism that's being presented here is realistic or serves any good purpose.

Lo Jacobs

It is disturbing to me how much malaise is involved in this issue on the side of the people who don't really care. They say "marriage, schmarriage," they think this is just about words and don't understand why civil unions just aren't good enough. They would be just as likely to vote for or against it depending on the wording and these are the people we need to be reaching.

There is an unfortunate tendency of the Left's to create ad campaigns that appeal to the people who already agree with them -- some of them are even kind of smug.

Take this ad.


It was adorable. We loved it! It was funny and hip. But what did it say to the people who really didn't know anything about the issue? Nothing. It did not address any of their concerns at all. It did not say anything about children being taught about gays in schools, which was the big red herring that Yes on 8 dangled in front of California. It did not reassure people that nothing would change about their marriage.

I do know that Maine's ad campaign against this initiative was generally acknowledged to be better than the Yes campaign, which is hopeful, but Maine, while secular, is also rural. They are not going to respond to the kind of shiny, colorful ads like the one I used as an example. We need something better.

__________________
MY STORE//MY BLOG//FLICKR//EMAIL

Bard Jameson

I didn't say they had cogent reasons...I said:

IOW, it wasn't just a lot of "ZOMG!"

__________________

Photogenix Flickr Stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34885797@N08/

Photogenix Blog - http://photogenixstudios.blogspot.com/

Cindy Claveau

I have to agree with something I read on this issue a month or two ago - gay rights will never be granted to the same full extent as it has been for women & blacks until the movement has a powerful champion in Washington.

It wasn't just Martin Luther King who got the Civil Rights act passed. It was also a brigade of lawmakers and two Presidents who fully supported it.

Until there's less shame attached to being gay or ts/tg, I don't see any politicians taking up the cause, and until more gays come out publicly we won't see how their voting bloc stacks up with that of African-Americans.

Then, of course, you have to figure out a way to counter all the senseless fearmongering from the Right that's just preying on the ignorance of average Americans. That may be the hardest bit. Conservatives seem to be more worried about gay marriage today than about a balanced budget.

__________________
Sometimes, "I hit it with my axe" is the best solution.

Lo Jacobs

An example of a Maine pro-gay marriage ad:


Heartwarming, kind of schmaltzy, but nice.

Still not addressing anybody's concerns (and even if these concerns are ridiculous, they should still be addressed).

Trout Recreant

When Washington passed its law, I said it wasn't enough, and wouldn't be until everyone was 100% equal, but now I'm glad we at least took the step we did and paved the way to push farther. Maybe the solution is to take small steps towards equality until you get there because people are so resistant to large changes.

Although, I understand the motives and drives behind demanding full equality right now.

Asher Bertrand

I often think so to. Marriage is an emotional minefield and I'm not sure it makes the wisest battlefield choice - especially when you add in the fact that not everyone wants to or even should be married (some people know it's not a good choice for them, is what I mean there).

But take something like employment. Unless you were lucky enough to be born into wealth, all of us need jobs. And in most every place in the US, it's perfectly legal to fire an employee simply because they are gay. Or to deny them an apartment. These are things that not only affect everyone, but are perhaps less emotionally laden than marriage. I can't help but wonder if this might not have made a better "foot in the door" on the way to marriage rights.

Of course, the argument can be made that you don't have to focus on one effort while ignoring the other, and that's true. Still, there are only so many resources that can be thrown at the issue at any given time.

Sooz Pascale

I disagree. I understand and respect your point but the civil unions do not offer the same benefits that marriage do and in a state where civil unions are legal, the attitude from many will be "They got civil unions, why cant they just be happy with THAT?"

100% equality is, to me, the only logical and the only acceptable choice.

Sooz

Ceiri

They already know their own marriages won't change. This isn't about anything except their homophobia.

Cindy Claveau

If any of you haven't seen the Sean Penn movie, "Milk", I highly recommend it.

In it, one of the tactics he promotes is for supporters of gay rights to come out - the thinking being that if everyone knows someone who is openly gay/ts/tg it humanizes them and makes it easier to empathize.

Asher Bertrand

I'm not sure who you were speaking to but since your post is after mine I'll address it. I certainly never meant to make it sound like civil unions are good enough, because I don't think they are. Full equality is the only acceptable choice, but I don't know that full equality has ever come all at once. I'd rather take 50 percent now and keep working to get the other 50 percent five years from now, rather than waiting to get the full 100 percent at once. Because that day might never come.

Trout Recreant

I don't think you were addressing my comments with this, because i agree with you completely. Like I said, I was critical of Washington's law because I felt it didn't give full equality. I haven't wavered in that, but after seeing Proposition 8, and now this vote in Maine, I am glad we at least have this, and I hope that the next step is full recognition of same sex marriage. I'll support any bill here that does that 100%.

I fully understand the demand for 100% equality right now for everyone. If I were king of the world, I'd sign that into law immediately after being crowned (then I'd really muck things up, but at least I would get THAT right). But there is such an opposition from amongst the bigots, that I would really question the wisdom of rejecting small changes because they don't immediately grant full equality. If you can force those changes through and successfully defend them, then you can force through bigger changes, then bigger and finally achieve your end goal. It's neither fair nor just, but it might be the only practical way to get it through.

In any event, I will vocally and wholeheartedly support any measure that attempts to give people equal rights regardless of their orientation or gender identity.

Lo Jacobs

I disagree -- this is a perfect example of "You're either with us or you're against us." If you write these people off as bigoted you will not gain anything. It is our task to prove to America why allowing people of all sexual orientations to marry is the right and moral thing to do.

Now I do think that civil rights should never be up for votes -- this is why we have the judicial branch -- but as it is, we're stuck with it. We've gotten people this far ... we just need to push a little harder.

These people need to understand that gays are our friends, our neighbors, our relatives -- not "others".

Sooz Pascale

I actually WAS addressing Trout's point. I think we are all on the same page so far as ultimate goals, we just disagree on how best to achive them.

Sooz

Ceiri

Few people ever change their minds on a subject like this. What happens is that the old bigots die off and the kids are more open-minded.