The Gay Marriage Thing: A Word Of Warning

[Plaid Adder]

I posted this months ago in the lounge; I'm posting it again here now because it's more true and timely than ever.
*************************
This is not going to be temperate. You have been warned.

I just wasted good time trying to respond to a thread about whether the gay marriage issue is really a GOP plot. While I certainly think the GOP is pushing the issue--I wrote a column about that about a month ago, long before the MA court decision--I can already tell that there are many things about the coming discussions that we will have about this that are going to piss me off, and because I am not nice when I am pissed off especially about an issue that's important to me, I'm just gonna list a few.

If you do not want me biting your head off and breathing fire down your neck, here are a few simple DON'Ts:

1) DON'T tell me that gay marriage is a trivial or 'fringe' issue.

Because when you say that, you're basically saying that the question of whether I will be able to live in this country as a fully enfranchised citizen is not important. You know what, to me and other GBLT people this country, this issue is REALLY IMPORTANT. Because it's not just about whether we can get married; it's about whether we are always going ot be second-class citizens whose custody rights will always be in jeopardy, whose partners cannot emigrate to this country, and who will always be sold up the river by the Democratic Party because they want the right to use *us* as a punching bag instead of them.

2) DON'T tell me that the smart thing for the Democratic candidates to do is to come out against gay marriage.

I happen not to think it is ever smart to sell out a significant chunk of your base, and that's what we are. Clinton got elected with our help in 1992 and then failed us miserably on the ban on gays in the military. We are sick, sick, sick and tired of the party courting us quietly and then treating us like lepers as soon as the heat gets turned up. You stick to your guns or else your opponent murders you; that's how politics works. Bout time the Democrats learned that; it's a lesson they might profitably apply to a few other issues.

3) DON'T cry "PC Police" when a GBLT DUer tells you your post about gay marriage was offensive.

I've been around the forums for a long time and I'll tell you right now that DU has a LOT of growing to do on this issue. If you are a straight DUer and you have always wanted a better understanding of gay issues and your GBLT brethren and sistren, now is a great time to start cultivating it, and the best way to do that is to *listen* when your fellow DUers talk to you, even if what they say is not exactly what you want to hear. If you are a straight DUer and you just wish us uppity GBLT people would go away and stop making trouble for all the *real* Democrats, well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I hope you have an asbestos jumpsuit handy.

4) DON'T forget that for GBLT DUers, this is not just an ideological or pragmatic issue. It's personal, and it hurts.

It hurts a lot. Because we know that from now until January 2004 we are going to wake up every day to the same load of right-wing claptrap about what a menace to society we are. If you haven't had the experience of listening to pundits on TV and the radio nod sagely while some right-wing nutjob explains to them that you personally are evil, sick, and perverse, and therefore should not have a full set of civil and legal rights, well, you are in no position to tell us we're being oversensitive.

I have been an out lesbian in a long-term relationship for 15 years now. I have been listening to the same tired BULL trotted out by the right over and over and over again. It just makes me weep to think that there are still people in this country who buy it wholesale. You talk to GBLT people about this and you get the same reaction everywhere: Why do they hate us so much? What the hell did we ever do to them? How come the life I lead as a GBLT American bears absolutely NO resemblance to what these people tout as the "homosexual lifestyle"? Couldn't we just sit them down and explain it to them?

We are one of the last groups in this country on whom it is still open season, politically and legally. Politicians can get up and talk trash about gay people that would *never* be countenanced if they were talking about African-Americans, Jewish Americans, women, anyone--and nobody will call them on it. It is still acceptable for mainstream politicians to hate us, to demonize us, and to bash us in public. We still have no federal protection from employment and housing discrimination. The legislative and executive branches of the federal government have been a complete letdown on this issue. The courts are the ONLY institution that has stood by us and even that is too much for most politicians on both sides of the aisle.

We are sick of it, we are sick and tired and we've had it, and if you goad us over this issue, sometimes some of us are just gonna snap and let you have it, even if it's against our better judgment.

Am I happy that this is now a major campaign issue? Not really. It will increase the storm of crap that my partner and I have to deal with from the media establishment and the GOP a hundredfold. But on the other hand, I *am* happy--very happy--about that MA court decision, and you ahve to take the bad with the good. So what the hell, bring it on. I lived through "Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Have A Friggin' Spine" and I'll live through this.

But I'm gonna be cranky. Just so you know.

Come and get me, Rick Santorum,

The Plaid Adder

[terrya]

1. It IS personal. And it does hurt...

When the rr spews the most horrible stuff about this.

Goddammit, I'm NOT a monster. I'm not some evil person threatening heterosexual marriage. I'm a gay man...who merely wants to celebrate and honor my love towards my partner. And who wants to have the same basic rights as heterosexual married couples.

That's all. Am I asking too much here? I don't think so.

I don't have anything else to say. Because, Plaid Adder, you said it all...so passionately, so eloquently.

Thank you, my friend.

Terry

[Adamocrat]

9. Do you think the average hetero cares?

Time and again, we have reached out to our hetero counterparts hoping for a shred of decency from them, but they are simply too willing to make us sacrificial lambs for their own advancement. If we want our rights, we have to take them. They are only willing to grant them to us in piecemeal fashion, and ONLY if it's politically convenient to them at the time. Until and unless gays and lesbians stand up and demand our rights loudly and forcefully, we will be sitting out in the cold. Our place at the table doesn't come with any exercisable power or privileges - that is something we have to fight for, and soon.

[veganwitch]

19. im not exactly hetero

but i am really concerned about the marriage issue. im seriously considering getting married (because of future kidlet) because of the legal and financial safety it provides and it really hit me how "unfair" (huge understatement) it is that i have this luxury because my current partner is male. we arent getting married because of religious reasons or even to solidify our relationship (its fairly solid without state sanction). it is purely for legal reasons. if my partner was female, that option would not be open to me.

its absolutely ridiculous.

edit: im just reading over this and im not sure how it will come across. i want to leave it as a statment of support but i think it may be worded wrongly or something.

[SerpentX]

22. My wife and I are both staunchly bisexual ...

... and every once in awhile some snot-nosed twerp will say something about "heterosexual privledge". Ironically, these individuals are usually benefitting from "geographical privledge" and have forgotten what its like to live a place with a small GLBT community.

Don't worry about how your situation is perceived by others. If you stay and fight when the chips are down, that's all that matters.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

I am hetero and I care-went to the Mass State House Yesterday

it is a civil rights issue plain and simple. I have quite a few gay friends and it pains me to see them not get the benefits most of us enjoy. I think GLBTs should refuse to pay taxes if state and federal efforts to disenfranchise them of their rights move forward.

[geniph]

46. I'm bi and I care

a LOT. As I posted yesterday in the Lounge, if my mother had been allowed to marry her female partner back in 1960, my life would have been radically different - and everything about it would have been better than the way it was after she married a man (a drunken abusive deadbeat) to "fit in."

I care.

[ms_splash]

2. Bravo!

It's so sad that this is even an issue and you better believe that the GOP will use it any way they can. But, unfortunately it is not some GOP plot. There are plenty of democrats who would sweep this under the carpet (and a shameful-in my opinion-number of democrats who don't support allowing people who are homosexual to marry their partners). I though we were the party of equal rights.

[BR_Parkway]

3. Applause!

And extremely well said.

It amazes me to see that some of the same people who say "Why can't those Log Cabin folks just wake up and realize the ReThugs are just using them" are some of the same now saying "don't bring this up NOW, it might cost us the election"

Like you, I don't think the timing was the best, but now that it's here - I'm going to support it whole heartedly. And I'm going to keep saying, those of us who already got married by a preacher/civil unionized/ or had a commitment ceremony need to let others know. In the same way that so many everyday, average Americans have become accepting by actually knowing someone gay "who didn't tout the homosexual lifestyle", the more who understand we'll get that these rulings don't allow us to START marrying, we've been doing it already and the sky didn't fall, the sooner the rabid right loses the ability to direct this issue through fear!

[July]

20. Concerning "the homosexual lifestyle"

As others have pointed out, this is right-wing code meant to scare people. My understanding of their use of the phrase is that it refers to promiscuity and so-called "flaming" behavior, such as dressing in drag.

Now, I have a big problem with the right wing's assumptions that there is a monolithic homosexual lifestyle and that it's deviant. However, I also have a problem with the argument that gays are "just like everyone else" in lifestyle, though it may be that most are (I have no idea how "lifestyles" break down), because it hangs those gays who ARE "flaming" out to dry. ALL gays are "just like everyone else" in terms of civil rights, REGARDLESS of their lifestyle, just as promiscuous heteros have the same civil rights as those in long-term marriages. IT'S ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS, NOT ABOUT LIFESTYLE. The lifestyle argument of the right is crap. If it made sense we could take away the civil rights of anyone who's too eccentric for our own personal definitions of normal.

Married Hetero for Gay Marriage

[geniph]

48. I know lots of flamboyant promiscuous straight people, too

I think we need to worry about this "heterosexual lifestyle"!

It's absurd to EVER generalize about people; there will always be individuals who prove generalizations and stereotypes false.

There's no single "homosexual lifestyle" any more than there's a single "heterosexual lifestyle."

[kayell]

4. Thank you

You have said everything that I want to tell my fellow DUers who just don't seem to get it. It is bad enough to be demonized by the RW, but to be patronized, ignored, and trivialized by those I like to consider on our side is extremely painful.

[megatherium]

5. thank you!

I'm a gay man who is new to these parts, and I am so grateful for your eloquent defense of gay marriage.

I think the huge budget deficits and job offshoring will be much more important issues than gay marriage this fall.

[veganwitch]

10. welcome to DU!

and what part of indiana are you from? im in dc now but my folks live in valparaiso.

[hlthe2b]

6. I understand and both empathize and sympathize: but I have a request:

Will you please give your fellow DUers benefit of the doubt and start with the premise that they WANT to help/support you. The few threads that have been up so far have been so tense that even innocent questions seemingly meant only to establish what the majority of gay and lesbian DUers believe to be the best approach to counter Repug efforts towards a constitutional ban, were met with accusations over the poster's motives and rather unpleasant name-calling. I think most of us can understand the emotion. I can personally appreciate that this has been something widely discussed in the gay/lesbian community and way past due (in coming) from your point of view. However, for many heterosexual progressives, the Massachusetts court decision brought everything (perhaps unexpectedly) to the forefront. Some, may have been caught offguard and ill prepared to immediately respond to this important issue.

I understand the need to hear from others that they truly support your position. But, I think it important that you be willing to explain your position and feelings to those who may never have had the opportunity to fully consider the issues and ramifications.

It seems apparent to me that many here need to discuss the issues as a devil's advocate. This is an often helpful way to gauge the effect of different strategies or even staged response. When asked about possible "compromise strategies," I don't think anyone means to imply that they want you to compromise your beliefs. Rather, I think many innocently wish to explore ways to get to the desired outcome as quickly as possible. They might ask about civil unions as an initial step or whether the only possible course would be to go for full marriage as an absolute equal right. I don't think people that ask this mean they don't believe in full marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But, perhaps exploring absolute priorities for those affected can build understanding and help in developing a common appropach.

Can you understand the need for many here to enter into these kind of discussions? Can we assume that doing so DOES NOT mean that these "questioners" will fail to support the gay/lesbian majority position? It means, I believe, that they need to take the time to discuss and fully understand the issues. By doing so, many will surely become your best advocates.

[arwalden]

14. A Reasonable Request...

but those who advocate for the devil (as it were) should realize in advance the peril they put themselves in when they ask questions, present freeper talking-points, and offer (non) "compromise solutions" as though these things are their OWN.

There are better ways to play the devil's advocate without actually making the other person believe that you actually believe the talking points.

Also... the suspicious part of me often wonders if some stealth-bigots make these anti-gay arguments in all sincerity. But THEN when they are challenged, they back off of their comments and feign being the victim of a misunderstood attempt of devil's advocacy.

-- Allen

P.S. Being reasonable and suspicious are not mutually exclusive. I can do both at the same time. :-)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Offtopic: Hey, you became Isaac Newton! Cool!

Science geek?

[foreigncorrespondent]

25. hlthe2b...

...we have given our fellow DUers the benefit of the doubt, more times than I can count on one hand, but you tell me, what are we meant to do when we are faced with a gay marriage thread that has turned heated because people are saying things like:

"Oh great! Now Bush* has won in 2004."

"Can't you queers just shut up until after the election?"

"This is a wedge issue."

"Face facts the majority of the country isn't supporting your efforts for marriage." (What surpises me with this one is the simple fact that the majority of the country doesn't support the FMA either, so this one is blatant bigotry AFAIC.)

"The queer community is souly responsible for Bush* winning the 2000 election."

"Don't like us, well go join the GOP then." (This one actually got said to me, a foreigner who isn't even living in the U.S.but have a huge interest in the issue of gay marriage there.)

"Well stay home on election day and don't vote."

And I could probably go on and on about what is being said to us, but what is the point?

We have sat back. We have taken more hits on the shoulders than you could ever imagine, but now, we are tired, depressed, and warn out. It isn't you that is facing being deemed a second citizen, it is us.

[hlthe2b]

39. Well, I will start by saying most if not all women professionals

and most women in general, certainly know what it is like to be a second class citizen, at least in the work place. Remember, that formal equal rights for women was never ratified and there remain major serious inequalities-- not to mention the current hard core attempts by the RW to own our bodies and reproductive rights and privacy... If that doesn't make us second class citizens, I don't know what does....

But, that having been said, these debates on gay marriage will surely end up like many of the hard nosed candidate debates in GD2004 where people let their better judgement be overruled by the heat of debate. While I won't say it is easy, you won't get converts by playing that game. For every hard core biggot or disruptor, there are probably 3 or 4 who have just never sat down to consider the issues nor to hear how this impacts the gay/lesbian community. I think they deserve benefit of the doubt.... What you will get, if you continue to calmly counter with the facts will be moderate-progressive folks like myself helping to counter these posts and others who gradually come around to your point of view. You've got many heterosexual progressives in your court already who will stand by you-- but not if you start throwing blanket accusations at all non-gay non-lesbian DUers.

[foreigncorrespondent]

64. As a woman...

...in Australia, I certainly know how bloody hard it is for women in this world. We don't have true equality here either, you know?

But as a lesbian, I am getting hit twice! Not just because of what sex I was born with, but also because of who I was born to love.

Us queers know that most of DU supports our plight, but we are very well aware of the stealth bigots that go unnoticed by most except us. We aren't making blanket accusations to anyone.

And, I had actually toned down my temper a lot. Sapphocrat only said to me yesterday how proud she was because of how I had been handling these stealth bigots. She of all people knows exactly what I want to say to them. But today, I am fed up.

I am sick to death of people being allowed to continue to get away with shitting all over my relationship and every other queers relationship.

It gets beyond a joke when we cop it from both sides of the political fence.

[hlthe2b]

7. accidental dupe post... please ignore

[salin]

8. Those folks currently voicing "concern" re: the issue and elections

should, imo, spend the energy trying to find different ways to frame the issue politically in order to defang the rightwing message. Yes I know and wish that it could be pushed just on the righteousness of the position - but message carries a great deal of weight in campaigns - and to counter the right there needs to be a message that includes, but extends beyond the surface (the surface being the time is now, and it is long overdue.... surface in the sense that it completely reverberates with the choir - but it doesn't force thought of those who are still in the middle.)

I spent time this summer in Vermont and the issue of Howard Dean came up - with the local response being... because of the Civil Unions issue that he would never get any traction. (Of course he did gain traction - and then lose it - but not over this issue.) My response... "Do you think, that for people for whom this is the deciding reason for the vote, that thost folks would be likely, at this juncture in time, to vote for ANY democratic candidate?" There was only one response.

So then the battle moves to the winning the framing in the middle - how the issue is sold, not to Pat Robertson's minions, but to the middle.

I heard on NPR last Sunday a symposium on the issue from San Francisco. Many angles discussed. From property rights, to why the comparison to polygamy is wrong and why, from a legal perspective, the issue of same-sex marraige rights does not open the door to laws regarding polygamy. The most notable aspect of this discussion was the panelest for the right had only about three points she kept returning to.... and she sounded more and more feeble. She would almost sound reasonable here and there, but would then be asked a question such as... it sounds like you might allow a state to decide (oh no!)... or... it sounds like you might support civil unions as that does not redefine marriage (oh no!)... or when the other panelists would demonstrate how the definitions of marriage have changed over the past hundred years (particularly the conception of women being property and having no individual rights)... she would go back to the same line (the definition of marriage is... ) By the end she sounded like a superficial, one-track robot with the inability to discuss issues or to look for compromise positions.

It occured to me, that many folks who are slightly conservative... who are somewhat narrow minded... aren't being pulled in by the Pat Robertsons (ala all evil in the US stems from this and the abortion issue)... but from the framing of the "traditional definition"... that to some - ON THE SURFACE - reverberates. This is the point. Take the issue below the surface into its complexities but do it in a packaged/simplified way... and the issue as an emotional wedge becomes neutralized... except for those on the most extreme position on the right... who are never, ever going to vote for any democratic candidate anyway. The position on the right - when pushed to the point of having to discuss from more than a single angle - suddenly rings hollow and tinny to those same surface folks who react/respond to the superficial messages of the day.

I find it interesting that, if I recall, while the polling numbers on the marriage issue continue to be tipped to the religious right position... there has been a significant shift on the issue of civil unions. Since the religious right marry the two into a single issue... then they are NOT reaching some of the middle/superficial folks who... after the issue has been discussed for a couple of years... to a middle ground position (that, btw, was not considered middle ground say - ten years ago.)

I believe that one of the points in a message that has been made by several candidates - that has reverberated - is the point that the constitution has never been amended to intentionally prevent rights for citizens. Now join that point (which resonates) with the multiple rights confered with marriage (the right to pass on property, etc.) When the response - say on the property issue - is "people can right a will..." There is an easy response - only about 7% of the public has wills - there is no automatic default for long-term committed same-sex unions as there is for even common-law partners... or that family can challenge the will and partners have to rely on the religious leanings of the judge determining the case (as this is how these decisions, sadly, are often decided these days.)

I appologize if I am demeaning the rightness of the issue and the position - by discussing political framing of the issue to sell it. That is not my intent. My intent instead is to push OUR discussions, especially those who declare out right "this is not the time... it is a losing issue" - into a different discussion.... how to frame it to defang the superficial framing from the right - that really only has huge holding power for those on the far religious right. Sadly that group has gotten very adept at selling their extreme positions with a glaze of propoganda that on a superficial level grab many others. Lets pour a solvent on that glaze and defang it. The public position on civil unions would not have shifted significantly towards broader public acceptance IF the middle was glued to the religious rights claims/positions. Why then would the middle start finding what is now viewed as a 'compromise position' as acceptable, when in the past it was much less so? Because the overall public mind is shifting. Use that shift to reframe the overall message and defang the right.

[cally]

30. Thank you for this post Salin

You might want to start a separate thread about this.
How to counter the rw hate filled diatribe on this is worthy of debate. I think one way is to claim state's rights. Another is to talk about wrong it is to deny rights to some of our citizens. I think we have failed so far to counter the RW arguments, but I do think we can find a way.

[Laughing Mirror]

11. Right On!! Plaid Adder

You've laid it all out the way it is. For an issue that seems complicated to many, you show how really basic a right a marriage license that extends to LGBTs is.

This post gets bookmarked for future reference. I'm sure I'll be referring back to it on more than occasion. Because those asbestos jumpsuits are tacky. They have got to go out of style.

[Nobody]

12. What I'd like to know is....

In what way are families threatened?

Has anyone got an agument against that isn't religious (and therefore unConstitutional)?

How does a married gay or lesbian couple hurt anyone else or stomp on the rights of anyone else?

It's no business of anyone else what you do in your bedroom as long as it's between consenting adults, and furthermore, the State isn't in the business of arranging marriages. Who you marry is no one's business.

Britney Spears' travesty of a "marriage" is an insult to every couple together for the long haul who are forbidden by law to marry.

Didn't the Declaration of Independance guarantee to all Americans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Don't couples on their wedding day tell people that it's the happiest day of their lives? The pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right and who is anyone to deny that right to people because they don't approve of their partner?

You shouldn't need to have your choice of life partner ratified by Congress.

[geniph]

50. Applause and emphatic agreement, Nobody

with everything you said.

[kiahzero]

13. A few things

The first is somewhat tangential... why are you blaming Clinton re: Don't Ask Don't Tell? I recently did a project where I was rereading the WashPost from Feb to May 93... it was very interesting refreshing my memory on the debate. According to the coverage I was reading, it went something like this:

Clinton: Gays should be able to serve in the military, openly.
Right-Wing: Fuck you.
Clinton: Gays should be able to serve in the military, openly.
Right-Wing: Fuck you.
Clinton: Fine, they can serve covertly.
Right-Wing: Fine, but still... fuck you.

This story repeats itself over and over in the Clinton presidency. Clinton tries to do something positive that happens to be liberal, and it's stopped until he moves to a more centrist position. But at least it's progress.

Now, for a more related point:
I have a question for you - would you be satisfied if a candidate spoke mostly in platitudes during the campaign, and then, once in office (assuming he had coattails), pushed through a repeal of DOMA (since that's about the only involvement the Federal Government has on the matter)? I ask, because this strategy has worked in the past to make changes to the status quo when most Americans wouldn't support them.

Unfortunately, most Americans are against gay marriage, according to the polls I've seen. You can either try and sneak policies in under the radar, or you can change their minds. Minds don't seem to be changing fast enough, so would you be OK with a stealth policy?

[terrya]

15. I understand what you are saying, but...

My problem with Clinton and "DADT" concerned the fact that Clinton had every right to lift the ban. Some of those assholes like Sam Nunn and Colin Powell haven't read the Consitution lately, apparently. Clinton, as President of the United States, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, had every right to do so. He could have picked up the phone, called Powell (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and said, "This is a direct Presidential order from your Commander-in-Chief. You are to lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military IMMEDIATELY. And if you want to resign, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out". Clinton had every single right, as spelled out in the Constitution of the United States, to do that. And Clinton could have found someone in the Pentagon who would have carried out that proper order.

Terry

[kiahzero]

17. True

And he would have lost any power he had with Congress.

Unless you have Congress in lock-step, like Bush, you can't wield power like a blunt object. Hell, Bush is even getting himself into trouble, because Congressional Republicans don't always buy the bullshit he's selling.

I'm not saying DADT was a good decision, because it wasn't. But I can understand the reasoning behind it, and view it as a step forward.. a crappy policy over a horrible one.

[foreigncorrespondent]

27. The problem with Clinton is...

...he folded under the preasure.

It is like what the dems have been doing since Bush* stole the 2000 election. They keep folding and giving the stupid idiot what ever he asls for. That is what Clinton did to us with both DADT and DoMA.

[SerpentX]

29. The problem with Clinton

I like the guy and thought he was a good president, but he blew it on that issue.

I was just finishing my four year hitch when Clinton took office. I was in a tank unit and the environment towards gays was so hostile it was pathological. Some of the people I knew should have been hauled off for psychological intervention, but at that time officers and NCOs either looked the other way or outright encouraged it. So when the Pentagon came back and told Clinton they couldn't make it work, I understoond. But he should have ordered them to come up with a plan and a timeline for making open service possible. Even more importantly, he should have confronted them on the stupid Cro-Magnon behavior that passes for military "culture". Six-and-a-half years elapsed between the time Clinton took office and Barry Winchell was murdered. Six-and-a-half years and they acted as though they were shocked when it happened.

[foreigncorrespondent]

34. What saddens me the most is...

...there are so many countries out there that have no problems with gays and lesbian serving openly in their military. Why does America have such a hatred for the LGBT community?

My country (Australia) is one of these countries that have gays and lesbians serving openly in out military.

[hlthe2b]

42. pure ignorance, I guess....

I'd be quite interested to know how long LGBT have felt comfortable being open about their lifestyle in Australia. While my parents have been dead for several years, I was amazed at their depiction of small rural town Missouri in the 30s and 40s and how absolutely oblivious they were to the fact that there were gay and lesbian residents in their small communities, no matter how closeted. There was a naivete' there that dramatically turned on its head in a single generation.... Such rapid change and recognition that all is not what they were taught to believe, carries with it a considerable level of discomfort in many cases. It takes time for these attitudes to change... Resistance comes most often when change is occurring so quickly that people feel they don't have time to adapt.

I look back at these rural people that my parents grew up with. I don't think they could fairly be accused of gay hatred, nor racial bigotry for that matter, despite the reflex comments that I sometimes heard from their mouths. These were the kind of midwestern stock who would rip off their shirts to help someone-- anyone-- in trouble. But, I think they could be confused as such, if the rate of societal change was beyond their capacity to absorb and adjust.

Right now, the MA decision caught a lot of folks off guard who had not been following the issue. I'm not saying to slow down on foward progress-- just take the time to try to explain your point of view to those who seem misinformed or truly baffled by all the change.

[Ysabel]

53. I'd be suspicious of those polls...

what are the (supposed) percentages? (I haven't seen any polls on this at all is why I'm asking.) Anyway, I really, really think (my gut feeling is) that most people don't mind who marrys who and I think that a lot of polls are slanted...

[roughsatori]

71. Wellstone voted for the DOMA and Clinton Signed it

Defense of Marriage Act.

[Az]

16. When we give up fighting for whats right just to win the middle

We give up providing people something to fight for. Either we fight for principals or we are fighting for nothing.

Look people. This is a major issue. Its not just about gays. There is a huge cultural battle being waged right now and its about who determines what is right and wrong. The contenders are We The People vs The Church. This battle has been going on for over 500 years. We have let our guard down and the Religious Right is pressing harder than ever. It is time to realise that this fight is larger than it seems.

[buck4freedom]

32. Winning the Middle

As a professor of political science I know put it:

"Unless the Democratic Party gets down to brass tacks and stops trying to win swing voters it will not survive much longer. They have alienated their strongest and most vocal base: the disenfranchised, the unemployed, the gays and lesbians, the blacks and the activists in their attempts to gain a few 'swing' votes in conservative areas."

My sentiments exactly.

[hunter]

44. You're right, "It's not just about gays."

Gays and Lesbians are just an easy target for them. They'll take away the rights of same-sex couples and move along to the next group if we let them.

It is a cultural battle, on one side their hypocritical "Church," and on the other side "We the People," who are are a diverse lot of left wing Christians like myself, or atheists, or Buddhists, or secular humanists... and so on.

[Stuckinthebush]

18. From a Hetero DUers perspective

Amen.

There are many of us here, and Democrats in the country, who stand with the GLBT community in this fight. This is a fight for all of us because the issue of full civil rights for all Americans is vitally important to the continued health of this nation. We can't say we believe in civil rights on one hand and then say, "Except for those people over there."

I have three young daughters. How can I tell them that I failed to stand up in this fight and be counted on the side of decency, morality, and civil rights?

This is not an issue to play politics with. We are at a point in American history when we have to take a principled stand on this issue. I proudly stand with the GLBT community.

[booisblu]

21. Very nice Plaid Adder

I, for one, am tired of being on the defensive. It is simple, I want to marry my partner. I love her and I will always love her no matter how much crap is thrown at us for the duration of this election cycle. We are not the bad guys here, the ones calling us evil and perverted,etc. on and on ad naseum are. This special rights argument is crap too. Are het's granted special rights because they are able to marry legally? Well yes, at this point they are because this freedom to marry is not extended to every group in this country. And then I have seen over and over how we gays can have all the legal documents to cover all the legal benefits that are automatically bestowed with marriage. Yes, we can, but why must we pay exorbitant amounts of money to lawyers to get what should be free, as you het's do? No, I'm tired of this, I'm tired of the debate, I'm tired of the fight. Anyone get's in my face because I'm a lesbian is going to get all the fury and rage that has built up. And I just love how we are used as pawns over and over every single freaking election. Now, all those who say it's a lifestyle choice, don't you want to have some of this fun too?

[undergroundpanther]

37. Hmmm

I think there is a 'strategy' the GOP is using behind the gay marriage issue.
I think they want more wriggle room to persecute gays lesbians and transgendered people.Because the religious people are afraid and 'cherry pick' out the cruel and bigoted bible verses it shows where their heart is in this,it shows their relationship to their god has no spiritual fruit and that their"spiritual discernment"is very carnal because it brings suffering pain hate,death and allegedly god is supposed to be love.Bullies are offended by our existence,presences because they are bullies first reactionary religious people second.The religious Rights view of god seemingly serves to support their pathological desire to scapegoat and put themselves above others and to make everyone have a puritanical lifestyle like they desire in the name of control over others.


Funders can howl all day about how Homosexuality is a choice

Fundies and the majority of folks I see arguing with them don't stop to think that a person,any person who is being a bully,is choosing to be a bully? I mean violence,hate,pushing yourself upon the uninterested or unwilling is a choice to violate someone else's consent.The fundies don't want us to be here,so they will make us disappear by law,hate,force..whatever because they see it fit to violate our consent about how we live,because our presence offends? is this crazy or what.How can a person please a person who will do anything to erase them? A fundie chooses to hate when he goes choosing to enforce the sadistic parts of the bible at the expense of ignoring the good,When churches schism it is a battle between people who see the good who evolved out of wanting to erase people who are different ,fighting those who choose to cling to the bad because deep down they are bullies and anything inclusive scares the hell out of them and makes them think they are losing privilege and control.Stuff they NEVER were entitled to.


How is being a rigid control freak,authoritarian bully to another human being for just existing as they are not a choice the bully makes when he decides to harass someone? It IS always a choice if you bully people,I can prove it.. Ever see a fundie talk nicer and'calmer' and adopt lower profiles when he's overwhelmed by numbers who disagree and we are willing to take his fighting words to task,and fight him over his provocations? Compare the speech and behavior of said reactionary bully when the numbers of opposing voices are reversed.Notice how the bullies venom spews and the hatred is incited at more vicious levels when they feel they have a 'culture' for company who 'agree' with their unspoken bully intentions? Do you really think Rush Limbaugh would shoot off his mouth the way he does if he was surrounded by those liberals he derides in person? Hell no.The bullies can control their reactions,they don't spew venom when they know it could get them killed or ironically force them to stop spewing hate,or get shouted down or silenced.

Hate is a choice.It's time to call the bullies on their desire to feed hatred in people, call the bullies on their chosen control freak problem, push back against their cultural imposing,because they don't want us to even exist and be honest about ourselves, Call out their chosen abuses of law and spirituality to support their sick authoritarian disorders and socialized sociopath problems that are the sick engine operating in their heart under the veneer of bible verses and puritanical posing..

One uncontrolled ,unconfronted bully in school can destroy the peace for all the targeted scapegoats of an entire school. Sadly adult society isn't too different from middle school hierarchy scapegoating and avoidance when the bullies are allowed to control culture.
The religious right call it a culture war.But what is the underlying goal this so called culture war the right wingers are declaring really over?

Right wingers want (but will NEVER admit)the right to hate,scapegoat,manipulate con and abuse people and make them miserable.They want to be excused for destroying.. Ever notice it's the religious right who uses biblical excuses to push parents to spank kids? Ever notice it is the religious right that use the bible to justify their hatred? Why does the religious right support the death penalty yet can't stand abortion? Abusers seek out vulnerable people to victimize.Babies are very vulnerable to abuse and influence and their minds can be clouded to act out in the image of parent,for good or ill. The right wing bully knows this vulnerability in kids is true,and so does the control freak church and marketers everywhere.


Everyday people in any said church choose to leave a church,for many reasons..Church attendance records show how voluntary beliefs one has about god are.People change denominations,or switch gods all the time.Beliefs are always VOLUNTARY unless you are a child dragged to church or you are manipulated in other ways into participating because what you are participating with hasn't been fully disclosed to you,or you have been deceived by self serving leaders or hierarchy structures about what to what the 'deal'is really as you enter into it.(cult recruitment and salesmanship)
Children being manipulated by adults to be something other than who they are,and compelled by the social imposition from control freak's to feel shame fear and lie about them self to preserve dignity and safety to survive is totally involuntary for the child,and a sad reality for an adult who has to cope with a culture that chooses to hate them for existing.

Hatred and cultural domination however, is completely voluntary activity for all manipulators/bullies who seek to benefit psychologically ,financially,socially,ect..from manipulating the culture into boxes and'norms',belittling individuals who disagree with a bully lifestyle and interfering with the lives of others the bully does not like to see.

Bullies of all types think they are entitled to tell others who they are and how they should live.Bullies even when playing nice are always self serving.
The bible for them is a convenient ambiguous distraction and excuse leading away from what they really want deep down which is to indulge in power..in unconcerning control or sadism, to create 'clones'of themselves, true believers and ensure a fresh supply of victims to dump their psychological toxins into..Bullies seek to dominate,destroy and make someone else suffer, force them to conform to a vision of culture common to bullies requiring denial and silence about certain truths and experiences people have with what bullies do to them.

This problem goes way beyond the religious right,VS Gay marriage.
This problem is struggling in issues of social exploitation,the problem of bystanders(apathy),the effects of Stockholm syndrome and abuses on entire cultures, the dynamics and problem of social manipulation.It all raises questions in people about what is love,family,society really..It questions what is consent and what violates someones consent and when can you trust people?, The existence of cultural differences VS a reactionary retreat to the illusion of social mono culture that feels safer to one segment of the population than it does to others and that tension between them,What are misuses of power and religion and law? Questions about what is fair control ,what really needs control and why..And it brings up what is or is not dangerous,and this all needs to be framed in freedom, social justice and human rights.

Sad truth is many people in society don't want to think too hard on issues this complex it makes the brain hurt. So they leave this deep thinking and decision making to "experts",politicians pundits and the pulpit, all the places in society bullies will seek positions in to feel power over people.Bullies are the "charismatic normal,strong ,smart looking people" who seek positions of power in society because that is NOT who they are and they spend alot of time lying dist rating dividing and hating because they know it,and they want the people to obey and not bother to see through them to the choices they make..
This is why Shrubs military record getting into the public eye upsets the administration..It breaks their illusion and wakes people from the spell of denial over a misuse of power.

So Gay Marriage in a way awakens the public consciousness about misuse of power and religion it opens up a long time debate and the heart of it is,that the right wing bully pulpit is full of bullies and we do not have to care what they say or think,and when we don't they will hurt people.

Gay marriage issues also distracts the bigger truth,that bush is indeed a socialized sociopath bully with layers of P.R. painting him as someone else,coving up his failures with charisma and playing pretend and the Public has been duped.
It is painful to look at the publics willingness to participate in creating suffering for want of domination over others lives.
It's easier for the public to forget..go chase and rally around an innocent social scapegoat speaking out for human dignity equality for the sake of love..

Rather than realize we as a society for centuries have been collectively manipulated by powerful people into mirroring the"values" of the powerful,which are NO values,we have been taught to scapegoat people that are different,while we go excusing and supporting people that are deliberately causing havoc and strife among society because they choose to and they want control..Easier to think about issues like marriage than consider our entire culture has been,used,conned, lied to,stolen from,abused,manipulated,The word family once meant a band of slaves now it's called the glue holding society together..and tell me who benefits from families becoming like slaves? Sadly In America that is what the workplace demands.If the workers wont be slaves the companies go where the slaves are.


America has been hoodwinked into wars for profit, we have been manipulated into selling out our own national integrity, we have had our Constitution and spirituality shredded and cheapened by Bush and his godly nut case Friends with their charisma thierP.R marketing confusing us, while they strut,talking like the Christian Taliban, pretending to be "strong".The 2000 elections were stolen from us,and even our choice of democratic candidates is being manipulated in case you never thought it could,it is..with non-issues like who is electible VS who stands up for US or Dean's shreik..All around us distracting issues, lies and hype come from these control freaks with thier unconsenting influences setting us up to hamper an informed honest decision we may make to further equality and other values that Liberals value that go against the bullies "values" to engineer consent,shape lives,lie cheat abuse and manipulate the vulnerable,We are being wisted from the inside out by the very self serving power and economic system we the people set up to control misuses of power and thievery by the sociopaths who seek to use the oval office for their own dreams of social dominion.

The Gay marriage question should have NEVER been an issue for a country that truly values freedom liberty and justice for_ALL_.
Equal and different is what we are in reality.
But some people do not want equality or difference to co exist with respect because they seek dominion or they are scared of being dominated.

The fact that Gays must in this so called"free" country fight against fellow citizens using religious texts and the law of the land, choosing to hate Gays for the right to be who they are,to exist..is a tragedy that need not be...The right to be who you are ,even being a question that our culture has to ask itself ,really shows how little we want to see the sociopath motives operating behind the high minded and hateful rhetoric spewing out of the centers of power we allow to exist. When the powerful misuse power,religion or fear to get their way at the expense of our national ideals and integrity and human rights and autonomy and sovereignty of self.It is time to depose that power and expose it,delegitamize it,and fight it..It is time to try something different and step out of the loop that struggle has always been framed in.Confront the unknown,choose none of the above.

Try to undermine the grasping of power in people around you that are screaming for domination. Expose the sociopath motives working the power underneath the machines of social propaganda,norms,values, and bad religion.Step out of all the social frameworks set up by power,media or peers that seductively violate your consent and engineer your choices.Be aware powerful agendas are set up to influence your decisions without your consent,to reinforce the parameters of possibility the powerful want you to stay inside of so that the powerful will not be exposed or lose control over their stratified culture that they exploit.

Tear out the deeper motives of the powers and pundits that seek to tell you how to live,and tell you not to exist and the rest of the truth will come clear.

[Laughing Mirror]

38. Well that was sure a mouthful

Wow! One fine line after another. This needs to be read out loud.

Nice speech!

[Mairead]

24. LGB please, not GL

Avoid contributing to 'lesbian invisibility'

[tedzbear]

60. Why does B have to come last?

Why not be alphabetical and call it a day? BGL?

[Mairead]

72. The historical justification

is that, as the Adder points out, bisexual people can avail themselves of het privilege, if they wish, by choosing not to act on their same-sex attractions. Dykes and gay men cannot, or at least not without giving up all relationships more intimate than platonic friendship. So the acronym puts lesbians and gay men first in a sort of symbolic compensation.

[undergroundpanther]

67. Lesbian invisibles?

Sheesh I am a Bisexual Transgendered kinda-sorta..I'm androgynous in fact neither a male or female in my identity halfway female/male surgically,I prefer to be of NO particular gender because I am whatever I want to be at any time.I don't like being assumed to be one or the other gender.I like people. I don't care about gender a person who is beautiful is beautiful a sweet person is sweet.Either we get along together or we don't.I am married to a bisexual man..And I see myself as a feline anthromorph..."furry"

Talk about being invisible...in the community...
GBLT...T is last letter.There is no "A" for androgyny,or "F" for feline or "furry" in the acronym GBLT. Or as you prefir.LGBT..
and then there is the Leather folk,the Bears,..The Feet folks..on and on.. the differences one can be are endless..

I look at it this way if you identify as something different inside yourself sexually or personally as someone or some sexuality that scares Fundy wingdings or doesn't fit into social made up 'norms you are most likely queer enough to be one of us.
And that I think this kind of diversity can encompass the entire alphabet.

[David__77]

26. I appreciate your post.

We certainly can be tactical about the issue. But we must not surrender our goals or not take a chance that is offered. The Democratic Party has the ability to allow same-sex marriage to advance. It can block a U.S. constitutional amendment, with minimal electoral danger in fact. We certainly have 146 people in the house in safe districts who can vote for justice. I understand that some will go to the other side and, so long as we win, in some cases I won't begrudge them. But this is a fight we can and must win.

[buck4freedom]

28. Brava!!

How well said. I was "warned" by our lovely moderators because I took offense at someone who suggested we take a second class position.

Obviously DU and by that I mean the folks running it too... have a long way to go on this issue.

I refuse to "identify" as a Democrat until the party drops its pretense of "supporting" me while working behind the scenes to insure that my rights take a back seat to others.

[roughsatori]

68. I was warned for the same type of thing

I wrote the mods that DU had a long way to go on this issue. I received a note back that my "accusation" was "disgusting." I then realized that GLBT people will be banned from this board if they speak the truth to the bigots who would keep us second class citizens. I have talked via PM with other GLBT members who are afraid they will be banned if they fight against those who who consider us expendable voters who are less then heterosexual DUers. Yes this Board has quite a ways to go regarding the fight for Equal rights for ALL. Perhaps one day only polite Log-Cabineers will be allowed on the poard and leftist GLBT who dare DEMAND equal rights will be exiled.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[buck4freedom]

33. I already did...

and what did it get me... you telling me to move to the back of the bus!

[cally]

35. Thanks

It's good to be reminded how personal this issue is. It is not just a political debate but affects my fellow DUers in too many ways. For me, it's obvious that any adult who wants to marry should be able to. But it's not peronal to me, so I focus on the political and how to get to that point. I appreciate your post PA, because I needed to be reminded that it is personal and to increase my sensitivity about this issue.

[greekspeak]

36. Preach on sister, preach on!

I have said this elsewhere on this board. I see this "protect marriage amendment" as a referendum on the equality of the LGBT community in the united states. If this becomes part of the constitution, then it will effectively enshrine the second-class status of LGBT Americans.

Let me ask this of my heterosexual DU commerades: if you saw a referendum put before the American people that made you into a second class citizen, would you "take one for the team?" Mark my words...this amendment fervor is going to kindle an all culture war in this country. Think about that next time you call it a "wedge issue."

[belle]

40. Sing it, sister.

[worldgonekrazy]

41. My solution (PLEASE READ!):

Democrats should not pay any attention to the issue. Don't give it credence. They shouldn't say they are "against" gay marriage but they shouldn't say they are "for" it either.

Here is why: it is simply not the time yet, and if the Democrats do push the issue it will become:

1. A MAJOR election issue that will hurt the Democrats because, as much as it sucks, 60% or more of the people in this country do not support Gay Marriage, and many of them are very adamant about it, to the extent that they might not vote for a Dem simply because of that one issue.

2. It will force a round of Constitutional Amendments in just about every state that bans gay marriage. This will make it EXTREMELY hard to overcome and will put off the day when gay marriage will be legal by generations. Why? Because you have to have a 2/3 majority to amend the Constitution in most every state, so that means that you don't have to get majority support for gay marriage, you must instead get OVERWHELMING support for gay marriage.

So I'm sorry, I really am. I believe in equal rights 100% and I don't think there should be any if or buts about it. But ideology and pragmatism are often in conflict, and the smart thing to do is find the middle ground. In my opinion, that is to ignore the issue for the moment while continuing to change attitudes at the grassroots level so that one day (and hopefully sooner rather than later) justice can be done as it should be.

[hunter]

45. People who don't know any openly gay or lesbian couples...

... are the problem.

Most of this "majority" who are against same sex marriages are afraid of it because it is something that is outside their everyday experience.

And it's a vicious circle. Gay and lesbian couples do not choose to live openly within communities that do not affirm their relationships, or they simply move away.

I am fortunate to have grown up in a community where same-sex couples were fairly common, and were treated (by my parents especially) the same as any other couples. Same-sex couples could be comfortable in our house, and we could be comfortable in their houses.

It makes me very angry that this government that represents me, that is supposed to protect the rights of every citizen, has given my wife and I a strong affirmation of our relationship that is actively denied to same-sex couples who are just as committed in their relationships as my wife and I are.

The value of state sanctioned marriage is diminished, not strengthened, when same sex couples can't be married in the eyes of the state.

In quiet times I've thought maybe a quiet evolution towards same-sex marriages would be the best path. "Domestic partnerships" and all that. Let communities gently come to their own kind of peace with the concept of same-sex marriage.

But these are not quiet times. If the "one man - one woman" people want to pick a fight, if they want to harass same-sex couples, if they want to deny same-sex couples their civil rights, I'll be damned if I run away.

[ulysses]

47. there's a lot of truth in that.

I qualified as a benign homophobe of sorts (nice enough people, I guess - too bad they're damned) in my younger years, until I actually met a few gay folks in college and fell pretty hard for one of them. I suppose it's a double-edged sword - I know some folks who'd have gone with opposite way, further into the oblivion of hatred, in the same rejected infatuation scenario, but it made me think. A lot of is really is fear of the unknown or "weird".

[tedzbear]

61. Democrats like you are the reason I'll vote Green Party...

What if your being right handed meant that you couldn't get married? Or serve in the military? Or walk down the street holding hands with your lover without being physically attacked? Or be a member of the Catholic Church?

Your sentiments are insulting.

:kick:

[AP]

62. I'm trying to find a detailed statement of Green Party position on this...

...and I can't find one.

Do you know where I can find it?

[roughsatori]

69. YOU are making it easy for me to leave the Dems and go Green

When your party dies due to continued cowardice don't be surprised.

[NicRic]

74. I agree ,wait till election over !

then thru education and reaching out to those that are stuck in the old way of thinking on this issuse , on how all people straight ,gay should have the same rights ,and same status in reguards to their living situation .However lets not let the repugs use any issuse as a wedge to devide our party so they can keep this cutrrent white house in place! If we all agree the smart thing to do is #1 get bush out of office ,then we can work on fairness in social and economic issuses. Iam a married stariaght male who believes that any couple that lives together shares in the house hold responsiblities etc.should all have the same benifits and rights ,fairness in taxation. People need to stop bringing their religous beleifs into scocial economic issuses that concern people accross all religous and non religous groups .Its time this wonderful coutry to be true to its foudation that we are all created egual and all deserve to have the same rulles applied !

[Hammie]

43. So what does society get out of it.

As I see it, the legal arrangement of marriage is intented to make it legally difficult, and painfull, for the partners to go their separate ways. Ostensibly this is done to insure the stability of the family for the good of the children, and etc. There are a few perks thown in as well, but they are kind of incidental to the primary purpose. In times past, this was necessary for insuring that fathers stayed around to help care for their children I suppose.

Fast forward to today, when the govt. is ready to step in and provide financial assistance to single mothers, as well as compel even unmarried fathers to provide financial support to their children. Marriage no longer appears to serve a social function at all. If one argues that gay couples should be afforded the same "priviledges" as hetero couple, isn't one really arguing that marriage itself no longer serves it's age old purpose? If so, shouldn't marriage simply be abolished as a legal institution? If not, what new social good does marriage serve? If all it does is cater to some conceit that one relationship is "more commited" than another for the personal aggrandizement of the spouses, then I don't see why it should even be legally recognized.

[geniph]

51. That's why I think the best way to defuse the issue

and remove it from the arena of personal morals, is to get the government out of the business of permitting "marriage." A marriage ceremony should be whatever the partners wish it to be. The government should only license civil unions - for EVERYONE, het couples as well as lesbian and gay couples. What ceremony the couple chooses to have performed to "marry" them should be entirely up to them.

[hlthe2b]

52. While I agree, would the Government also step out of

legislating marital benefits (i.e., tax deductions, social security inheritance, etc., etc?) Not making a point, but rather just curious what you are thinking.

[geniph]

55. No! That's the beauty of it

That would be the benefit of a civil union entered into by any two adults not related in the first degree. The civil union would confer the basic governmental benefits - joint tax returns, child custody rights, inheritance, power of attorney - the legal stuff. If you want to be married by an S&M domme wielding a cat o'nine tails in a dungeon, that would be just as much a marriage as one in an Assembly of God church (with a no-dancing, no-booze reception to follow in the basement).

Marriage would become a solely personal matter.

Civil unions for EVERYONE.

[Hammie]

56. You're missing the point

Why should the goverment be in the business of promoting any relationships. No civil unions, no marriages. What is the social benefit of these "partnerships"? The point used to be promoting stable families for raising the next generation of citizens. If that's not the point what is? If there is no point then all govt. santioned interpersonal relationships should be eliminated. No tax breaks, nothing.

[geniph]

58. That works for me, too

either way, so long as we don't have either inequality or "separate but equal." :puke:

I agree, the government has no business in marriage at all.

[AP]

65. The gov't should be in the business of making people who work for a living

have an easy time getting through life.

If lawyers and doctors can hook up to get rich, so should individuals.

It would be wrong to treat corporations better than we treat people.

[AP]

63. Exactly. Remove stigma of religion from "marriage" and way more people

benefit.

We'll get gay people the rights they need, and we'll get lots of same-sex couples, like Trudy Styler and Sting hooked up so that Trudy doesn't get screwed over too.

[transeo]

49. Thank you for your wonderful post

You have said so much that I have wanted to but just got too frustrated to put into words. Thank you!

:hi:

[Ysabel]

54. cranky or not...

i've always loved your posts, adder...

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

57. I'm with you 100%

This heterosexual man completely agrees with every point you made, Plaid Adder. This is a fight for equality and is no less important than the fight for womens' rights or African Americans' rights!

[tedzbear]

59. Right on, Plaid Adder!

Gosh, I wonder if Mary Daly's getting hitched this weekend? I read her fantastic autobiography and learned a hell of a lot about women vs. the patriarchal religion/education status quo.
I think that was the beginning of my eyes opening in regard to my world not being what I thought it was.

I am a queer voter and I will not be sacrificed any longer. If I must vote Green in order to be truly represented, I will.

F--- Kerry if he's too afraid to support us.


P.S. What about making "civil union" the official government term for both straights and L/G/TGs and leave "marriage" to the churches to bestow at their whim. I could live with that as long as this civil union afforded the same rights for both straights and L/G/TGs.

[haele]

66. If marriage is a legal term for a civil union between consenting adults

that is, if it is a secular function rather than a religious function - there shouldn't be any legal issue with gays getting "married".

If marriage is supposed to be a religious function that is defined by the religion, then all marriages should legally be considered "civil unions" in which the participants should just be designated as "spouse" and let it go at that.
We didn't get married in a church, there was no mention of a holy sacrament or "Ghod making one" in our vows. We aren't planning to procreate. Does this mean that my husband and I had no right to get "married" in a legal sense, or do these two primary arguments against gay marriage have nothing to do with the legality of calling a civil union a secular marriage.

It's called "equal protection under the law". If Laz and I can get married in a secular ceremony - or even if we didn't want a ceremony and just signed the paperwork and told the judge and notary that we passed all the common requirements to be able to create a binding life partnership, then there's absolutly no reason to state that a consenting adult gay couple shouldn't be able to, also

In my opinion, anyone who actually has a problem with the idea of gay marriage should be as legally welcome to their opinion as someone who has a problem with people wearing bikinis at the beach.
(and yes, there's an otherwise decent liberal dem in our local area who almost lost his seat when he tried to pass an anti-thong ordnance a few years ago...)

I get so disappointed when supposedly intelligent, educated. compassionate people whip themselves into such a frenzy over labels.

Haele

[Kazak]

70. You won't be hearing those things from me.

I really hope Dems can get on the right side of this issue.

[KG]

73. quite so.