Gay marriage... What do you think?

[thom1102]

As a young gay man, in a long term committed relationship, I am all for receiving the rights, responsibilities and protections afforded straight couples in the form of a civil marriage. I don't want to force any church or religious institution perform any ceremony that they feel violates their beleifs, I am merely concerned that when it comes to the government, my relationship is on equal footing with a married straight couple.

That said, I was looking at some polling data the other day, and the numbers don't look good for our side, as far as public opinion goes. So while I want the right to marry my partner of 5 years, I wonder if our side might not have been better off if this issue were to lay dormant for another year.

Are we (as in the democratic candidate) going to be hurt by a backlash of middle of the road undecideds who are still not comfortable with the fact of gay marriage? I know that my personal focus has to be on the presidential campaign, because so many more issues are dependent upon it's outcome. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot having this debate now?

[TrogL]

1. Civil rights are not a matter of majority rule

I raised this issue at a Canadian government "town hall forum" on gay marriage. Everybody going into the debate had to sign out a translator device because it was held in both official Canadian languages (English and French) (some of the Freeper types were too stupid to turn theirs on).

I made the point in my speech that if French language rights were a "majority rule" situation, the translator devices would never have been provided.

[thom1102]

3. True, but there is a larger picture here...

There are issues like the environment, the economy, international relations, which when taken as a whole are so much more important than our ability to marry. And how much worse off are we going to be if we were to take this issue on next year, after the election?

[Bertha Venation]

6. good point -- but those issues aren't at the fore now.

Like it or not, our right to marry is. And to put what trogl said another way, rights are not subject to plebiscite. The judiciary MUST get involved -- putting our rights to a vote is not an option.

None of us is a one-issue voter, Thom. We all have issues that are important to us, and just about everyone focuses on one or two as their "biggies." But just because we focus does not mean we miss the big picture.

If Kerry were to become our candidate, I would not vote for him in November if I voted solely on the issue of gay marriage. But I would vote for him to get * out of office. I see the bigger picture.

[thom1102]

14. But there are people who are on the fence,

Where one or two issues will make the difference, and these voters have traditionally been the ones who make or break a candidate. I worry that this is one of those one or two issues for a lot of people. Yes, this issue is in the fore front right now, but we as a community have pushed it there. The Massachusetts's ruling, and the weddings in SF are examples of us pushing it into the public arena. Now, granted, there is little control over the docket of a court case, but was it really necessary for the Mayor of SF to start issuing marriage liscences to gay couples now? He just came into office, he could have held off until the winter, after the elections and no harm no foul.

Don't get me wrong, I totally think that we are never going to just be given the right to marry, but we need to be politically shrewd in the battles we wage.

[Loonman]

2. Don't know

I'm neither gay nor married.

[David__77]

4. Here's what's happening that's good.

I understand your concerns. I'm in a similar situation. I live with my spouse (no, we're not legally married) and we own a home together and we are domestic partners in the state of CA. I was also concerned about this fight. I knew that this was coming up in some form in CA weeks ago. And, inevitably, at any time this issue was to be brought up, there would be backlash.

What's happening is that "civil unions" is becoming the moderate position. More and more people are recognizing the need to accord rights and responsibilities to same-gender unions. That is a MAJOR step from where we were with the Vermont civil unions bill in 2000. People then acted as if the sky would fall. Now the Massachusetts GOPers (except Romney) want civil unions equal to marriage in legal scope. Wow, what a difference reframing the debate makes.

In CA, we were concerned that there would be an initiative to overturn AB 205 domestic partnership legislation. But with the marriage debate, a measure like AB 205 has become "moderate." So, it's quite interesting how this is advancing things in less than obvious ways.

In the near-term, we will face backlash wherever the marriage issue is brought up. But longer-term, we win younger people and Democrats and progressive-minded people over to the right side of the issue. Someday before too long, Democrats will be much more favorable to marriage equality. There's a lot of work to do.

I wouldn't worry too much about its impact on the Democratic Party's electoral prospects. I think that it will be dealt with well. We have more than enough buffer room to "allow" southern congressmembers and senators to ability to support this or that without allowing an amendment against marriage rights to actually pass.

[thom1102]

8. Well, I certainly hope that you are right...

But I worry that this is going to be the flag that the GOP is going to rally around this election season, and if they can scare enough moderates into thinking that gay marriages will mean the end of Western Civilization as we know it, it won't matter whether we should have invaded Iraq or not, that we are losing jobs, that our education system is being picked apart, that we are poisoning ourselves and our environment, that we have become a pariah in the international community, because all they will be focused on will be "those Damnable, Godless, amoral homosexuals!"

[David__77]

12. "Moderates," by definition, wouldn't go for that generally.

I don't think this could be decisive for very many. I doubt there are tons of people who would vote for Kerry or Edwards, but because of this issue will instead vote for Bush. I don't think so, regardless of what the polls say. If this were immigration or something else, I'd say maybe.

But the fact is that both the leading Democrats say they oppose same-gender marriages. That is a powerful (if in many respects unfortunate) statement. It will go far to making them appear "moderate." That is, they will say they favor certain rights and protections for gay people (which a large majority of moderates agree with) and this will position Bush as the one with the "agenda." This will only get more conservatives to the polls. And that is a danger, to be sure.

But, really, it's not up to the Democratic Party on this one. And no one's going to convince those fighting for marriage equality that the fight should go on hold or whatever. It's not really possible anyway. This fight in on right now, and I certainly will fight for marriage equality and support those groups that are fighting for this as well.

[pagerbear]

13. Of course it is

But remember how the "family values" platform backfired on them in 1992?

[thom1102]

16. But won them the Congress two years later.

[Mountainman]

5. If local governments like San Francisco do the fighting

then it could be a current issue without involving the presidential candidates. After all it is a local issue. I think that if more municipalities and counties issue gay marriage licenses there could be an overwhelming tide that can't be turned back.

Also the more gay marriages there are the weaker the right wing argument against it becomes.

[adamblast]

7. I'm an older, single gay man... with no immediate prospects...

...for marriage, but this issue is of extreme importance to me nonetheless.

How exactly would you propose we "lay low" for a year? And at what point would it be "safe" to start expecting equality again?

Truth is, *no one ever* gets their rights handed to them on a silver platter. You have to fight for them or you don't get them.

If the Democratic candidate decides that he can't afford to come out strongly in favor of my equality, then he has already traded away my vote. There's not much I can do about it, except sigh, and vote for someone who gives a damn about my not being a 2nd class citizen.

[thom1102]

10. Agreed, and there has been steady momentum on this issue for years

now. And the time is soon, but there is so much on the line in November, and we have so much more to lose as a people, not just as homosexuals, that maybe, just a little bit more patience, on an off election year like next year, there would be less to lose on the grand scale.

[BR_Parkway]

17. There are a couple of reasons it won't be the issue

1. The vast majority are more concerned with finding or keeping a job that might get eliminated or shipped overseas than they are with keeping my partner and I from getting married.
   
   
2. This issue came at a very good time, it could have been a much bigger influence on the election if it had happened in Sept/Oct time frame, but by happening now, all that fire and brimstone will be raining down on us well ahead of any elections </sarcasm>.
   
   
3. Depending on the poll, 70-85% of Americans do support gay couples getting equal treatment under law and recieving the same benefits as str8 couples. Other polls show that the term "marriage" does have an impact of people's acceptance, but again, it's a fear issue. The longer the weddings go on, the more the average Joe realizes that his life is NOT effected since these gays got married.
   

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. I'm in favor of equal protection under the law, & I think a secular state

is the best choice for a nation with such a diverse population.

While I understand that establishing a separate legal status for certain groups has the potential to provide substantial financial benefit to business interests, and same-sex couples are a shrewd choice for a foot in the door strategy, I like the idea of equal rights and equal protection, even if it means that employers have to pay more in wages and benefits to all employees.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

11. There is no real reason to keep them from Marrying...

Except the fact that the majority is a bunch of bigotted ass wipes who need to stop worrying about gay marriage and steroids and focus on the bigger problems in the world like AIDS and War. They just have to have something to bitch about, and keeping a whole group of people pissed and hurt seems like a good plan.
Duckie

[thom1102]

15. Agreed, but you hit the nail on they head...

They are the majority. And if we become the "party of gay marriage" we lose.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

18. I think

that the government has more weighty issues to fix its attention on than the private lives of its citizens.
If there was any individual action more in line with 'between two consenting adults or behind closed doors'etc, than marriage I can't think of what it may be.
I think its been raised as an issue to distract the average American from the debacle in Iraq.
If any two people want to get married, why in the hell should the government care? Where does that fit into the "provide for the common welfare etc" that is in the Constitution?

[Selwynn]

19. I don't think its any of my business, nor the State's.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gator_in_Ontario]

25. I agree

kinda like waiting for which way the oriental vote goes...or the black vote. Civil rights are just that....

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

21. I think the debate is long overdue...

As a straight married w/kids female, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that same-sex couples should have the same right as everybody to the benefits of marriage.

As much as I respect the rights of individuals to worship as they please, I strongly feel that we cannot allow religious fanaticism to cloud our good judgement. And while ethics are integral to lawmaking we cannot allow our religious beliefs to dictate our government's policies.

To deny recognition of same-sex couples is unethical, because it hurts gays and lesbians. Recognition of these unions hurts nobody.

Did Rosa Parks'shoot Civil Rights in the foot? I think not.
With religious fanatics responsible for much of the world's current turmoil; there is no time like the present to send a message letting hyper-christian sects know that we will not stand mutely by while Congress caters to their unethical agenda.

[jansu]

22. Fighting for a Human Right, it is always a good time to do it!

Any time that a Human Right is being abused, is the right time to fight for it. It is never easy. But, remember all those in the past who fought peacefully for different rights. I am sure they were told that this was not the right time!

This will bring Bush and gang out even further, in showing how they want to take us back to the place, where someone else gets to decide what we do with our lives. Yes, it will bring many of the right-wing out, but I think it will bring many more out,(both Liberal and middle of the road) who are for Human Rights! This just is another brick in the wall they have placed American's behind, that we are going to tear down.

I can not imagine wanting to marry someone of the same sex, I can imagine that someone who can, can not imagine marry someone of a different sex!

What do the words "Pursuit of Happiness" mean? Being able to marry the one I love, is right up there at the top of my list! I imagine that this is true for others.

Equal protection under the law! We are a Republic not a Democracy. We are a nation of laws, not man! These mean something! A Democracy is MOB RULE, a Republic is the rights of one, are protected from that MOB RULE!

When this argument comes up with people I know, I point out that there was a time, when Catholics could not marry Protestants, no Bi-racial marriage....these were all protested against, because the Bible/ministers told us that these were wrong, a sin...that our way of life would end, our country would be destroyed. We have survived those and others, and we are stronger and better for it!

Freedom is the first Human Right!

[soleft]

24. Isn't this point moot now, how would you propose stopping it?

[brainwashed_youth]

26. Shoulda left it alone for awhile

I personally think it isn't THAT big of a deal. Like you said, there much more important issues. And i did see those numbers and it doesn not look good for gays becaue the overwhelming majority of americans do not want gay marriage. I'm not going to discuss my opinions on gay marriage because mine differ with the majority of the people here. While I agree that gay marriage should be debated, now was not the time and this is probably going to come back and bite us in the ass.

Besides, it looks all the card-carrying democrats like John Kerry, Jesse jackon, and Bill Clinton are against gay marriage, so that might be a big factor to Dems who are against it.

[Catt03]

27. Maybe the question should be "marriage", what do you think?

From what I am reading, there are so many subjective definitions of the word marriage that I think I am becoming confused.

What rights are you getting by being married other than having a license that says you are....married? Is marriage for the insurance benefits? The income tax rate? I am not quite sure what the attraction is.

I have been married and am not eager to go there again. I personally like NOT being married. I pay my taxes, pay for my own insurance, own my own business and generally take care of myself. I don't get anyones benefits nor do I get the married with children income tax break.

Children are another issue. I think it is probably best for children to have two parents...probably I state again.

Just my opinion.

[brainwashed_youth]

28. pretty much the benefits

Ya, that's pretty much it. The insurance benefits and income tax rates.

[thom1102]

36. Actually that isn't it...

It's the protections that are built into the marriage contract: right to survivorship, power of attorney, medical visitation rights. These are issues that cost gay couples thousands of dollars in legal fees to establish for themselves that are in the end only teneously legal when challenged by family members, and are available to straight couples for the cost of a marriage license.

[cally]

29. I raised this question in a thread the other day

first, gay and lesbian marriages will be an issue in this campaign. The GOP planned to raise this to get out their base.

second, I think the SF marriages help this issue tremendously. The long lines of loving, normal-looking folks, getting a marriage license illustrated how little difference there is among us. Also, it's hard for me to believe folks in Louisiana worry that much about what crazy SF do. It doesn't seem a national matter.

third, there is little a President can do about this. Any Dem candidate has to frame the issue as one of civil rights and a states issue. Bush's position is very radical. He wants a constitutional amendment on this. Many who oppose gay marriage will not be comfortable with this solution.

I agree with the above poster that the moderate position is now civil unions. A few years ago that would have been the radical issue.

[ulysses]

31. it's not up to us to have the debate now or later.

Bush put it on the agenda, and we can do the right thing, dodge the question in a variety of ways, or screw the pooch.

I suspect that we'll employ some variety of dodge approach, at least in the national campaign, and that the result will be that those who'd have voted Republican in any other scenario will still do so.

My personal opinion? The legalization of gay marriage can't happen too soon.

[democratreformed]

32. Here's my position:

I can't see how gay marriage affects me at all. I don't understand the argument that allowing gays to marry somehow makes my heterosexual marriage mean less. Marriages MEAN what the two parties involved make of them.

I can't understand how allowing gay couples to have the same legal rights (insurance, survivorship, etc) as heterosexual couples would have any effect on the average person (except those gay couples who would gain benefits).

I am sorry that so many people are close-minded. I understand the frustration you must feel. Our secretary had a gay sister-in-law who developed cancer at a very early age (30s). She died recently and I have often thought about how her partner must have felt - not being acknowled legally as part of her family. I have wondered if she was allowed to visit her in the hospital during the last critical moments. I have never asked about it. I don't know if or what kind of insurance she had during her last years when she was not able to work and not allowed to be on her partner's plan like a spouse.

Whether or not the timing is right, this is how I feel: there are so many things wrong in this country that one issue is just as vital as any other. I see no reason to keep it in the background. Our candidates will have to deal with many issues. This may as well be one of them, IMO.

[foreigncorrespondent]

33. Before reading the entire thread...

...I thought I would reply to you first.

Believe it or not, opinions about gay marriage are changing simply because of the pictures coming out of SF.

The Cambodian King announced only a few days ago that after seeing these images he was allowing same sex marriage in Cambodia. While it might not be a win on U.S. soil, it is still a win for gay rights.

I have seen a few posters here at DU say they have changed their mind on gay marriages since Mayor Newsom began allowing gay marriages in SF.

Then there was the CNN poll yesterday. (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/late.edition/):

Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?

Yes 78% 3885 votes

No 22% 1068 votes

Total: 4953 votes

When the Californian judicial system became the first to rule in favor of mixed marriages, they were going against the majority of the country.

I posted an excellent article here on DU last night. It went into how Mayor Newsom allowing gay marriages could very well turn out to be the gay rights movements Rosa Parks movement. It also went into a fair amount of history. I suggest you read the article. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1148845&mesg_id=1148845)

The candidate (who ever it will be) won't be hurt from what is happening for us. Gay marriages have been happening in SF now, for just over a week. Yet the polls showing the candidates against Bush* are resulting in Kerry and Edwards beating Bush*.

The images coming out of San Francisco are what is helping us. People are realizing that queers are getting married, and they are still waking up with the world turning. Their own marriages are still there and still as secure as they were the day before.

It has happened now, and we need to support this for our community. The most honorable form of partriotism there is, is civil disobedience, because it truly does show you care for your country and all her citizens.

[kayell]

37. :Applause:

Another wonderful post. I hope that one day soon you and Sapphocrat can be married here. It would be so great to have you as a part of our country.

[truthbetold]

34. IMHO...

This conversation has been long overdue.
It can be boiled down pretty simply:
-Gay people are human beings.
-Human beings have certain rights.
-Marriage is one of those rights.
Therefore:
-Gay people as human beings have the right to get married.
Seems logical to me.

[Martin Eden]

35. Gay marriage issue will hurt more than help in 2004 election

Republicans rely on FEAR and PREJUDICE to energize their base and persude swing voters. A clear majority of Americans (according to polls) are against gay marriage, especially those who are strongly religious.

Bush strategists are going to pound on cultural issues, and nurture the notion that a Democrat in the White House will further erode the moral foundation of America.

IMHO, it is immoral to play on people's fears in an effort to win their votes and deprive a minority of their civil rights. I don't for a minute think that gay unions threaten the institution of marriage -- on the contrary, when people in a loving, committed relationship get married and stay married, it strengthens the institution of marriage.

And there are many gay couples with children, who will definitely be better off if the pair of nurturing adults in their household are married. This is a plus for family values.

Unfortunately, far too many voters turn a deaf ear to these arguments, and take counsel of their fear and prejudice. I may be wrong, but I thinkthat if this issue influences the election, it will favor the candidate most identified with the Christian right (even though they are wrong).