Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 10:40 AM
Sun Nov 29
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/25/09
In my opinion the first mistake was leaving major civil rights decisions to the voting public. If it had been left up to the American populace, Blacks STILL wouldn't have the vote. Gays appealed to the citizens of California and the citizens said 'fuck you'.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
Civil rights are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing. Gay marriage is the largest weapon in gay people's crusade for cultural normalization. It is exactly this cultural normalization that makes the passage of employment nondiscrimination act more platable to (largely straight, and largely cowardly) legislators.
Furthermore, the employment nondiscrimination battle is presently a fight on the federal level, as opposed to the state level at which this post regarding CA's gays is specifically aimed.
There is no reason why both goals should not be sought simultaneously.
09/25/09
09/25/09
Supporting ENDA and gay marriage requires the same basic argument. Gay people are equal and deserve equal protection under our civil laws. A vast oversimplification in some regards, but potently true.
The sheer simplicity of it all is the gay rights movement's biggest strength. We need to take advantage of that strength by seeking equality on all fronts.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
I'm a gay, who would like to get married at some point, but I suggest Californians wait until 2012 to try this again--it doesn't help anyone to have gay marriage get voted down two election cycles in a row.
09/25/09
09/25/09
There's also the Constitution's role in establishing other civil-rights protections...and I'll bet a close look at how delegates were selected to write the initial version of that document would make interesting reading for proponents of a "natural rights" interpretation of its key clauses.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
I think a lot of opponents of gay marriage really just oppose the use of the word "marriage".
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
That doesn't mean progressives shouldn't keep fighting for it, and make it so he can't ignore it as an issue. His discomfort is something to overcome, not use as an excuse.
the DoMA does indeed need to be repealed - 1996 is not 2009.
If you don't really care about the issue at all and are just trying to make digs at 'oh look DEMOCRATS against gay marriage tee hee Me clever!", that's a bit sad. The poster acknowledges that the democrats are more 'gay-friendly', but he doesn't claim they're still not a bunch of 40-up mostly white men with old-school prejudices that need overcoming.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
I am all about seeing Republican heads explode and I like going to weddings as long as it isn't mine.
But I am chilled. If Cali can't do it well...
Try being Gay in my lovely state of Tennessee. I am a married Straight and I feel kinda oppressed here.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
I agree wholeheartedly that everyone should have the right to marry, but I would implore activists pushing for this to look at the larger picture.
If, approaching the 2010 mid-terms, it looks like the Dems are going to get serious electoral push-back from the right, it may be necessary to shelve this issue for one election cycle.
09/25/09
09/25/09
As Dan Savage notes, the old, bigoted bastards are dying out, and there's nothing they can do about the fact the younger generation isn't as bigoted. Abortion has had a less fluid run-off rate.
But to an extent that's an agreement with your fundamental argument. The longer it holds, the more chance for success.
Still, as a progressive, I think this is an important issue, and I actually don't think it's going to damage the left's chances. It's not a wedge anymore.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
Gay marriage is a different story. Half the country still doesn't support it, and yes, that includes Democrats and members of the "left."
09/25/09
Never forget, that as substantial as Democratic majorities are right now, that advantage can vanish in one election. In spite of the gains we've made in the last two national election cycles, you shouldn't read that as a rubber stamp mandate from the electorate. This is still a tremendously conservative country.
Many voted for Obama because the Bush regime was such an unmitigated disaster, and they voted for one or two issues; the economy and secondarily the war(s). They did not vote for gay marriage, it's a major miscalculation to think that they did.
Let me explain my personal stance here as well. 10 years ago I would have had no argument with pursuing this issue with both guns blazing. But if the last administration has taught me one thing, it's that there is a gigantic difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Even if it means deferring a more rapid, more progressive agenda, we must limit Republican power in this country above all else, for the simple reason that, as compromised and venal and empty-headed as the Dems can be, they're not evil, and the Republicans are. Period, end of story.
09/25/09
B) Tough Titty. D'ya think that, once "separate but equal" and the old Jim Crow laws were abolished, all those legislators who'd insisted that "it wasn't time," or "it wasn't a priority" were just, you know, welcomed back into the fold by African-Americans, because it had just been an honest policy disagreement? Or do you think they'd essentially lost that constituency for the rest of their professional lives? You're right that some Democrats and members of the "left" don't support gay marriage. And I don't support their continuation in any elective position. Period. My civil rights are not negotiable.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
This kind of reductive, absolutist argument demonstrates a lack of real historical knowledge. History is full of causes deferred and freedoms postponed. The abolitionist cause was there at the foundation of our republic. It took a hundred years and Civil War to end slavery. There are still a lot of people who are bitter about that one as well, and they still have a lot of power in this country.
You can stand there and stomp your feet and hold your breath and say "well I'm not voting for you!". But you know what? The other side WILL vote for their people, then where will you be?
09/25/09
That's a myth.
[www.prospect.org]
[www.hrc.org]
09/25/09
"Separate but equal" wasn't abolished at the same time as Jim Crow laws or the Poll Tax or affirmative action, all of which were their own struggles.
While you can certainly march for gay rights in general, it's just not practical to fight for gay marriage and the repeal of DADT and the repeal of DOMA (which is separate from legislating gay marriage) and employment nondiscrimination. Idealism is what galvanizes a movement, but practicality and pragmatism and, perhaps sadly, patience are what make those movements successful.
09/25/09
I maintain that they were. But I think it's also an impossible task to verify whether or not this is the case.
My point is that the timing, especially during such an important election, was really myopic.
09/25/09
Oh look! [www.washingtonpost.com] (I actually think some of this is because the Dems can't actually manage to do anything they promised to do, but for the sake of argument...) The riches don't aren't giving the Dems $$$ cuz they don't like the party's stance on Big Bidness. The poors aren't gonna give 'em money, cuz they promised us decent, affordable government-sponsored socialist health care and, despite having leadership over both houses of Congress AND the Presidency, don't seem to be geared to do anything except require us to buy the same shitty, overpriced inferior health insurance we have now... Again, I ask: exactly WHAT is good about these people, and WHY are they preferable to their opponents? If you've read any of my writings here, you know I I've followed not just the last eight years, but in fact the last 20 or so pretty quickly. Sure, the previous administration was evil. So why is BO adopting their strategies in the "war on terror" for the purposes of CONTINUING the steady erosion of America's civil rights? Why is he bargaining away health care, which was supposed to be a centerpiece of his administration, to people who have ALREADY SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT ANYWAY? And let me ask ONE MORE TIME: Why is BO better for the gays than W was?
09/25/09
Then that difference should be easier to explain in terms slightly more concrete than "Well, the other guys are evil." So is Max Baucchus. So are these guys: [www.nytimes.com] If we adopt your strategy, then it's always going to be, as Sir Winston Thriller says, "Jam yesterday, and jam tomorrow, but never jam today." The Dems have been loud and clear that we, at present are on their radar strictly as donors and voters; our priorities are not even on their list. Perhaps the only way to GET on those lists is to take the long-term strategy of throwing 'em to the wolves for an election cycle, and see if perhaps we seem somewhat more desiraable then.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
You get outraged by the lack of movement on this issue? I get outraged when people on the left think the needs of their special interest group outweigh the needs of society as a whole.
Society needs health care reform, society needs peace in the Middle East, society needs the damned economy to improve and for people to get back to work.
Society needs these things a hell of a lot more right now than it does for 8% of the population to get married.
09/25/09
As you pointed out earlier, 2-3% of the electorate can make a difference; you need us, bitches, and we know it, so start courting now.
09/25/09
What a bunch of self-righteous crap.
I want to say I can't believe that someone on the left would cut off their nose to spite their face, but you know what? I can. Because it took an administration so beyond the pale in terms of incompetence for the left to finally crawl out of its own ass for a while and get it together long enough to win a couple elections.
But, I guess now that we're back in power it's time to go right back the navel-gazing shit that got us kicked out in the first place.
Don't flatter yourself. This is a parochial concern. Lives are not at stake. That makes it parochial. Dignity? Fuck that. Tell that someone who can't feed their family or lost their house. I'm sure they'll see that as a real fucking noble sentiment.
09/25/09
Let me ask again: what does BO seem to be on the road to accomplishing that should be so wonderful? I cited above a list of NON gay marriage issues on which he is also for all apparent purposes failing. I've asked repeatedly for some evidence that you insist is so easily available that BO represents an improvement on the unmitigated evil of the previous administration. Still waiting.
09/25/09
09/25/09
It's always jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today for us, isn't it? We're always told that we can't have it now, can't even bring it up now because it will anger the right wing. Here's a hint--they're already angry. They don't give a shit. And they're in a smaller and smaller minority. What do we do? Wait until there are maybe one or two left and then pass legislation?
Glad I live in Vermont...
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
And "Civil unions" - Separate but equal? Sure, that always works dandy!
I think this post uses the same sort of logic Obama and his team use when they skirt this issue, and it as disappointing just as his avoidance of the issue is disappointing. While I don't disagree Love Honor Cherish has a hard fight, I do think it's insulting to call it "imprudent". This is a fundamental right, and an important one. Also, I think you're feeding the right-wing, anti-progressive spin - basically, 'it's too much to ask!'.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
Yes, 'skirt', that has been how he's handled it 90 percent of the time. That one comment got him a lot of flack, so he now stays away from it. But what's your point? That's not even the main gist of my comment, and you're arguing semantics.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
(Self-loathing, I'm agnostic on.)
09/25/09
The state, frankly, has bigger problems to tackle, such as its debt and the fact that it's always on fire
Really? I didn't realize that basic rights were now only allowed to be pursued by those being violated of them when the state doesn't have 'other' things to worry about.
Healthcare with no public option. Marriage equality no longer important. Next thing you know, alleged Democrats and liberals will be fighting for a tax cut.
Disturbing, indeed. I don't remember any previous civil rights fights---and gays marrying is a matter of civil rights--being dependent on whether or not the state(s) were having monetary problems.
And seriously? "lots of gays don't want to" is one of your reasons? Come the fuck on.
09/25/09
I need a drink.
09/25/09
Cast in other terms: Would it be better to fight one way and lose a little more often, than it would be to fight a different way and win a little more often?
It's not a trivial question. As long as the value of the wins themselves is not trivial -- which condition I think is satisfied here.
09/25/09
You just do because it's the moral thing to do.
Same goes for women's rights to equal pay, abortions etc. It's not a matter of when it'll be most convenient for us to fight these battles. It's never ever convenient. But you have to fight nonetheless.
So sad how quickly liberals will cave to the right--both the opposition and within their own party.
09/25/09
On this, we can productively and respectfully disagree.
My view is that any political action is chock-full of important strategic (as distinct from moral) decisions, where correct choices have a profound influence on the ultimate outcome -- even while the moral imperative remains relatively unchanged.
I gather your view is that the fight for "basic rights" goes on at the same high pitch at all times. I suggest that a glance at history -- and especially at how the definition of "basic rights" has changed innumerable times -- shows otherwise. But I'm still interested in what your view of history is.
09/25/09
You claimed in your post that it was pragmatic strategy. Perhaps your view is that the fight is being fought, albeit in different strategic terms. I took this awful, uninformed and silly post for what it actually said: that the fight is something that CA is "not ready for." Nonsense.
Legal strategies, actual pragmatism when approaching the gay rights fight is one thing. Giving up (as this post more than suggests) because eh, most gays don't even want to get married anyway, is asinine.
And I fail to see how the fact that history's definition of basic rights has changed as proof of anything whatsoever. It has. So?
09/25/09
I agree with you that we can't keep saying "now is not the time." When will the time be? What we have to do, though, is figure out what changes we can actually make now, and marriage rights is not one of them. Otherwise, we're hitting our head against the wall, making ourselves look like fanatics, and ultimately hurting the cause. We should focus our energy on something that's an easier sell, like, for instance, ending (official) workplace discrimination.
09/25/09
I offer this not as "proof" of anything -- that's above my pay grade, and it's your word rather than mine -- but just as an additional consideration that might help with interpretation.
The fact that the definition of "basic rights" has changed in the past strongly suggests that it's still in flux today. Thus the current situation might properly be described this way: Growing numbers of us believe that equal marriage is a "basic right" -- but there are still many others who do not.
Now the question becomes: What is the best way to complete this transition, to a society where equal marriage is widely accepted as a "basic right"? I don't know the answer, and so if someone says "More ballot initiatives right away" and then someone else says, "Actually, we should work on other issues first in order to prepare the ground for more ballot initiatives in the future" -- then I'm going to treat both positions seriously and with the respect they deserve. To me, it would seem knee-jerkily dismissive simply to characterize one of these strategic positions as "Giving up." Meaningful strategic thinking might require a bit more mental agility than that.
We don't disagree on that much, SR. In fact I'm completely willing to admit that your position might turn out to be 100% right in the end. I just think the people who are offering certain plausible alternatives deserve serious consideration first...in the event that your position doesn't turn out to be 100% right.
09/25/09
First you should probably look up the definition of the word "pragmatic."
Second, you should probably re-read the whole post without tripping your reactionary response trigger.
This has nothing to do with "caving" to anyone, it's strategy. And like it or not, strategy wins over force more often than not, regardless of what the issue is.
If the option is fight hard and often but loose soon and often, or fight smart and win later, what would you prefer?
He is framing the argument this way and though there is no question that this is a matter of obvious and morally reprehensible discrimination, it doesn't matter how passionate you or anyone else is if at the end of the day you lose the fight.
With regards to the economic situation in the state; he was trying to explain that the personal finances, of individuals -- not specifically the state's financial problems -- could make funding this fight more difficult. This for a second of who is most likely to fight this, financially, regardless of their monetary situation. Tip: It's not those who believe that their donation is helping god stop the sinning gays and their destruction of "American Values."
And while I agree their should ALWAYS been people campaigning for civil rights for all, that activity is simply not the same as an incredibly expensive push to change legislation in question; it's only a component.
09/25/09
When you couple this statement with the absolute disregard for the underlying point (equality in the work place) it forces me to wonder... What were you saying about twisting and painting?
09/25/09
09/25/09
I am not addressing the gay rights issue from the point of a reactionary liberal. Far from it. There are many many ways to achieve what we want for gays, for blacks, for Latinos, for all of the under and un-represented in our society. It involves moral character, fighting for what's right and good and most importantly not giving into the cries and howls of a vocal, un-representative few.
What I am addressing is Andrew's ridiculous post which comes down to claiming that CA's fight for gay marriage is not "prudent" at this time-- which is completely ridiculous.
09/25/09
Gee, maybe if they would have just waited until after the Cold War or after Vietnam or until people had enough resources to donate money to the cause or after whenever the time was more convenient, excuse me, prudent.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
Not being American, maybe somebody can tell me if that is already common there, but in Germany they introduced a "marriage like relationship" for gay people which avoids two points that tend to cause a lot of debate:
a) it is not called marriage, which reduced the religious debate a lot (oh so the church says marriage is not for gays? well it ain't a marriage)
b) no tax break, so it basically comes for free and reduces the "envy".
This solves a lot of issues gays had (e.g. inheritance, medical decisions, ...) and basically put them on par with other marriage like relationships (e.g. heterosexual couples that live like a married couple but are not actually married).
Does anything like that exist ?
09/25/09
There's also the talk of civil unions for gay people, but they don't afford the same rights as marriage. Our country has a history of "separate but equal" not being so equal.
09/25/09
09/25/09