For all those that plan to punish the Dems because they haven't done what you wanted them to do, I say by all means vote for the Republicans. That'll show them. And I'm sure that the right wing will thank you for it by making it illegal for gay people to exist. Sorry folks but the Democratic party is the only game in town.
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'.
@Lance Uppercut: @Lance Uppercut: On this issue? Yeah, pretty much. Oh, and certain decisions, you may recall, were specifically firewalled AWAY from "the tyranny of the majority" by the Founding Fathers, who instead reserved decision making on those issues to unelected, unaccountable judges. Smart guys, that bunch.
@Lance Uppercut: On this issue? Yeah, pretty much. Oh, and certain decisions, you may recall, were specifically firewalled AWAY from "the tyranny of the majority" by the Founding Fathers, who instead reserved decision making on those issues to unelected, unaccountable judges. Smart guys, that bunch.
@BowlingForDollars: Bowling, the only -- and I mean ONLY -- thing that could tempt me to the back of the bus would be the opportunity to make out with you there.
Amongst this post's biggest flaws is its misguided attempt at ranking civil rights. It is dubious to claim employment nondiscrimination is more fundamental than marriage. Pointing out that some gay people don't want to get married is akin to pointing out that some gay people are self-employed; it proves nothing.
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.
@Dudezebel: Your federal-vs.-state argument seems pretty strong to me. Although doesn't it presume that the voting public's attention (that is, their capacity to comprehend key arguments on both issues) is basically unconstrained? And does that square with what you know about the voting public's attention in general?
@skahammer: The voting public's focus is limited to be sure. However, I'm not presuming that their capacity even needs to be unconstrained.
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.
You notice that as soon as the Mormons and the Catholics beat the gays down in CA, the entire state fell apart... the economy went straight to the crapper, everybody lost their job, it caught on fire, and Leno went prime time. God certainly does work in mysterious ways.
It's a question of political calculation. If gay marriage goes back on the ballot in 2010, it goes down again--and probably by a larger margin. Midterm elections are low-turnout affairs, and the gay marriage initiative will lack the boost it got from all the fired-up liberals coming out to pull the lever for Obama. Indeed, next year it will likely be the conservative reactionaries who come out swinging--and you know how they'll vote on this issue.
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.
@flossy: Also, on a more basic level, I don't really think this is something that should be settled at the polls anyway. Remind me when we decided to vote on who does or doesn't get civil rights?
@flossy: I'm sure you're aware of the elected Congress' role in codifying certain civil rights protections, and the elected Executive's role in enforcing those protections.
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.
Civil unions or domestic partnerships for all. It's that simple. And if a religious couple wants to "marry' let them go to the church/synagogue/mosque that will do it.
@crotchety: Do you mean to revert current "marriages" to that, as well? Because there are over 1000 federal benefits accorded marriages that are not accorded to civil unions or domestic partnerships. I doubt anyone who has them would give them up.
@GitEmSteveDave_SaysHappy40thJe...: When I read the DOMA I couldn't find any mention in there about civil unions at all. What I am saying is simple. Everyone, gay or straight, gets civil unions. If a religious couple wants to be "married" then all they have to do is find a clerical type that will do it.
I think a lot of opponents of gay marriage really just oppose the use of the word "marriage".
@crotchety: You are totally correct. There is opposition to the word "marriage". As long as it is in the federal law as marriage, and the DOMA defines "marriage as ONLY between one man and one woman", even civil unions won't count. But instead of trying for equal rights/benefits and civil unions, many are trying to go all out, which is not how you win something like this. Just like Civil Rights, it's a win here, a loss here, a tie there. But people don't realize that Gays and Lesbians getting a win and a tie beats that one loss, and it will take time until there's no more loses, and you've achieved your starting goal. I almost feel that our short attention spans and click-buy-ship-get attitude is something our forefathers and mothers didn't have, so they were happy slowly winning a victory. Heck, I honestly don't believe any group could pull a successful boycott off, even if they tried, nowadays.
Ok. I'll just wait until you tell me its a good time. In the meantime, my wife and I, who married in Massachusetts, but live in a state where its not recognized will just continue to be considered not married by the state. She's unemployed but I can't put her on my health insurance. If one of us goes to the hospital the other may or may not be able to visit, unless the hospital "lets" us, if she were to pass away or be seriously ill I couldn't get family medical leave or bereavement leave. But hey, that's ok, let's just wait until people decide its ok for us. After all, not all gay people want to get married.
Don't forget that neither the current President or Vice President will support gay marriage in a civil sense/changing what the def of marriage is, and want faiths to handle what a "marriage" is considered.
@GitEmSteveDave_SaysHappy40thJe...: Also don't forget that the Defense Of Marriage Act will need to be repealed as well. The one signed by Bill Clinton.
@GitEmSteveDave_SaysHappy40thJe...: I don't think it's being forgotten... it's a huge issue, because Obama himself is very uncomfortable with making gay marriage an issue whatsoever. It's incredibly disappointing. I support him on much, but this is definitely not one of those things.
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.
@GitEmSteveDave_SaysHappy40thJe...: You are mashing two very seperate issues. Civil Rights (including Civil Marraige) are very different from Religious rights. Yes, catholics need not marry gays if its against their beleifs. But they also cannot dictate who receives spousal benefits based on their beleifs.
@NoelleBlue: I'm the child of a gay parent and a relative of someone who died of AIDS in the 80's, etc... Trust me, I want them to have rights more than anyone. I just think the whole one party is better than the other for gay rights and putting all of your eggs in one basket isn't the right way to go. I think a "death by 1,000 cuts" is the way to do it. If you have a baby chick caught in a hole in a rock 2" round, the only way to get him out is to slowly drop grains of sand/dirt into the hole so the chick will eventually rise higher and higher. I think Civil Unions and the same rights is a good first step, then as more and more progressive people get to be voting age, and the radicals start dying off naturally, you will get the change you want. Just my 2 cents.
@TabithaIapetus: Or we could do ye old hypen... the Goor-Pays or the Pay-Goors isn't that what the monied folks do when they marry one another. Why is it when you're in Kentucky and you marry a cousin everybody sneers but when the robber barons do it everything is groovy?
Unpleasant truth: The push for gay marriage lost the Democrats the presidential election in 2004. Most people forget how close that election really was, and that much like with Nader, a few thousand voters one way or the other can make the difference. Remember also, it's the wedge "values" issue that most galvanizes the right wing base, second to abortion.
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.
@lionel-mandrake: Possibly true, but more important truth: it's no longer 2004, it's going to be 2010. 6 years is a long time, especially with the speed at which gay rights are changing in the eyes of the public.
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.
@ShanghaiLil: Numerically, no, it probably won't lose them the elections to do nothing about it. If however, you're talking about the Geffen ($$$) bloc, then yes, you're right.
@lionel-mandrake: That's exactly what I'm talking about -- and we as a group are actually pretty generous donors to the party. And I can definitely say that Geffen's pretty pissed, as are some of the other big-money people.
@ShanghaiLil: I think non-discrimination rights at the office and hate crime legislation are no longer wedge issues. Even the staunchest Republican would likely be hard-pressed to publicly oppose equal occupational rights for homosexuals. (I assume.)
Gay marriage is a different story. Half the country still doesn't support it, and yes, that includes Democrats and members of the "left."
@NoelleBlue: You should take a close look at what's written on those tea partier/birther/deather protest signs. Among the usual wingnuttery sentiments about what's destroying American society; taxes, health care abortion, etc, gay marriage is right up there at the top.
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.
@muppet_baby: A) I can think of plenty of Republican legislators who'd have not the slightest difficulty opposing both equal employment rights and hate crime legislation, and
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.
@lionel-mandrake: Not nearly as clear on that distinction as you are. They're all fucking the same lobbyists; the Democrats just know to use a fake name when they check into the hotel.
@ShanghaiLil: Unfortunately, sometimes civil rights are, and have to be, negotiable.
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?
@ShanghaiLil: I'm not arguing that it'd be a bad idea to fight for gay marriage, but I think it's a mistake to lump that battle in with other gay-rights arguments. Yes, they're ALL civil rights, but they're different fights with, at least right now, different prospects for being legislated.
"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.
@TheGuvnah: Actually, neither of the things you linked to reference the specific issue of the 2004 election. They reference legislative efforts subsequent to the election, but not whether voters (of which you really only need 2% or 3% to swing that way) were driven specifically to vote for Bush over Kerry on this one particular issue.
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.
@lionel-mandrake: Canada. Where I'm welcome. And leave you guys to the shitty government you deserve.
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?
@lionel-mandrake: you must have been asleep for the last decade to not see the difference.
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.
@muppet_baby: Since you bring up DOMA, it is perhaps worth remembering that that was a DEMOCRATIC proposal, signed by a DEMOCRATIC President. And I'm supposed to believe that these people are secretly really on my side why?
@ShanghaiLil: So you're saying that the parochial issues of the few, should monopolize the needs of the many. 8% of the population has a stake in this. 8%.
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.
@lionel-mandrake: I'm not saying that at all -- in fact, I specifically pointed out that one of my great disappointments with this administration has been its apparent failure to produce meaningful healthcare reform. But the fact that you refer to my basic, fundamental civil rights as "parochial issues" pretty much tells me ONCE again that, while my money and votes are welcome in the Democratic party, my concerns are not. African Americans didn't comprise much more of the population when the 60s civil rights laws were passed either. But it was a matter of basic decency. There is a definite and long-standing homophobia of the Left that has always defined sexual orientation issues as less important than...well, just about anything. I too survived (just barely) the '80s and the '90s; many of the people I cared the most about did not. As an early member of ACT UP/NY, and an employee of several of the major AIDS organizations, I'm pretty damned comfortable saying that we did not survive by being nice and waiting our turn, and that the Dems, with a handful of exceptions, were no more anxious than the Repubs to leap to our defense. So as for your Dixiecratic list of issues and people whose concerns are far more important than my parochial little ones? Might I suggest sir, A) that if you want them passed, you will probably need all the support you can get, so it might be wise to start making us offers now, B) that insulting and condescending to us and belittling our concerns as you have done may not be the best negotiating strategy, and C) a good start might be to take that list of our petty, "parochial" little concerns about which we are selfish enough to prioritize them equally with what you perceive to be the greater good, roll it into a tight little tube, and stuff it up your Yellow-Dog ass.
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.
@ShanghaiLil: Get off your fucking high horse. Christ, you're really dragging out the "I fought in the war crap"? Yeah, I grew up in NYC, my godfather died of AIDS, and you know what, he'd think you all were being a bunch of selfish, short-sighted fools too.
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.
@lionel-mandrake: Yeah, I fought in the motherfucking war. I still fight it every single day. And yes, I believe it does give me a certain moral authority that you, so far as I can see, lack.
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.
@lionel-mandrake: Oh, and P.S. My moral status, intelligence, wisdom, or social utility are, as far as I'm concerned, not subject in any way to your approval or disapproval; I don't, honestly, give a flying goddamn whether or not you like me. You think I'm a self-righteous asshole? Fine, get in line. But if you are a member of the Democratic Party who wants the support of me and my friends? You'd damned well better care what I think of you. You can't afford to squander potential votes. You think that puts Dems in a difficult position? Between the proverbial rock and a hard place? I agree. And that's my problem, why? As I said earlier. Sucks to be them.
It's the last paragraph that's the hardest to swallow--and its sentiments are the most often used: Then, there's the political aspect: it's no secret that Democrats are more gay-friendly than the Republican set. That's a given. It's also a given that Democrats will face a hard fight in the next campaign. If Californian or other lawmakers are encouraged to — and do — support gay rights, they may come up against the ever-growing anti-government right wing. If the politicians don't support the measure they'll be labeled homophobes and lose the lavender vote. Either way, they lose. And then so do gay people.
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?
@Sir Winston Thriller: Here here. I figure I've been patient about the public option for health care that Obama campaigned on, I've been patient about his foot-dragging on the bullshit "war on terror," I've been patient about DOMA and ENDA and DADT, and quite frankly, I don't have a great deal of patience left to spread around. The Dems continually count on us to vote for them because they think we don't have anywhere else to go, but we always have the option of just leaving them to their own devices without us. If I don't see some actual progress on the issues that are important to me pretty damned soon, I'm sitting out the next election. And I will encourage my friends to do the same, and to encourage their friends to do it as well. Let's be clear about this: I have no inherent loyalty to the Democratic Party, and no reason to care who gets in if there's no tangible benefit either way.
@ShanghaiLil: If it wasn't for my senators and representative (Leahy, Sanders, Welch), I'd've told the Democratic Party "This gAyTM is closed!" a while ago. ALl three are on the right side of issues that matter to me.
@Sir Winston Thriller: It has always been a point of pride to me that, while attending college in your proud state, I cast one of the votes that made Bernie the only socialist member of the US House of Representatives.
To some people saying 'who needs marriage', trust me, when couples get older and start ending up in hospitals, and need legal decisions to be made - gay and lesbian couples do *need* these rights to get the respect and recognition they deserve. (And not have them taken away by families, even families that haven't been in the picture for decades.)
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!'.
@NoelleBlue: It's been extremely disappointing how the White House has utterly skirted the issue. Take a stand already. Gay rights are like abortion, though, to everyone in Washington. Both two issues entirely too powerful for both to use as carrots and sticks. And that's more important to them than the fundamental right to marry whoever you want and have the people you choose make life-altering decisions for you.
@NoelleBlue: "Skirt" the issue? The Obama team said during the election they would not support redefining marriage, and instead leave it up to the faiths and the people who practice said faiths to do.
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.
@GitEmSteveDave_SaysHappy40thJe...: So he intends to leave it as a faith-based issue, and remove the generous federal benefits that married people get?
@momo: Not to mention lacking in logic and absent of any sort of corroboration. I mean, would if fucking kill you, Andrew, to pick up a phone and get an expert opinion, or find a poll result, or even include an illustrative anecdote? Or has your solipsism so taken over your life that you think this kind of doodling belongs at the top of Gawker?
@lacieca01: @momo: I treasure both of your Gawker oeuvres, but allow me to suggest that Gawker is a suitable place for occasional posts that consist entirely of opinion -- even when that opinion might be potentially undereducated, misinformed, and smug.
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.
@SinisterRouge: But Andrew's argument isn't one of moral force -- it's of pragmatic strategy. I don't get the sense he's advocating a reordering of anyone's moral priorities.
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.
@skahammer: It's not pragmatic strategy. It's liberal cowardice once again. You don't seem to make the connection between gays being allowed to marry and that not being able to do that is a violation of their basic rights. Period. We don't choose when to fight for basic rights. We don't choose when the best time and best opportunity is.
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.
@SinisterRouge: We don't choose when to fight for basic rights.
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.
@skahammer: You're twisting around what I actually said. I didn't say that fighting for civil rights doesn't involve strategy. Of course it does and it's rather ridiculous that you would try and paint what I said as a constant shrieking of "gay rights right now!" with no concept of strategy or how to do it.
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?
@SinisterRouge: Andrew made the argument that people should focus on workplace discrimination before the right to marry. Whether or not you agree, I think this goes to the point skahammer made about the definition of basic rights changing over time. If we take a look the Civil Rights Movement for people of color, change wasn't fundamental, it was incremental. It took time for the country to accept that having access to the same places, benefits, and opportunities are all extensions of basic rights. (Arguably, this is an ongoing process.)
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.
@SinisterRouge: 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?
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.
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.
@SinisterRouge: "Giving up (as this post more than suggests) because eh, most gays don't even want to get married anyway, is asinine."
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?
@Voyou_Charmant: Y'know, I think I've told this story here before, but I'm gonna tell it again. When an old friend of mine formed one of the first advocacy groups to fight for gay marriage, I laughed sarcastically, and said, "Yeah, right. Not in either of our lifetimes." When MA started marrying gays, it made me blissfully happy to call him up and apologize for having been an asshole, and a cynical, wrong asshole at that. And now several states, including Iowa -- IOWA -- are marrying gays. My friend's faith, hope and tireless thankless (at the time) work beat the fuck out of my "pragmatism." So I really have no confidence that anyone else is better equipped to know when the "right" time is than I was back then. Part of the problem or part of the solution. You choose.
@Voyou_Charmant: You are making a circular argument and not addressing the substance of my comment. I never ever said that there is no need to be pragmatic in strategy. I said that the post's suggestion that we give up this particular fight at this particular time as untimely and imprudent is not pragmatism, it's cowardice. The post doesn't call for pragmatism for eventual gain. He calls for giving up because he's scared of the right wing.
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.
@Voyou_Charmant: And with regards to strategy winning over force. The civil rights movement was won not because of pragmatism but because enough people were brave and imprudent enough to fight against those that would keep others from being equal in society. People were murdered and hanged. Force was not only a part of the strategy but a necessary one. Liberals, Democrats, those who believed in equality under the law did use force. They had to force it down the right wing's gullet.
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.
@Voyou_Charmant: I ain't getting any younger. It's nice to have survived the 80's, but on tactics I'll go with Kramer. Hit em hard, every day, leaving no quarter and no mercy.
What I never got in these kind of fights is why they not at first aim for the 'lower ranking fruits".
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).
@develin: I think some states have what's known as a commonlaw marriage, wherein a couple who have lived together for a certain amount of time are considered "married" and get some (if not all) of the rights that go along with it.
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
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