Around Town: Prop 8 Protest, Round 1

Those who support same sex marriage would be wise to refrain from accusing others of "hate."

That accusation is not going to win anyone over to your side. Remember that many people who support identical civil and legal benefits for same-sex marriage simply believe, at the same time, that the word "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals.

They may be wrong, but to call them "hateful" is wrong. And it makes the gay rights side look bad.

By the way, I support same-sex marriage.

Do you realize that in 99.9% of state and county laws that deal with marriage use the term "marriage" and never "civil unions", right? So, I think it's entirely appropriate to use the term and demand the civil liberty of "marriage" for all - that is the wording and the language utilized when two individuals join together in a lasting commitment and contract of both love and property before the state. I see no logical reason why to rewrite all the laws on the books and create separate laws for homosexuals when you could just simply expand the pool of those that are allowed to marry.

This is not a matter of semantics or a battle over just a single word as you claim. It is a matter of those who cannot accept homosexuality as a fact of life and wish to discriminate as much as they can get away with in these days of growing acceptance for gays and lesbians.

I see a parallel between the notion that "the word marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals" and with the white-only/black-only water fountains and restrooms and entrances and exits in pre-1965 America. Proponents of that segregation would say "the negros have their own restrooms - we're not stopping them or discriminating." And history has shown how wrong they were and that segregation was unconstitutional, unethical, and based upon racism.

I entirely suspect that those who do not support gay marriage or wish to battle over a mere language as you suggest are simply just bigots that cannot come out and say so. And if that is the case, then we are winning.

It's frustrating to hear the self-righteous complain that gay marriage 'dilutes' the institution and what it stands for and how this offends them.

What do they mean by this? They never go on to say.

Getting married is a legal process. Church and State are supposed to be separate.

What else is separate is what I do behind closed doors. It just makes sense.

But you cannot talk sense to the bible beaters who have dug their heals in on this issue (as well as the right to choose).

It's just so ridiculous. You could be living next door to the perfect people. They could be wonderful neighbors, they help out in a pinch, they keep their house nice, they always say hello, they give generously to charity, they volunteer, they are good, kind productive people.
But they are gay, or lesbian and married!! (and maybe had an abortion). Once you find this out what are you going to do? Run them out of town? Do they all of the sudden become "diluters" of the precious institution of marriage and evil because they had an abortion 10 years ago?

Why can't people just mind their own business? Put their efforts into something productive that could actually help the country? These are the same people who go on and on about how they want less government in their lives yet they want to insinuate their opinions into the private lives of people where it has nothing to do with them.

@jimbo

Good luck winning any rational argument when you have the underlying belief that regardless of what the opposing side states, you're going to feel that he/she is a bigot. This, in a nutshell, is a major reason why gay marriage supporters get the fervent backlash that they always get - whenever confronted with an argument, the immediate response is along the lines of, "You're hateful, bigoted, and just plain stupid.

I see no logical reason why gay individuals cannot marry. Opponents of gay marriage cannot come up with a valid argument whatsoever why citizens that pay taxes and happen to be gay cannot enjoy the civil rights that citizens that happen to be heterosexual are given. They are, essentially, anti-gay due to either religious belief or some sort of dislike of those that are different from themselves. And the pun of "H8" is entirely accurate. And opponents of gay marriage are so sensitive and wish not to be called bigots, perhaps they should just mind their own business and quit denying gay couples their civil rights. Ever think of that? I think the first stone cast was those that support, finance, and vote for such legal measures like Prop 8.

@gcoaster

It is unfortunate, but those in favor of same sex marriage have overplayed their hand. They simply must recognize the reality that they will not have popular support (be it educated, uneducated, stupid, bigoted, whatever) in the near term.

Support for gay civil rights and acceptance of homosexuality has grown over the last few decades. You really pay more attention to opinion studies. You will see that younger generations simply do not care if people are gay or not and that trend has been growing in the last 30 years.

People have come out of the closet much more easily than in the recent past because there is much less of a stigma and hatred these days.

Now, we are not quite to the point of acceptance of gay marriage, but if the general trend continues, I believe gay marriage will be legal in most states (if not nationally by way of some sort of civil rights act) within a decade.

The whole civil unions vs. marriage debate reeks of style over substance for me. If you can have an institution that gives you all the rights you want, then take it, regardless of what it is called. It is better to have some rights labeled under a name you don't like than have no rights under a name you want.

When were people offered such a choice? Never. And such a choice is a false dichotomy, anyway.

The whole comparison to black civil rights is flawed as well. Blacks did not start in the 60s demanding that they have affirmative action, they just wanted the right to vote unencumbered and attend schools. They didn't try to get more than what the majority was willing to give to them at any given time. Once they had these rights, the remedial measures came later. They walked before they could run, and by doing this didn't upset middle America in such a way that their rights were summarily denied.

You really should crack open a history book, my friend. The gay rights movement started in the 1960s and 1970s and has made incredible victories both legally and culturally since. Gay marriage is one of the last challenges to overcome at least in the legal sense to achieve equal civil rights that heterosexual individuals enjoy.

Additionally, a comparison of the plight of homosexuals against the blacks is not even close (it's not like gays were systematically denied the right to vote, rounded up and beaten by cops and lynched, had fire hoses turned on them, kept out of education systems, etc etc).

Once again, you have zero sense of history. Are you truly that unaware of the murders, beatings, firings, harassment, and assassination that the gay community has endured over countless decades?

So, please please please take civil unions. Then in five or ten years after the mainstream middle has seen that homosexual unions aren't the evil that right wing conservatives made it out to be, politely ask for (NOT demand) marriage. That is how you get what you want. You can't have it all now, so don't try it, you'll just set the movement back further. Be practical, for Christ's sake.

Please explain who is giving the gay community such a choice. And please explain what the difference is between gay marriage and civil unions. I see no difference - only a difference in language. And personally, I do not think it is so radical to use the word "marriage" (everyone does anyway) and I think it is much more practical to simply expand the pool of those that the state can marry rather than re-write millions of pages of legal code and create separate laws just for one demographic. That sounds far more impractical.

@Gerobobo-

I see no logical reason why gay individuals cannot marry...They are, essentially, anti-gay due to either religious belief or some sort of dislike of those that are different from themselves.

No, they are anti-gay marriage; their reasons are irrelevant. This is not a hard concept, nor is this a civil rights issue. I've said it before, and I'll say it again on here, gay marriage is going to have to come through legislation. Unlike the denial of a civil right, how would you get the denial of gay marriage before a court?

Also, @gcoaster

I understand the opinions you have on the state of the homosexual rights movement.

However, I would say that the atrocities suffered by the GLBT community is comparable to those wrought upon the black community. As was stated above my post, gays have been the victims of murders, beatings, denial of basic civic rights (education, voting, however maybe not as overtly as when blacks were denied), and many other debasing attacks. This is not anecdotal, this is recorded fact. Matthew Shepard?

Also, as someone else pointed out, gays have fought for decades for many rights that they were originally denied, and have won many important legal battles. The fight for gay marriage is one of the most recent battles, so I would not necessarily say that they are trying to "run before they can walk."

The whole civil unions vs. marriage debate reeks of style over substance for me. If you can have an institution that gives you all the rights you want, then take it, regardless of what it is called. It is better to have some rights labeled under a name you don't like than have no rights under a name you want.

First, simply consider what you are asking. You are asking GLBT people to accept that the predjudices of others are simply too great for us to be treated equally under the law.

Civil Unions are not the same as marriage. A simple primer.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

It's not the same, it's not equality, it is offensive and intolerant. If you have any interest in equality you should be outraged by the very idea of creating a seperate but equal class simply to asuage those who are morally offended.

And that's the real crux of the anti-gay marriage crowd. They're morally offended. They have no scientific evidence, no studies showing that gay parents are more prone to abuse or that there will be some massive economic downturn if gays and lesbians can marry. They have an aversion, primarily driven by religious fervor.

I have no problem with that aversion. Avoid us all your like. Don't patronize gay shops, don't have gay friends, pray for us and light candles in the hopes we come back to the straight fold. That's your choice.

But do not ask us to accept your predjudice, your bigotry, as written law. Do not dump millions of dollars in church-raised dollars into a campaign to decieve the public with fear-mongering about how GLBT people are going to warp children.

The comparison to the black struggle for civil rights isn't valid, you're right. The GLBT struggle is even wider.

Racial predjudice has, in the past 60 years, gone from matter of course to social suicide. And yet gays and lesbians can still be fired simply for their sexual orientation, or denied access to loved ones.

We're not "over-playing our hand". We're demanding that those who fund hateful, backwards acts like prop8 be known and shamed. They act through television commercials and right-wing radio ideologues. They don't even have the "courage" of a Bull Connor or David Duke.

Don't ask us to wait for other people to start acting like adults.

@CLEVER -

Unlike in civil rights situations that we've had, I'm not aware of any institutions that are discriminating against homosexuals for not being married. As such, who can suit be brought against to hear a 14th Amendment argument? There's little question that a 14th Amendment argument can be made, the practicality of it ever getting before a court is something I just can't see. The only party that I could see it being brought against would be a state, which the 11th Amendment and subsequent interpretations of forbids. Getting the 14th Amendment heard by a court and applied takes a bit more than the common argument of "equal protection" that everybody throws out.

I still would like to know where all these protests were, calling attention to the issue BEFORE the vote.

Wouldn't you rather have something than nothing?

A little liberty because too much would cause offense? Just a little freedom of speech, or a little freedom to association. Just accept some discrimination. No.

Equality is a tricky subject, debated throughout the ages by philosophers and jurists much smarter than you or I might ever hope to be. To say we can say something meaningful about equality as a concept is presumptuous and would show our intellectual immaturity.

You're tap dancing to a foxtrot here. We're not discussing platonic ideals of liberty here, we're talking about real people, in the here and now, asking that they, as citizens and tax-payers be afforded the same liberties as the rest. This is not semiotics class, these are pressing issues of law that affect millions of families. Casting it as simply "above our paygrade" is disingenuous at best at best and simple ignorance at worst.

While you might not like that you have to ask other people for the right to marry, unfortunately you do. This is a democracy and you cannot simply pick and choose to consult popular opinion whenever it suits you.

No, this is a representative republic. The elected governor of California wants this law tossed and would have never signed it into law. The referendum was an end run around the system that used deceitful advertising and millions of church dollars to scare people into thinking they were protecting children from some horror of gay recruitment or other nonsense.

The tyranny of the majority is exactly what our system is set up to protect us, all of us, from.

And no, the GLBT struggle is not wider. Has it ever been the case that you would rather be a black male than a gay white male?

I'd rather someone not treat me differently for having more melanin in my skin or sleeping with a man. Gays and Lesbians have faced oppression in every culture, it cuts across nations and races. Playing "who got it worse from 'the man'" is a muggs game. The rainbow flag stands for the diverse nature of the gay community that cuts across color and class.

Do not dare to marginalize their plight, or face their wrath (look how they voted in California, after all).

Oh please, enough with the Shepard Smith/Sean Hannity indignation. Spare everyone that tired ploy. I'm not saying that, you know it so keep your huffing and puffing to a minimum.

The black people had it worse than the gay people the women had it worse than everyone, the Native Americans? The Jews? The Rom? The Chinese under Japan in WWII? Shall we go on?

We're talking about ending discrimination, in all it's forms. No one marching against this law wants to take away from the struggles of other groups. We've all come a long way, and there's much further to go.

Albany,

What is a "little liberty" to you is a huge sticking point to others. And those others get a voice in our representative republic (I suppose I can spare someone like you an explanation about how the state wide referendum is not in fact an institution of representative republicanism anyway). It doesn't matter how you view the issue, it matters how society views the issue. And it is not a little issue to society.

Homosexuals are afforded the same liberties as the rest. If they would like to marry a member of the opposite sex, they can. They have equality in that regard. Please don't assume I'm trying to tap dance around the issue here, I am trying to be genuine and present the other side as something that needs to be addressed rather than written off as intolerant religious nutballs trying to keep the faggots down. Tell me, whose approach do you think will get father in the real world, mine or yours?

Also, issues of equality are just as murky and treacherous in the law as the metaphysical/ontological. So, while I'm not trying to be disingenuous, I freely admit my ignorance.

The campaign for Prop 8 was deceitful and it is such a shame (and sham). But the people have spoken regardless. The opponents had every opportunity to engage in the same tactics but for some reason (as Mary Sunshine pointed out) no one cared enough until after the fact. What the hell is up with that? Instead of protesting after the fact, all these protestors should have instead worked an extra hour and contributed it to the opposition campaign months ago. Then something useful might come out of their efforts. Blocking traffic and waiving flags doesn't change minds to your favor (in fact it generally does the opposite).

I suppose we would all love to live in a world were a man is judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin or whom he has sexual relations with (of course, many/most people in our country consider the latter to be a valid signifier of someone's character, but what do they matter, they're bigots, right?). You're the one tap dancing around my question now. Please answer it.

My main reason for calling attention to the relatively greater plight of black people is to remember that proponents of gay rights have to be careful in the analogies they draw. That's all. Whether they want to take away from the struggles of the other groups is irrelevant - the other groups might feel like they do, and therefore get offended, and therefore resist granting new rights. Look at the comments before you - many of them are more than ready to marginalize the plight of blacks and others. That does not bode well for the cause, does it?

"that proponents of gay rights have to be careful in the analogies they draw."

Gcoaster

NO they don't because "they" don't give a sh*t and I fear that with Obama as president, more and more people may not give a sh*t and infact my create a backlash against poor black folks as in "they must not want to achieve because if they did then they would be just like Obama." And I'm talking liberals saying this.

Now with that said Let the mutha f*ckers have the civil right to marry just like every body else

p.s you don't really live on the Gold Coast do you?

@Slaphappy

Gender in a nutshell is masculinity and femininity, which theoretically cross sexual lines. This is not gender discrimination.

...and this isn't sexual discrimination either

@Jimbo

I am a man. If another man wanted to marry me in a civil ceremony, the state is saying that I can't because I'm a man. That's gender discrimination. What part of that do you not understand?

All,

As someone who started on the other side of this argument, I must say that Albany has made quite a compelling case. I have to agree.

However, the cynical side of me sees this as a righteous cause, but a tragic one.

Lets face it, Homosexuals have never in human history, been the 'Alpha Males' of a society (consider the guy above with the yellow sign exhibit A: has there ever been a better poster child for midwestern kid that has issues with Dad, and spent Junior High getting his ass kicked in gym class?). Humans will always dominate the vulnerable peoples in society.

Lets say the gay community gets this win, but what happens when the Christian White Male no longer serves as this cultures 'Alpha Male?' If the Black Man replaces the White Man does the Gay situation improve? If the Islamic force replaces the Morman force, how long will Gay marriage last?

To think that it is inevitable that America continues its socialy progressive march is to be ignorant of history, demographic trends, and birth rates.

Albany,

I think your peeps will ultimately win this fight. Once its over, it might be a good idea to make nice with the newly conquered White Christian right...ironically they are the only sustainable source of people who think like you, and will be needed in the coming struggle with the above mentioned groups.

Albany,

It doesn't matter where the objection to homosexuality comes from. That it is there and motivates voting decision matters. Being militant about gay rights doesn't make it go away.

And the majority of Americans (at the national level) did not support segregation at the time of its repeal (at least in the education field, honestly I'm not sure about others). The same is not the case of same sex marriage now. But the majority supports civil unions. So take them. Same sex marriage will probably come soon after, just like affirmative action did.

Trust me, the protest didn't raise awareness in a rather progressive urban area. Chicago voted for Obama by like 75% or whatever. But people in California will look at these protests like "why are they protesting about my decision in my state" and be all indignant and shit. Wouldn't you feel the same if Illinois legalized same sex marriage and some rednecks in Montgomery were marching in their streets in protest or whatever?

You have to remember that these people don't think that homosexuality is a trait you are born with. They're not going to be sympathetic if you're calling them stupid and bigoted. That is not the way to win them to your side.

If you frame the argument in terms of what is right/wrong, you're playing right into their terms. And that is stupid. It is best to reframe the argument as economically inefficient or not useful or draconian for people who want to visit their dying partner. Because then it is not a moral issue with all the moral baggage.

It sucks, but you have to keep being careful. The Black Panthers didn't win black people any rights for a reason. You have to be reasonable and willing to address the other side if any progress is to be made. You have to be willing to endure unfairness and pain in order for mainstream America to relate to your mistreatment and pain so that they won't feel so conflicted in giving you rights. I hate that families have to hurt, but it is unavoidable and I hope that some good can come from it in the end. It doesn't have to be quiet or out of the way, the more it is in the public discourse the better.

Why do you keep bringing Rush into this. Having rights necessarily means living in a society where you can have them. They don't flow from individuals, they flow from society. Rights at the individual level are quite meaningless (what rights do you need living alone on a desert island?). Society can come together to restrict certain things, even what you call "natural rights." Or they can grant you rights. You currently have the right to marry a woman. You want the right to marry a man. That is a new right that you want.

My argument is this:
1. Take civil unions now.
2. "Suffer" through unions for 5-10 years
3. Publicize your suffering
4. Appeal to the public for same sex marriage to alleviate your suffering.

Your argument:
1. I want something
2. Give it to me now

Jimbo,
Good job re: "gender discrimination."

Spook,
Yes, I do in fact live in the Gold Coast.

Prop 8 and the banning of gay marriage is, basically, unconstitutional. A great explanation of this can be found here: tinyurl.com/6o6aaj

I see no reason for "waiting" - that is akin to asking the proponents of the suffrage movement to just seek the right to caste a provisional ballot (ballots that are usually not counted) or ballots with only referendums listed and not a normal ballot. Women rightly pressed for full voting rights, just as the gay community should press for full marriage rights.

The Black Panthers didn't win black people any rights for a reason.

Yes, and the reason for that was namely the Black Panthers did not seek civil rights. They armed themselves for self-defense against police oppression in their neighborhoods and organized to push forward their goal of a Maoist revolution in the United States. Civil rights, in their opinion, were submissive and petty bourgeois. They did not believe in representative democracy nor were they interested in the idea of "rights".

Get your facts straight before making your points.

And the majority of Americans (at the national level) did not support segregation at the time of its repeal (at least in the education field, honestly I'm not sure about others). The same is not the case of same sex marriage now.

Irrelevant. You do realize that the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, right? And the issue of gay marriage is quite clearly an issue of minority rights vs. the whims of the majority.

Please go read the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers and then get back to us if you're going to speak of rights in the United States. You seem unfamiliar with such matters on a profound level.

Jimbo,
Good job re: "gender discrimination."

Oh yeah! You really showed me! And I love how you put a basic logical argument in air quotes! *rolls eyes*

You've quoted somebody that doesn't even understand what the terms "gender" and "sex" mean.

Also, you've quoted a concurring (not the majority opinion) that nobody else has joined from MA that's citing law from Hawaii, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Virginia. That's poor work.

Wow. Had you stated, "This is gender discrimination because Justice Greaney stated so in his concurring, but not majority opinion, in Goodridge v. Department of Health, where he used non-binding reference rulings from other states as supporting case-law for his opinion.....," then yes, you would have been right.

As it stands, neither you nor he have the slightest notion of what constitutes gender or sex. But hey, even though I've spelled this out for you in pretty clear terms, keep throwing out your gender-discrimination hypothesis. It only makes you look like a fool.

Gerobobo,

It doesn't matter if you see a reason to wait. You will have too. And if you're too insistent or indignant, you'll have to wait longer.

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals - they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex at any time. They would like the ability to marry someone of their own sex. That is a new right, and certainly one that wasn't envisioned by the Framers or the ratifiers of the 14th amendment. If you had suffered through Constitutional Law then you would know that. So, please, get off your high horse.

Albany,

As I have said before, it can be argued that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. Please don't act like it is a completely settled matter of basic human rights. Anyway, if you cast it as a human rights issue, there are a lot more profound and tragic human rights that should be addressed sooner where people are actually starving, languishing or whatever rather than being pissed off over some perceived disparity that could be resolved with something called civil unions (BUT THATS SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU). If you wanted these human rights, you'd take them, no matter what they were called.

The Black Panther DID have an effect: they set the movement back.

If you don't wait around for the glacier to thaw you're going to incite a backlash from mainstream America and loose popular support.

Some of my arguments are just for argument's sake, I don't actually believe them. But a lot of people do. Please understand that. If you cast off these arguments then mainstream America will never relate to your plight, or they won't do so until later. Be reasonable. These people don't want to hate necessarily, they just don't understand and are afraid. And you not understanding their side does not help.

I have read the Constitution and many many many cases regarding rights. You can mythologize the whole origin of rights, but when it comes down to it you need society in general to go along with you, because they are ultimately the ones who have to acknowledge your rights in order for you to be able to practice them. Even if rights "exist" on the island, but they're meaningless, nothing fills them up. It's the whole "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around" type deal (btw, it doesn't make a sound).

Besides, as I am sure you take your own advice, you know that the Constitution doesn't do much to establish affirmative rights per se, so much as it restricts the government's actions (with a couple of exceptions of course).

In a sense you DO have equality under the law. Do you even get what I am saying here?

It really sucks that families in Alabama are suffering. It really does. But I think you're overstating the harms of breaking up marriages in California. Many rights under marriage can be done synthetically with contracts. And most people won't bother to enforce against gay couples.

My whole airquoting was about living under civil unions that have all the same rights as marriages but are called civil unions. The suffering under such a system is wholly a linguistic one, and while I can appreciate that this means a lot to some people, to me and to most Americans right now the suffering seems frivolous in light of the positives of having a family after waiting for way way too long.

In the end, unreasonable people like you are fucking this whole thing up for reasonable people like me. It is infuriating that I can't have rights because you want them called something else. Get the fuck over yourself and take what you can get. Don't make people like me who are more or less content with civil unions wait any longer because you want it called marriage. Not only are you imposing on mainstream America, you're imposing on what you would call "your own people" (although I would hate hate hate to be lumped in with an impetuous child like you). People like you should be shut down in the interest of moving everything forward. You serve no purpose and only hold the rest of us back. Maybe YOU'RE the right wing plant.

So go along to your purposeless and futile protests and feel better about yourself for being a self-righteous little brat fighting the good fight.

As I have said before, it can be argued that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. Please don't act like it is a completely settled matter of basic human rights.

It can be, but it would be a losing argument. Again, more from the Neo-con hand book. Specifically "Well, there's nothing saying you DON'T have rights!". Actually, now there are laws that treat GLBT people as a different, less privilaged, class of citizens.

Anyway, if you cast it as a human rights issue, there are a lot more profound and tragic human rights that should be addressed sooner

Yes, yes, yes. Fall back on the idea that we all have bigger fish to fry. We can't fix your paper cut because someone has a sucking chest wound. There's plenty of time and talent to address any wrong, don't change the subject.

(BUT THATS SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU). If you wanted these human rights, you'd take them, no matter what they were called.

Would you accept what is given, grudgingly, in exchange for the promise, vaguely, that it might get better, possibly?

If you don't wait around for the glacier to thaw you're going to incite a backlash from mainstream America and loose popular support.

So we should accept what is given, be happy and wait for people to be ok with our sexual orientation? I keep coming back to this because this is sincerely the saddest and funniest suggestion about Gay Rights I've heard in ages. The "just wait them out" approach. That's going to do wonders for the gay and lesbian couples RIGHT NOW who are suffering. And don't put that in quotes, because while they're not covered in flies and dying on the street of polio, they're seeing their families destroyed and that's real suffering. Moral equivocation is the game of the callous.

Be reasonable. These people don't want to hate necessarily, they just don't understand and are afraid. And you not understanding their side does not help.

I understand, but I don't accept. I've argued with christians about how Christ, who surrounded himself with the cast-offs, would never have accepted this. I don't raise my voice and scream, but I won't accept that less is fine and 2nd class rights are perfectly ok. Convincing people of that is hard, but worth my time.

Even if rights "exist" on the island, but they're meaningless, nothing fills them up. It's the whole "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around" type deal (btw, it doesn't make a sound).

By this logic, the people fighting to bring human rights to countries like Burma or Iran, people struggling to realize human dignity, should just toss it in because their society has chosen and they lost. That's a very sad island you're on.

Besides, as I am sure you take your own advice, you know that the Constitution doesn't do much to establish affirmative rights per se, so much as it restricts the government's actions (with a couple of exceptions of course).

Equal protection clause. 4th amendment. Really all you need to argue here.

In a sense you DO have equality under the law. Do you even get what I am saying here?

In a sense, I can run a marathon by showing up and just putting one foot before another. But there's a lot more to it.

Many rights under marriage can be done synthetically with contracts. And most people won't bother to enforce against gay couples.

Which means that GLBT couples must spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to enjoy the same rights as hetero couples. Then there's the question of children, both adopted and biological. It's very easy to say that the pain of others is overstated.

The suffering under such a system is wholly a linguistic one, and while I can appreciate that this means a lot to some people,

Civil Unions are not marriage. I'm going to post this again. Seriously, give it a read and understand that it's not a quibble over language here.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

In the end, unreasonable people like you are fucking this whole thing up for reasonable people like me.

Oh my. Here we go.

It is infuriating that I can't have rights because you want them called something else.

So you're gay/lesbian now?

Get the fuck over yourself and take what you can get. Don't make people like me who are more or less content with civil unions wait any longer because you want it called marriage.

Ok, now you're having a fit. Deep breaths.

Not only are you imposing on mainstream America, you're imposing on what you would call "your own people" (although I would hate hate hate to be lumped in with an impetuous child like you).

There's alot of loathing going on here. We're having a heated argument and you're losing your temper.

People like you should be shut down in the interest of moving everything forward. You serve no purpose and only hold the rest of us back. Maybe YOU'RE the right wing plant.

No. People like me just want equality under the law in clear, unambiguous terms. We don't need to hide or be afraid or wait for people to catch up and be ok with us. The prejudices of others should not be our litmus test for civil rights.

So go along to your purposeless and futile protests and feel better about yourself for being a self-righteous little brat fighting the good fight.

I'm going to make a supposition that, if you are gay, you're from the Stonewall era. I can't imagine what it must have been like in that time. Even in my 20's, I've seen a sea change in just my lifetime. But we can't accept half a freedom. We won't hold, we won't go back.

I'm sorry that you're willing to accept less, and hope someday, very soon, we'll all enjoy more.

I like how one group based on the bible says what another group can't do and then we call Islam a savage religion

It wasn't Fred Hampton, Angela Davis, or any of the Black Panther leadership that provoked change and earned our nations collective respect for years to come...

Man, why are Americans some dumb?
Do you really think they existed in a vacume? They inspired a whole generation of African Americans youth and served as hope for those up north outside of King's grasp, which was a southern based movement. Read about what happend to King when he came north. Oh there goes that word again, READ. Its just like Malcome and Martin, they both served the cause by getting two factions engaged in the struggle. None of them stood alone. It was a group effort

Oh and Angela Davis does more for humanity every day just by breathing then you will ever do in your life. And guess who inspired Bill Ayers? It was a young Fred Hampton among others. You may not like what Ayers did, but look what Ayers is doing now doing!

Andrew: Nice points.

Another thing some with more militant attitudes fail to grasp is the concept of backlash, which, of course, can do more harm to one's cause.

Whether one decides the time is right for an overly militant attitude is a personal judgment, of course. And militant tactics can churn along with more moderate ones, with both sometimes working toward the same goal.

But in this case, I would argue for less militancy. While I am more than sympathetic to the crap that gays who want to get married must still face--there is no reason to deny full marriage and its associated privileges such as adoption to gays---I wonder if having an overly militant attitude won't do more harm. Western society has come a LONG way in accepting gays in just the past 10 years or so, and all indications are that the trend will continue. Showing a bit of patience--and let's be honest, gays are being denied the right to vote, and workplace anti-discrimination laws are pretty solid in most places--might do more good than an overly militant stance.

Some things take time. No, I am not arguing that gays surrender and wait for the rest of the world to catch up, only choosing the smartest tactics to achieve the goal of gay marriage in every state, and avoiding a backlash* that will delay that goal. Is gay marriage a life-or-death situation that deserves a mostly militant stance at this immediate moment? Or can more moderate tactics get us** to that goal sooner?

*if you don't believe my ideas on backlash, please think about the progress made by the hard-core leftists of the late 1960s and early 1970s--or the hard-core rightists who enjoyed the 1980s or much of the last 8 years--and compare that progress against the backlash they caused among their political opponents. Like it or not, backlash is a fact of political and cultural life. Failing to grasp such a fact has doomed many good-hearted people with minority political views to the sidelines. Even the pre-war, fire-breathing abolitionists set back their cause by causing backlash (though ending slavery, I think, was more of a life-or-death issue than gay marriage, so militancy was likely called for there). Smart people figure out how to change without causing too much of a backlash. Smart people know that moderation does not automatically translate as cowardice.

**by us, people who are not threatened by the idea of gays being married.

@Spook:

No, MLK was a wonderful, nigh mythical figure. He could take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew Cover it with choc'late and a miracle or two. He could even take a rainbow, wrap it in a sigh soak it in the sun and make a groovy lemon pie.

Man, he made the world taste good.

Spook: Research the effects some of the fire-breathing abolitionists had on Congressional action regarding slavery and slave territories between, say, 1820 and 1860, then get back to me. No, my thinking on this matter does not start with Wiki and end with John Brown's mouldering body. You seem to operate under a mistaken assumption that only you actually read books and other materials for fun. Such an assumption weakens you, my friend.

As well, in King's letter from the jail, you may want to think deeper about this thoughts regarding the law and civil disobedience, though your points on views of him as a radical are well taken.

Well Matilda is back in find pedeantic form.

Yeah Spook, read a book! And don't look at wikipedia, that's for dumb people. What a maroon.

The GLBT rights movement of today has more in common with, markedly non-violent, European abolitionist movements, which relied on court action and public discourse as much as rhetorical flourishes and antics at Harper's Ferry.

It wasn't too long ago that it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry, and Catholics could not marry Jews.

It will come to pass that gays will be allowed to marry, and it would probably come a lot sooner if God were kept out of it.

If you keep God out of it, like it's supposed to be anyway, then what would the argument be?

f we aren't allowed our civil liberties there will be consequences. Protests, boycotts, funding against candidates who support this nonsense.

As we/you should. The trick is finding the tactics that don't cause too much of a backlash and delay our/your goal, which, judging from your comments, are pretty much the same. The trick is working within the trend--which clearly shows increasing acceptance for gays within mainstream society, despite the recent state votes since 2004--and not doing anything to reverse it. The trick is not giving in too much to (understandable) impatience at the expense of cold, good sense.

Aww, look, it's discovered sarcasm.

I have no idea who you are--none at all--but this comment made me chuckle, as I pictured some wise-ass eighth-grade girl being a smart ass at the lunch table.

Navin: Great reminder of great words.

Tell me, though: Is every single cause worth dying for? Or, perhaps, are some causes able to wait longer than others? Are some causes less pressing?

I am not trying to trivialize the suffering of gays who want to get married, or who face expensive legal procedures because our society denies gays in most states full marriage rights. But the war in Vietnam, I think, or the black struggle for civil rights, was/is a bit different than gay marriage for a variety of reasons. Does that make the cause of gay marriage less worthy? Not really. But it's all about priorities and wise tactics, don't you think? Some gays and supporters of gays, for instance--perhaps not here, but elsewhere--have argued for some sort of blacklist that would target those who supported or funded the recent California law. I am not sure that is the best thing to do, and could, along with other such measures, potentially lead to a counter-productive backlash.

Arguing for the wisest tactics possible in order to achieve the goal as quickly as possible hardly represents some symbolic or metaphysical death. Wisdom and full achievement often requires patience. Life is horribly unfair that way.

@Navin:

Pure elegance.

@Matilda:

What you don't get is that it's not simply a matter of marriage rights, it's a matter of people saying "you are just a little less human than us" or that "because of your intrinsic nature, you a simply a little less deserving of the rights to which everyone else in entitled."

And Gays and Lesbians are better off than many, MANY other groups. Yet with all the money and pull look at the result. That's a thought should shake you to your core. If this is how we treat a monied voting block, how are we treating others?

I'm tired of being quiet and demure because someone who thinks I'm a tad less of a person because of their religion wants to deny me equality.

It's in our common voice, loud, out and proud that we will find success. If that seems too strident, too quarrelsome, well, too bad. You have your liberties, enjoy them. I'm a tad busy fighting for mine to worry about your armchair opinion.

Don't tell me how fucking stupid I am, or that I need to read more

Yeah, leave that to Matilda!

No one like a pedant.

As for the tactics not working, it's a marathon, not a sprint. That's why settling for less than true equality is a mistake. Stopping halfway makes the rest of your run that much harder.

The percentage change in votes from the last time a gay marriage ban was in place was significant. Younger voters are overwhelming in their rejection of prop 8. All us noisy, rambunctious militant types are making a change. You're just being selective.

Again, the notion that you can accept just a little inequality, just some bigotry, simply a dollop of hate should disturb you more than Spook taking the piss.

Understandable, but shouting louder is hardly likely to get you/us the desired result more quickly. What do you intend to do: Smash windows? Block traffic? That will win a lot of fans.

No, you march, you protest non-violently, you write letters, file lawsuits, boycott, use every and any means to get the message across.

First of all, quit acting like you are the only asshole in this world with problems

You know you swear when you don't have a good argument?

Some of us have lost jobs, some have other (greater) problems that make us feel a lot less free (try living in the real ghetto, cowboy).

Ah, the fallback of equivocation. You don't have a cogent point, so just minimize the issue with reductionism. Ok, people in the ghetto in the US are far better off than the beggers in Lahore, or the refugees in Nigeria. Where do we stop sliding down the ladder? Why not try to fix all the problems we can? Devotion to marriage equality doesn't preclude caring about other dire issues.

Don't you get that yet? You can't do this on your own. Like it or not, you need the straights, even some of the less enligthened ones. As I said, life is unfair, especially if you are trying to get rights.

And we're getting them, like I said the numbers are shifting, so why sit down and shut up now?

We just won't accept half-a solution as a solution.

Matilda,
As spook I believe was alluding to, perhaps at some point people get tired of politely going: Dear establishment, please give us social justice, pretty please? We promise we won't make a scene....

No, just annoyed that you act like you are the only one with problems in this world

Not true, and you know that. You're getting huffy.

and that everyone needs to take notice of your specific problems or they are bad people or neo-cons or whatever else you might write.

Who is everyone? Feel free to ignore people looking to achieve equality under the law. You did actually read what Navin posted right?

You have an inability to look past yourself sometimes. Perhaps you are too young to notice this. Hell if I know.

That's why I devote time, energy and agency to a cause that benefits millions of Americans, my selfishness. And writing off someone as incorrect because of their age is the fastest way to prove your own irrelevancy.

You're a sad little Matilda today.

Militancy = Peaceful rallies? Not in my book.

Spook: Actually, for superficial martyr-like tendencies, I suggest you look closer at yourself or Albany. Especially on issues related to class and race. But nice joke in any case. Seriously. Funny what you can do when you produce a coherent sentence and thought.

Navin:

As spook I believe was alluding to, perhaps at some point people get tired of politely going: Dear establishment, please give us social justice, pretty please? We promise we won't make a scene....

I am not sure anyone here is suggesting that. I am not. Some people just have reservations about blacklists and other such forms of militant protest because they wonder how effective they will be. Even King stopped at some point, and would not cross certain lines, probably because he realized the danger of backlash.

Agree 100% Albany.