Associated Press:



[ August 18, 2003, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

To put a good spin on it - there has been a 10 point reversal of the last poll, which had something like 61% of Americans against gay marriage.

Don't these poll-takers understand that we queers & fag hags & straight hangers-on always party until dawn, then sleep until 3:00 p.m. If they'd just stop taking these darn polls during the time when we're all asleep, the numbers supporting equal marriage rights would jump 10 percentage points.

There does seem to be a wave of sentiment to "put us back in our place" after our recent well publicized gains which happened to coincide with more media visibility (Queer Eye, Boy Meets Boy). Politically, it's probably best to lay low and stall for time, although it would be great to see a politician (Democrat) come out strong now for why we deserve to be treated as any other citizen/ taxpayer and state his/her belief as to why this is not a question of moral/immoral choice, but what he/she believes to be some people's nature. You know that must be what Dean,Gephardt, etc. believe, but will they let Republicans succeed in clobbering them and their chances of winning the election by running away from/downplaying this issue? You know their gonna get hit with it no matter what- the Republican right will be relentless (with full support of the Bushies, although he'll do his best to appear more moderate) in trying to get Democratic candidates on the defensive on this issue. Trying to play the middle will only blow up in their faces I think.

IMO we have let the right wing set the tone of the debate. To make it seem as if we want special rights or that we want to mandate churchs marry us. In my encounters most of the people against this idea have no idea about heath care, hospital vistation rights etc..When confronted with what we are denied they tend to be more understanding.
We need to speak up

I have had a number of very straight friends ask me how I felt about our President's recent comments and the seeming backlash against the advancement of f full civil rights for gays and lesbians.

It took me a few moments to collect my thoughts but I asked them to consider this: why does this society guarantee the rights for convicted criminals (murderers, rapists, drug dealers and users) to enjoy civil union (and all it's benefits) but refuse to extend it to law-abiding gay and lesbian citizens?

I suggested that this inequity might lead one to think that this country respects the rights of criminals more than the rights of gays & lesbians.

They immediately saw my point.

I think we should take time to reason with our straight friends about why all citizens should have equal protection under the law and equal access to all civil benefits. In other words, this is not the time to lay low. Let's press the issue, with patience and compassion.

That is a good point- hadn't heard of it or thought of it. On a personal level it's good to be out there whenever you can- I was just saying that gay rights proponents in Washington will have to withstand this swing in the other direction (which may well last through the election season) maybe putting things on hold or delaying attempts to halt our progress. I feel at the minimum the Democratic nominee will have to be in favor of domestic partnership in straight forward, open, reasoned way, but perhaps could get away with saying it's a back burner or wait to the time is right issue- hopefully that won't be the case. He can't be annoyed or evasive in dealing with it as that will just fuel the opponents without expanding his own base or reaching those on the fence- hopefully the nominee will see it as an opportunity to show leadership and be an asset to his campaign.

It seems to me that there may be people who are willing to accept gay civil unions, but not gay marriages. Even those who call us their friends and family (my Mother). These people may make up the difference in the polls. They might cede the fairness issue, but not be able to swallow the religious aspects of marriage for gays. Sort of the difference between being married by the justice of the peace vice the minister.

This incremental approach is what I believe we should be supporting with our rhetoric and our votes.

And my partner and I went to Vermont and got civilly united because I believe that our larger numbers will show it's real, not just clamoring for something for the sake of principle.

And perhaps a politician could be elected supporting civil unions - I think a candidate supporting gay marriage is dead in the water.

I totally agree. For the first few years after I came out, I was a all "I would like to be treated equally, if its not too much trouble, sir." That attitude does not work. The far right has targeted us and THEY want to make us an issue and want to make America fear the consquences of making this right choice. It's how they work...make Americans fear. I have found that if I respond with quiet, unyielding reason, their arguments are exposed as weak, or they respond with more name calling, which exposes them as well.

I shut up about who I was for and what rights I deserved for too long. I wont ever be shut up again.

Many people believe the one good thing to come out of Kennedy's assasination in '63 was the civil rights laws of '64. Until his death, the issue was considered so controversial, and so socially divisive, that many of my parents' generation believed the laws would not have passed if Lydon Johnson had not evoked Kennedy's memory in getting them passed.

I have to believe that in 1960 - 1964 there was a backlash against the civil rights movement, particularly in the South (and not just among Klansmen) and in the areas of public accommodations (lunch counters, department stores, etc.). According to one recent article I read, 66% of Americans as late as 1980 would not support an inter-racial marriage in their own family, so I can't believe support for civil rights legislation, particularly the legislation that affected the way people lived their lives (as opposed to voting rights) was universal or even a high majority at the time of the 1964 Acts.

We are unlikely to get much more support for gay marriage quickly - but then again civil rights should never be decided by majority rule. But the biggest threat is the federal marriage amendment. If we block that, then eventually laws allowing gay marriage will come forth. The good news is that young urban voters are more likely to support gay marriage (and I assume oppose the federal marriage amendment), and there may be enough of them to stop any amendment in Congress.

In terms of arguments, I like the convicted criminal one, but I also agree in general we need to focus on the civil rights part of marriage. Religions can and should only be changed by those inside the religion, and we should distance the work of Dignity and other religious-based groups from the work for civil marriage. I asked a number of straight friends to sign the Dontamend.com pledge, and/or write to their Congressmen, and some agreed. Two of the arguments I made appeared to help - that this amendment would be the first since Prohibition to limit, rather than expand, the rights of citizens and the first since slavery to specifically create dual, and unequal, citizenship tracks.

I've been writing letters to the editor, speaking to friends, etc. I think that what we need is to work HARD to educate the folks in the middle, who are still surprized when they learn of the problems that gay couples and individuals face, and by-and-large don't like the far right or hate-filled demagogues. Most people are in the middle, and most are fair-minded. It's this group we need to educate.

Talk to people, be out, write to the paper to correct ignorance and stereotypes, speak out clearly and rationally.

We're winning. They can't put the genie back in the bottle. But I think we may have become complacent. There is still a lot of grass-roots education to accomplish.

Nat

So I am watching a show" Totally Gay" on VH1..
Some hope signs there...
The GLBT market is est. to be worth 451 Billon- How many ous would boycott any co that supported someone who voted yes to the ammendment?

And yet, I was disappointed by Howard Dean's appearance on "Larry King Live" recently. He stated and re-affirmed his belief that civil unions were basically a civil rights issue. All well and good.

THEN, Larry asked him if he would support gay "marriage," and Dean said, "well ... um ... I haven't really thought about it that much. We didn't take that course in Vermont."

C'MON, Howard!! Of COURSE you've thought about it; it's everywhere, and you're right there in the middle of it! If I could give Dr. Dean just a little bit of coaching here, I'd teach him to say: "I would support gay marriage, because I understand that in the political arena, 'marriage' is a civil term and not a religious one. I don't think many people do understand that, which is why we decided to go the way of the 'civil union' in my state."

Voila.

[ August 19, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Red7Eric ]