A Gay Man's Reponse- Page 2

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 7:02pm

There's more than one Libertarian on this board.

B.B. - don't you worry

[MaTakeALookAtMe]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 7:28pm

Thansk for posting that article...it all kind of hit me when I heard everyone talking about the votes yesterday. The marriage amendment passed by 83 % in mystate. It hurts that even my parents, who in general are pretty supportive of me, voted for this...

[Plum]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 8:03pm

Westopher, unfortunately, I know plenty of perfectly rational adults who knew they were getting screwed on taxes, knew the war was unjustified, knew the environment was going down the crapper...but couldn't stand the thought of Stan and Dan having a wedding. So they voted for Bush.

Hooray for family values, huh?

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 8:06pm

ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE!

Horray indeed... I guess those people do exist. But if you want to play the majority card, I'm still confident in what I said earlier. I really think that the threat of gay marriage being illegal is almost a null point. I highly doubt this would ever pass, even with our current administration. The threat of the huge upheaval as a result of it would be insane.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 8:07pm

Thanks for sharing that with us Pal Joey.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 8:08pm

It's not just the gay marriage thing that bugs me, it's the sentiment behind it. It's reflective of a homophobia I thought we were getting past.

No, I do think we're getting past. But I keep forgetting that history moves slowly. Really slowly. And it'll be another 10-20 years before this issue really comes to a head, I think.

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 8:11pm

Headway is headway. Even if there are big anti-homosexual pushes (in the most non-sexual sense possible), this will only bring the plight to light.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 8:13pm

Westopher - I agree that the national ammendment is a long-shot at best - BUT, this is being thrown to the states, and we see what's happening. Hence the reason I'm glad I'm in California, and won't be going anywhere for the forseeable future.

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 8:14pm

The more states that try to ban it, the more will try to legalise it (even tho it's not exactly illegal to begin with).

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 8:17pm

We'll see - at the moment, the ball is certainly rolling in one direction.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 9:43pm

Dear Friends:
I know this is long, but I felt I needed to share it. This is a response I got from a dear friend who I sent pal's letter to. He also happens to be Andy Tobias' ghost writer, if that means anything to you.


Grieve for as long as necessary, but then look at all the evidence. From
the blog of Virginia Postrel at dynamist.com:

"But even culturally conservative people and places are a lot more
complicated than you might think. Dallas County just elected a lesbian
Latina with a long federal law enforcement career to clean up our mess of a
sheriff's department. Her Republican opponent, a department insider, tried
to make an issue of her support by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which
backs openly gay candidates. The tactic didn't work and it may even have
backfired. (It certainly did in the Postrel household, where Lupe Valdez was
the only Democrat to get our votes.)"

And

"Nationally, gay marriage is a loser, but civil unions are a big winner,
with 35 percent support (and 32 percent in the South). Assume that the 25
percent who back marriage rights (17 percent in the South), and you've got a
clear majority (and a slim lead even in the South, where Bush won 32 percent
of gay voters). The public is squeamish about "gay marriage," but not about
giving gay couples public recognition and legal rights."

It is quite clear that a significant percentage of the US population,
especially above a certain age, has not shaken off the bigoted attitudes
that developed over a lifetime and were even thought so obvious as to not
require discussion until relatively recently. Yet, beyond the obvious
evidence that younger people, including Republicans, have radically higher
levels of support for gay marriage and civil unions, and that they continue
to be significantly underrepresented on election day (so that the amendments
which passed represented a minority of eligible voters), and that the
attempt to get a federal marriage amendment out of a Republican Congress was
a flop, and that the amendments themselves represented a frantic attempt to
stop a trend that is clearly in the direction of tolerance and only requires
a few more years of opponents dying from old age, the attitudes of people on
average are a little harder to figure than we might think.

No, we don't live in a tolerant society yet, but it is also not true that
those who voted for Bush are in favor of gays being beaten up. The coward
running for the Democrats indicated his opposition to gay marriage (I voted
for a candidate who articulated precisely equal legal treatment of
opposite-sex and same-sex legal unions, Libertarian Michael Badnarik). The
presidential election had no major party advocate for gay marriage.

The real lesson might be that burying issues to create an artificial unity
is a lousy strategy. Truman once said that, "If you give people the choice
between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every
time." From the time of the Democratic convention, which resembled an
American Legion convention, every attempt was made not to offend the
undecideds and not to openly disagree with Kerry. Perhaps that is why
younger voters didn't represent any higher percentage in 2004 than 2000:
they can smell a sellout a mile away. The Republicans weren't afraid to
take stands that might offend large portions of the population (and the Log
Cabin Republicans, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and John McCain weren't afraid to
openly disagree with Bush). The Democrats were. It is possible to stand up
for your beliefs without automatically losing the vote of people who
disagree, and it would be nice if people took a look at the similarities
between Clinton and Bush in their personal styles to see what both of them
did right, and did right twice. Let's not pretend that Kerry was a good
advocate for gay rights in the campaign: even though he was one of the
courageous few to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton), he
never once mentioned it, as far as I can tell.

Obviously, the issue is legal rights, not approval (bigots don't ask for our
approval of THEIR lifestyle). With 60% of the population overall supporting
either gay marriage or civil unions, and non-voters being primarily from age
groups that are overwhelmingly more tolerant, it is clear that there is an
overwhelming majority overall that opposes legal discrimination in marriage
laws. There are SOME people opposed to either, and since people don't read
the propositions before voting, there are certainly many people who only
wanted to retain the word marriage and didn't want to prohibit civil unions
with equal rights, but ended up voting that way. Just consider it a form of
political correctness: there are certain terms that we find offensive when
used in reference to gays, and some people are offended when the term used
in reference to gays is "married." But the support now exists in majority
numbers in most states for equal legal rights for couples, and considering
where this issue stood just a couple of years ago, we ought to be astonished
with how MUCH things that have changed for the better rather than how
little. So it is time for some well-written propositions on civil unions
and honest campaigns that focus on equal rights and accept the fact that
universal approval is not an option, nor a right. And since the FMA is dead
in the water, federal legislation to extend federal inheritance rights to
same-sex partners might be a good first step toward overturning elements of
the DOMA that make even Massachusetts gay couples second class citizens.
There is work ahead, but the long-term trends remain positive. A national
focus on the passage of civil union laws with equal rights to heterosexual
marriage would probably yield immediate results in a lot of states: even
some red ones. Now that the election is over, maybe the discussion of
issues can really start.

P.S. I'm just a PFLAG'er, but I hope that doesn't diminish the accuracy of
my analysis.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 9:46pm

Thanks, D! Now I know why I like Andy Tobias's writing so much!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 9:50pm

Pal - he and his wife are our best friends, and our accountants - how lucky are we?