I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Gee...with notably few exceptions, aren't Democrats always on the defensive? I can count on the fingers of one hand the Democrats I know of who actually have a spine these days.
It's unfortunate, but the ignorant masses of America are going to be hammered day and night with the term gay marriage by the GOP's Mighty Wurlitzer. It's a bad situation for us no matter what we do.
That makes much sense.
But the Dems will try for number 2 because that's what they do.
This is one of the cases where the best defense is a good offense. Rather than cower in fear it is time to charge forward and feel no fear.
Nothing to be afraid of, when you're right. If the election goes against you, if it goes for you, whatever. You can't win a fight of values if you won't stand for your own.
(The only legal notion of marriage is a civil union. Legally it is an areligious construct and can legally be nothing else.)
This is absolutely right! I think this holds true for many issues - we can set the tone of the debate and leave them with little room to operate. As a party we need to be acting much more intelligently (and cohesively) and realize that to get back into power we could debate the morality of homosexuality or we could remember that that is not our job - but promoting equal rights (even for those who lead a lifestyle that we disagree with) is our job.
It will of course amuse you to realize that even Argentina (Latin American!) has recognized same-sex marriage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
3108349.stm
Feh. This is one issue where principle ought to trump political expediency because you can't out-Republican the GOP on this one. And besides, it'll pay dividends down the road.
As a husband of 22 years, and the father of two children, I can say firmly that I want my Democratic Party to stand up against marriage of any kind, and for the mass sterilization of the young. They'll thank us, later.
I think you're way too hard on Kevin, who actually suggested that gay marriage was a winning issue for the Dems during the past year.
I think the Dems need to fight the amendment full bore. But if the polls really show gay marriage itself is a losing issue, then how does it help anyone for Dems to go full guns supporting it as a universal right? Why is gay marriage any different than the other core Dem policies (welfare, affirmative action, guns, labor rights, trade barriers) which have been compromised since 1992 to maintain some hold on government? Since the realignment of 1965, the Dems have fought their demographic/ electoral disadvantage by hedging and waiting for the nation to catch up with their values. Gay marriage may have to occur piecemeal in the states that can handle the realities of the modern world.
There is no option about being a party of principle on this issue. No running or hiding. But is there room to show respect and understanding for those who are frightened or uncertain or troubled by the implications of their religious beliefs? I hope there are folks out there who are talented enough to deal with this aporia in a constructive way.
I live in redneck country and I can tell you that these formerly strong Democratic workers have all gone Republican because of sexual/racial/environmental politics.
These people will knee jerk vote against all their other interests, financial, health, etc, just to vote AGAINST a party that projects itself in favor of gay rights, affirmative action, and the spotted owl.
The Democrats lost Southern Oregon 20 years ago and may never get it back.
It would be a huge mistake for the Dems to make this an issue, or even respond to it as an issue when there are other (more important, can I say?) issues at stake.
Anyone with an in-serious-love gay relative has to appreciate the double standard currently in place. Marriage, civil union? Doesn't matter much to this unconverted, but the rights do.
Degustibus,
I live in pretty red territory myself. Do you think that those people went Republican on those issues during the 90s, back when they all had jobs and 401k's, etc.? I tend to think that it's easy for them to stand by those "moral principles" while they're able to put food on the children's tables, but I know a lot of them who just want a job now! I think this is a good opportunity to get them back.
Degustibus,
I live in pretty red territory myself. Do you think that those people went Republican on those issues during the 90s, back when they all had jobs and 401k's, etc.? I tend to think that it's easy for them to stand by those "moral principles" while they're able to put food on the children's tables, but I know a lot of them who just want a job now! I think this is a good opportunity to get them back.
Tactically, it is a non-issue. Liberals are fags and lesbians. All of us.
Degustibus,
I live in pretty red territory myself. Do you think that those people went Republican on those issues during the 90s, back when they all had jobs and 401k's, etc.? I tend to think that it's easy for them to stand by those "moral principles" while they're able to put food on the children's tables, but I know a lot of them who just want a job now! I think this is a good opportunity to get them back.
Good, Atrios, Good. Keep it up.
Yep, putting this issue front and center is a sure winner for the Democrats.
Sorry about the multiple posts. I'm a techno-idiot!
Why the hell are you wasting so much time on this issue??!??
It's the economy, STUPID.
Why not just
How can the GOP accuse the Democrats of being the party of adultery and divorce when they have Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde and Rush Limbaugh (just to name a few). And as for homosexuality? If I remember correctly, the only members of Congress who got voted out of office for being homosexuals were both Republicans (one from Maryland; one from Utah). But then, both got caught propositioning young men in parks and public bathrooms.
Our biggest mistake is trying to tell people what they want to hear all the time.
We need to tell the truth clearly, forcefully, and with conviction and let the chips fall where they may.
I'm so sick of cowtowing to Conservatives every time a new poll comes out. Just because the majority of people don't agree with something doesn't mean its wrong.
I would rather have 40 Senators who share our views than have to sell out all the time to get reelected. Same with the house, same with the Presidency.
What does it profit a man (or a party) if he gains the world, but loses his soul?
My point of comparison above was to be 40 senators who are real democrats rather than 48 who don't have any common beliefs. I left out the 48. Sorry
Didn't Atrios link the article written
by the Berkeley neurolinguist on this blog? He had a great take on this issue. He wrote that if you ask someone if a gay person should have the right to marry or the freedom to marry that it defuses the sexual aspect of the issue. He wrote that the term gay marriage was more linked to the sexual aspect of the relationship and should be avoided.
derek g:
I concur. Ethics first.
Tactics second, and tactics "is" important.
Excellent post, atrios! You really have hit the nail on the head - what about becoming a campaign manager for the Dems in 2004?
Who really cares? I mean, the whole approach should be to just shake your head and say "does this really matter?" .
If they're sinners, God will punish them. If not, it's wasted motion. In fact, they should ask why straight people even care. I know I don't.
For once in his miserable life, Dick Cheney is right.
cheney said that? daughter got anything to do with that?
Why does Bush hate Dick Cheney so much that he wants to deny Cheney's daughter the rights other American's take for granted?
But Clinton signed Defense of marriage, stabbing every gay supporter he had in the back. Someone should really point that out.
The whole real problem is Republicans vote for people who will literally follow the agenda they want. Democrats can not claim that. At best they vote against something.
Against Reagan, against Bush 1, against W.
Thus Republicans beleive in and trsut their candidates.
Hopefully if Dean is the nominee Democrats can start making the same claim. They can start voting for someone to uphold their ideas and desires.
I think Democrats should take a strong stand, arguing for civil unions. They need to make clear that it is immoral and illegal to discriminate someone for their sexual preferences. Ask them whether they really want the government meddling in these people's affairs. That might make some of the libertarians think. At the same time, they should make clear that churches need not be forced into "marriages".
We should throw this is their faces.
Santorum, why are you so hung up on this issue? Bush, why would want to break up a gay couple's home? Why would you want to prevent them from visiting their lovers in the hospital? Sen. Frist, are you planning to leave your wife if we don't have a consitutional ammendment?
This is the sort of issue that makes Republican's go off the deep end, and we should needle them with it.
We should portray this as a kind of sexual inquisition and even talk about opposing any sort of sexual Starr Chamber. I mean REALLY throw it in their perverted faces.
And we should loudly say to gay America, You don't have to put up with this trash, vote for us and we will uphold your dignity. And just dare, dare the Republicans to attack us. We would look strong and smoke them out.
We must never stop calling the Republican party the party of playground bullies and not-so-grand inquisitors.
56k:
That was gorgeous.
Whenever some drooling Republican goon brings up "defense of marriage," you say "First, tell me why Georgie is protecting a traitor in the White House. Then we'll talk gay marriage."
There are more important issues. The Constitution is on our side with this one. The fight is over, but the bigots just don't know it yet.
How can the Dems be tea-baggers when they don't have any balls?
I think the democrats should go full-bore ripping and running with this issue come what may. There needs to be a national discussion. Make the wingers look like that rabid anti-gay, man on dog, bigots they are. National discussion will do that. The Massachusetts decision proved that. Public support for the freedom of gays to marry in Mass was about 58% for and 38% against it. Yeah, I know Mass is a liberal state. But I think that support was mainly because there was obviously a lot of discussion in that state while the court deliberated. When people understand this issue, and understand the unfair treatment of gays by the government, they realize how wrong it is to discriminate against others based on their sexual/emotional orientation. Besides, this issue has its own momentum so democrats need to get behind it or let the Republicans frame it to their advantage.
Dems must loudly and clearly dictate the terms of their policies this year and not allow media and repubnicks toalter the message: who is better for the country? The spend and spend Rebubs who are mortgaging the future, who lead us into foolish macho adventures without a plan-B for exit, eroding our security at home and abroad, sacrificing our environment, making us the laughing stock of the world, who lose more jobs every day than they are helping create, etc. etc., or the Democrats who have proven track record of lowering deficits, creating jobs, and making the world a happier, safer, and healthier place for all.
Unless they get push-polled about this issue, most people really do have a live and let live, get the government out of the bedroom idea of sexuality. The repubs are very good at finding an issue that actually affects a small minority of the population and makes it a menace on the scale of bin laden. Don't go there. It is a distraction from the incompetence of the republican agenda, and that's all it is. They really could give a s*it about it. But the media loves it because sex and non-actual-content sells.
You know what makes me sick about issues like this? Most of my loved ones are on the wrong side of it. If gay people are really going to spend eternity in hell, can't they at least be happy here on earth?
56k nails it.
I hope that democrats will say "I find it abhorrant to deny any American equality under the law." period. End of argument. I just don't understand why all these repugs are so worried what gay folks are up to. I guess they think gayness is a virus that can spread or something. Idiots.
Besides, I don't think that even putting execution for homosexuality into the Dem platform would be enough to change the perception.
Perhaps the Dems should fervently support gay love but advocate the death penalty for bestiality.
Cheney said that? He musta been thinking he was off the record. It hurts to say this, but I'm with Dick on this one, especially the state's rights part.
If I remember correctly, there was a time when the idea of equal rights for another minority group was not too popular either.
How is this any different?
doesn't cheney's wife refuse to even mention the topic of her lesbian daughter's sexuality?
didn't GW say that cherney's daughter could visit the white house for special functions, but her lesbian partner could not?
hateful, limpdicked monsters.
I hope that democrats will say "I find it abhorrant to deny any American equality under the law."
I'm with 4 legs good.
Political calculations aside, this is simply the right thing to say. You can't just tell people "hold on to that basic request for human rights and dignity until after the election."
The area which always got my attention is the proposal of letting the individual states choose to espouse (no pun intended) same-sex unions. What happens when you cross state lines? What happens if you transfer to another state? Will one state's marriage law be recognized in another?
We often hear of the advantages of marriage which are being withheld from gay couples. But there some legal disadvantages to being married as well, such as both now being responsible for all the medical expenses of the other. Many Americans, especially those approaching retirement age, are getting divorced on paper even after thirty, forty years of marriage, to prevent the loss of their entire life's savings and assets if one of them gets seriously ill and the insurance runs out or the company does not cover certain illnesses or treatments. It is also why so many Americans are chosing to live together rather than marry; at least one of them gets to keep their assets and can put a roof over the head of the other.
Sometimes, a blessing can turn out to be a curse as well. You might get a husband like my last one. Gay or straight, there are some really lousy choices out there that don't come with warning labels.
Atrios, I disagree 100%.
The Dems should absolutely not touch the issue of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with the presidential election and it will kill us -- totally kill us -- in the red states. We need to win a red state or two to win!
http://www.psmueller.com/cartoon...culture/
319.gif
IF the chimp George W Bush brings up any straight marriage or gay marriage ban amendment to the constitution in a debate, the Democrat could say how would your vice president and his gay daughter react to that Mr. Bush?
That will shut the chimp up right away.
Speaking of Defense. The myth that Republicans do better than Democrats on National security exploded with the first plane that hit the world trade center on Sept 11, 2001.
And how many Republican congresspeople cheated on their spouses or forced their wives to have abortions? Look in the Republican wife cheating hall of fame.
Help the poor, Don't Vote Republican.
INSTEAD OF COMPLAINING ABOUT REPUBLICANS, PUNISH REPUBLICANS.
Please tell as many people you can of these acts of civil disobedience, which in my view can effect change as much as any demonstration, march and rally.
We do not hate George W Bush but we do strongly oppose many of his and his illegitimate administration's actions and priorities and that George W Bush caters too much to the interest of business people and to religious zealots to the detriment of other deserving people in America who need help from our government.
Petition: TELL CONGRESS WE WANT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT UNDER MEDICARE
PART B
(put this link in a browser at work and at a public library and leave the page showing. Make it a browser favorite too)
Location: http://www.thePetitionSite.com/t...ction/
383366962
PEACEFUL REVOLT AGAINST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
I have started the Buy nothing on Thursday and Fridays movement.
The Buy nothing on Thursday and Friday movement will work this way.
You will tell your friends and family and colleagues to avoid buying anything on Thursdays and Fridays. You and everyone you speak to will tell their merchants that we do not support the chimp and we're going on a purchasing strike on every Thursday and Friday until the Nov 2004 election. You also tell them that you hope they will do everything they can to help vote the chimp out and their republican congresspeople out in 2004. If you cannot refrain from buying on both days then refrain from buying on Fridays. Also please avoid buying any expensive big ticket items like automobiles, houses, etc. until after the 2004 election if you can. This will prevent GW Bush from creating a recovery in time for the election of 2004 when he did nothing about his poor economy for 3 and a half years.
America will see a big vote of no confidence in the chimp evidenced by empty stores on Thursday and Friday.
We strongly oppose the Republicans destruction of Democracy in California in 2003 by recalling Gray Davis who committed no crime nor did nothing to merit recall. For this Republican anti democratic and anti social act:
Boycott the LA Dodgers, Arnold's movies, the Viper Car Alarm, Disneyland until Arnold resigns leaving Cruz Bustamante to serve as Governor.
Spread the word.
Do not go to any games where the LA Dodgers appear as visitors or at home and tell the Dodgers you will see their games after they get Arnold to resign.
Browse http://www.dodgers.com and send them email from their website telling them to get Arnold to resign or you will not see their games.
Browse these websites
http://www.schwarzenegger.com and email them from their site that you will not buy nor rent Arnold's movies from the video store.
http://www.directed.com makers of the Viper Car Alarm once owned by Darrell Issa and email them from their website that you will not buy the Viper Car alarm.
Anyone read the recent NYTimes article about the gay couple, two men in their 80s, just returned from Canada where they wedded after 50 years of living and loving together behind closed doors? Democrats need to "feel the pain", ala Clinton, and focus on the injustice of a constitutional ban. Hell, even David Brooks supports same-sex marriage, on the grounds that gays need to be allowed the opportunity (that so many heterosexuals throw away) to enter into responsible, sacred unions. Gays, Democrats, Libertarians, and mainstream religious leaders need to confront the issue head-on, and reach out to any tolerant Republicans they can find. IMHO, it won't be easy, but together, we can prevail.
So is there a slippery slope here for the Right? Restricting marriage leads to repealing no-fault divorce laws, regulating the roles of husband and wife through the state. Stoning adulterers! I mean, from their perspective, where's the logic in stopping at heterosexing marriage?
Regarding many of the viscerally satisfying posts above, they appeal to the part of me that wants to grab the bigots by the collar and shake them and tell them what I REALLY think of them. But they aren't particularly effective in the court of public opinion.
My two cents on how to fight the good fight on this issue, no ducking, is all in the framing. Which we approach with a simple statement: "We support equal treatment under the law for all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution."
Then we turn to the Republicans and ask them why they oppose fundamental constitutional premises. The answer will come down to "Because....it makes me uncomfortable" (phrased in some form or fashion). Our next statement is: "Integration made a lot of people uncomfortable at the time, but it was the right, and constitutional, thing to do. In both of these cases, a majority group decided that they were not going to extend to a minority group the full set of legal priveleges they enjoyed, simply because they wanted to deny equal rights to that group. Simply because is not sufficient reason to deny people their constitutional right to equal treatment under the law."
Then we turn to the Republicans and ask them to please respond. And it goes on as such, with our every rebuttal hinging on our respect for upholding the Constitution. Let's at least make them pull off the mask and show everyone what ugly bastards they are. This is the way to do that.
Look,
No matter how unfair it is, this is NOT the time to raise the issue of gay marriage. For fuck's sake, we have a very tough fight in 2004 for the highest possible stakes, why raise this issue now, of all times, why now? Don't you have any damned sense? Can't we raise this again after Bush is gone? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
grytpype,
What you don't seem to understand is that THEY are raising it.
Go hide under the bed until the election is over, grytpype. You're fartoo delicate and sensitive a soul for politics.
Atrios (who has my vote for President now that Dizzy Gillespie is dead) is absolutely right. The only defense is a good offense. A Democrat with balls would say that justice and morality aren't decided on the basis of polls.
Put to a poll the return of slavery would win by a landslide.
Atrios, WWCD?
I think the Big Dog would tell you (very nicely) you need to take a bullet for the team just now.
Because otherwise, what happens?
Bush keeps the White House, and you're no closer to gay marriage than you were before.
"Whenever some drooling Republican goon brings up "defense of marriage," you say "First, tell me why Georgie is protecting a traitor in the White House. Then we'll talk gay marriage."
so good, it had to be repeated.
If only the Democratic party was disciplined enough to tell all its members to vote "PRESENT" on any vote related to this issue.
Let the Republicans win -- which is the only way to remove this issue from the ALL-IMPORTANT 2004 GENERAL ELECTION -- but win shamefully.
The tree that bends survives the storm!
If anyone really thinks that Democrats can duck the issue of gay marriage in this election, I'd like them to get their heads out of the sand now. The MA decision and Howard Dean's candidacy means everyone will have to take some kind of stand. I think Atrios and 56K are right-- take a stand now, frame the issue as a religious and privacy right and encouragement of stability in the home, and let the chips fall where they may. Ducking and covering won't do us any favors.
We must keep our eyes on the goal: Bush must go. That is an absolute precondition for any kind of progress whatsoever. No matter what your issue is. First, Bush must go. Then, we get to your issue.
George Bush is the worst enemy of progress since the Civil War. He's like a Third World despot, he's our Mugabe. He's actually making the country worse. What other president has left the country worse off? Buchanan, maybe? But we are talking historically bad.
So, I'm appealing to your patriotism.
Bing,
It's really true that Ms. Cheney's partner was forbidden the White House by GWB? Cites?
Could that be a winning point? Most people relate better to individual stories than large platform planks. I am assuming that the partner is a presentable, law-abiding American woman.
Can you see an ad? "Why can't this young American enter the White House? Ask George Bush!"
They couldn't really say it was her homosexuality without trying to explain how some homosexuals are more equal than others...or that they're against responsible, committed partnerships....
If someone says that families are off-limits, remember that the ad doesn't mention anyone's family. Let them do it!
Can't see a campaign doing it, but I think it would be great "arm's-length."
"Atrios (who has my vote for President now that Dizzy Gillespie is dead) is absolutely right. The only defense is a good offense. A Democrat with balls would say that justice and morality aren't decided on the basis of polls.
Put to a poll the return of slavery would win by a landslide.
David Ehrenstein"
David is right. Fuck politics. This is the morally correct position: Unconditional support for gay marriage. MARRIAGE. period.
"We support equal treatment under the law for all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution."
This is really all that needs to be said, but it needs to be said repeatedly and with conviction by those who truly believe it.
Come on folks, Being gay is just wrong and immoral. If people are gay, they probably are bad bad people. To let them marry would be a travesty of our legal and christian upbringing..... hahahhahahahahah - You know what really pisses me off??? well, that's ok, I will write it anyway.
These jackasses who are against gay marriages are hypocrites. They think that because people of the same sex fall in love with each other cannot create babies and the population will die out. It's ok to kill off the forests and wildlife of the world to make houses, highways, cement buildings, etc. for the sake of human population. I think same sex marriages should be immediately legalized. If they wish to adopt children and are good people, there should be no reason they could not. There are lots of unwanted children in the world. Hell, you read about foster parents having sexually abused, tortured, starved and otherwise tormented their foster children and those are STRAIGHT couples.
gryptype,
Although I haven't made up my mind on how important this issue should be in the 2004 election politically - in my gut, it's one of the most important issues out there, however - I'm getting a rather disturbing flashback to a Modern World cartoon concerning Clinton.
We can't do so-and-so because it would cost us the 04 election.
Well, we can't do it in '06 because it'd cost us the midterm elections.
Well, we can't do it in '08 because it'd cost us that presidential election.
We'll we can't do it in '10 because it'd cost us those midterm elections.
And so on and so forth...
So, what I'm not understanding about this poll -- it says that among the 53% of Americans who view marriage as a religious issue, 71% of those people are opposed to gay marriage. Are those people under the impression that their chuches would be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriages? Perhaps this resistance would weaken if people realized that their churches wouldn't be affected. Churches can go on recognizing or not just as they please -- the government can't interfere with that. Look at the Catholics and divorces.
The writers of the story admit that the phrasing of the questions affected the response. Based on that, I'll bet the hostility to gay marriage is a lot weaker than the numbers seem to suggest. And support for gay civil rights is strong among the under 30's. The Republicans can't put this genie back in the bottle, however much they'd like to. The times are already passing them by.
Atrios is completely right. We should be out there framing this debate ourselves as an issue of fundamental fairness. We gain nothing by caving, we'll never get the bigot vote anyway.
grytype,
I"ll bet that 'most everyone here agrees that GWB is worse than bad, but the Republicans are going to hang this around the Dems' necks. Shutting up will only allow them to use a rope.
Even the rednecks (and Republicans) admire a fighter. Maybe especially rednecks. "I don't agree with anything he says, but he's got guts," type of thing. Sure, they'll start by ridiculing, but the consistent defense of equal treatment for all Americans: no more, but no less ala Jennifer and David Ehrenstein will defuse the issue where it can be defused and earn grudging admiration where it can't.
If the Dems do this right, they can turn that rope into a gold ribbon. That's not the right thing. It's the smart thing. If the Republicans are going to push this, it's the only thing.
Let's see how Dean does in the primaries and take if from there.
For me, ABB means that there are times when it's better to win than to be right. The primaries will show whether this issue is a crippling liability.
enough with the ``Kevin Drums of the world'' smearing. It's a legitimate political issue for discussion and that sort of sneering is just gratuitous. Also, you say that one of the choices -- a false one at that-- is to condemn the evils of gays right after you've said that Democrats are going to be the party of choice no matter what. B.S. Demonizing gays would not make the Democratic Party the party of choice any longer.
The rest of your argument makes sense.
>grytpype,
>What you don't seem to understand is >that THEY are raising it.
Atrios, why do you suppose THEY are raising it?
so, can we have the log cabin gays?
It's the economy, STUPID.
-James Carville
2004 version: It's the economy, STUPIDER.
Cheney has it right for once, but he must carry it out to its' logical conclusion and stop any governmental recognition of any human union, including that of man to woman. If this is about being included on the workplace health insurance benefits of another, by merit of sanctioned affiliation,then let us ban altogether family coverage by employers. Cover the one employed, or, more liberally, allow each employee to designate any individual as co insured.
And another thing: no brownie points for bearing young. Any fool can do it, and it's not proven to be to the common good.
preznit, BWAH!
gryptype, it's not that I don't see your point. But one of two things can happen here: We don't confront this issue, and Bush wins, and we feel like losers, and dickless losers at that. Or we do confront this issue, Bush wins, and we feel like losers but at least we can look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning.
Or ... and this is where I go a little crazy ... maybe we do confront the issue, stand up for the law, make the points 56k made up there, and maybe ... we win!
I don't think anybody who's still a Democrat is in the party just to be on the winning side.
A.
What I wish is that just once a Democratic candidate would point out that no one is trying to make anyone marry a same sex partner. People who want to marry heterosexually will still be free to do so. This will in no way effect them. The only change is that if gay marriage or domestic partnership rights are recognized gay people will have the same legal rights as straight people. This law does not really effect straight people at all.
I think a lot of you would be talking differently if it was your civil rights that were being put on the back burner indefinitely.
I think there's only one Democratic candidate that this issue could actually work for: Lieberman. He can't be painted as a lefty, but the whole "I was there for civil rights 40 years ago and I'm here now" could very well work. I might even switch my support from Dean if he did that.
Jennifer writes: "Integration made a lot of people uncomfortable at the time, but it was the right, and constitutional, thing to do."
Republicans still wish that had never happened. Why do liberals still believe they're dealing with reasonable people?
I think the way to do this is to insist on distinguishing the legal from the religious aspect of marriage.
Democrats should say, "Our country is based on the separation of church and state. You can believe what you like about who God thinks should be able to get married, but that is not the government's concern: that is what it means for you to have religious freedom. The state's interest in people's legal relationships must be governed by the principle of human equality before the law."
I think most Americans who are not outright theocratic totalitarians accept those principles, and framing the issue this way lets even social conservatives think about it without contemplating icky gay sex.
I have been campaigning in north Texas for a Republican congressional seat held by a ecological troglodyte named Joe Barton (MTBE, Clear Skies, Westar, Texas Redistricting, etc).
Invariably one of the things that folks hit me with is gay marriage. The phrase I am standing behind is "equal rights under the laws of man".
Social change is a long-working engine. Witness women only getting to vote in the last 75 years, and blacks ostensibly since the VRA of 1965. This is after the Constitution laid out the framework, but we had to go through a Civil War, reconstruction, woman's suffrage and te civil rights movement before "equal rights" have practical applicability in our society.
If I were in charge of the gay rights movement (and I'm not - "but not that there's anything wrong with that") - I would focus on establishing legal precedent step by step on things like insurance rights, next-of-kin rights, death benefits and create a bottom-up basis for societal change.
But for now as a future politician I'm taking the position that "equal rights under the laws of man" and leaving the marriage decision to clergy. The choice for the gay community is whether they want to tackle the whole enchilada at once (virtually impossible) - or whether they want to stand on "equal rights under the laws of man" and march onward from there.
--morris meyer (www.meyer04.us)
Fuck that! Gays, get some guns and blow their heads off, already.
Of course, another strategy is to turn right-wing logic on itself in this case, as David Brooks has done. "Being for 'gay marriage' is actually a conservative position because it leads to more stabilitiy in families, more responsibility, more cultural assimilation. It cuts down on all that ilicit promiscuity and is a boon to the economy, blah blah blah. Portray it as a wedge issue for republicans, shine a light always on the Log Cabin types and Dick & Lynn's family values. It won't work on it's own, but it is a flank...
Alexander the Great.
Richard the Lion-Hearted.
Richard Turing.
The people who invented DEMOCRACY (the Ancient Greeks)
THE IDIOT FUCKING LOSER RELIGIOSOS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR ASSES.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
