I found a quote about gay marriage I like at Daily Dish (Sullivan apparently took a break from drooling on himself about TEH CLIMATEGATE):
“The time is never right for civil rights. The economy, wars. The troubles we’ve had here in the senate. It’s never ever the right time. But the paradox is, it’s always the time to be on the right side of history,” – New York state Senator Tom Duane.
To me, that’s the obvious point here: everyone knows that we’re eventually going to have gay marriage, why not just get on the right side of history now? I won’t belabor my points about potential local economic impacts, but it seems to me that the thinking should be (even for people who don’t favor gay marriage) “look, we’re eventually going to have gay marriage everywhere anyway, why not have it before other places and reap the benefits of doing so?”
But, I think, in the end, that’s just not how the conservative mind works. Buckley’s famous aphorism that conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop” says more than it means to. Conservatism yells stop, but it never succeeds in actually stopping history. So what’s the point of all the yelling?
I suppose one point is that it may delay history, but the sad truth is that the real point of the yelling is to gain political advantage, whether it’s with the Civil Rights Act or with gay marriage bills.
SpotWeld
Because, when all you do is stand there and yell “stop”, then whatever change does happen (good or bad), is someone else’s fault.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
kid bitzer
i heard a piece on npr last night where the pro-marriage equality forces were in the hallways in albany yelling “shame on you!” as the republican legislators filed by, silent. none of the republicans would explain their ‘no’ votes.
and it struck me what a beautiful thing this was: the moral advantage is now clearly on the side of the equality activists. they know it; that’s why they are there, chanting. and the republicans know it; that’s why they are silent and hanging their heads.
if you want to measure the distance we have traveled in a few decades, that’s it: now the bigots are ashamed, and the proponents of gay marriage are not.
we are not yet where we want to be. but, damn, that’s a hell of a big distance to have traveled already.
ellaesther
That is a great, great quote, and I believe I may cut n’ paste it for my own uses.
I actually take no little comfort from the fact that, indeed, conservatives always and forever yell STOP — and it never works. It slows things down, and more people suffer as a result, and that is bad, and that’s why we need to keep up our efforts. But eventually, the change happens.
The ideological forerunners of the Bush Administration would not have considered Condi Rice suitable for anything other than maid duties back in the day (and the day was not all that long ago) — it really, truly matters that she was our Secretary of State (and not just because she fucked up so badly!).
The Republic of Stupidity
Uh… because Teh Stoopid™ runs so danged strong and deep in some people?
‘Course, if they gave up and accepted the fact that some folks just like a member of the same sex, they’d have to move on and deal w/ REAL issues… like the climate, or how broken and corrupt our govt is, or just how f’n farked we are around the deficit issue at the rate we’re going… (right over that cliff, right over there…)
Sooooooo… in summation… it’s all Teh Gays’ Fault!!!!™
kommrade reproductive vigor
Which is why this shit will be settled in the courts or not at all. There are simply too many hypocrites and cowards worried they’ll have to get a real job if they don’t get re-elected squatting on history yelling Stop! Think of the children!
(Yeah, I know. Water flowing under rock and all that.)
gbear
WHO’S YELLING!!?? I’M NOT YELLING!! QUIT YELLING AT ME TO STOP YELLING!! IT’S A FREE COUNTRY SO I’LL YELL IF I WANT, BUT I’M NOT YELLING, SO JUST STOP!!
Did I win yet?
Lolis
Legislators don’t get rewarded for doing the right thing on these issues unless they live in places where a supermajority already agrees with them. I can understand their fear. I also have a fear that if Obama were to become “a fierce advocate of gay rights” it would derail the rest of his agenda and make it impossible for him or other Democrats to get re-elected. I don’t want another Bush in power, especially at this critical time in our history.
I think the best people to handle this are the judges because they are not partisan and that is what has got the ball rolling historically. We are a small and simple-minded people who care to much about what others do in bed or with their bodies.That being said, after health care is passed, I will call anyone I can to get DADT moving in Congress.
ed
To me, that’s the obvious point here: everyone knows that we’re eventually going to have gay marriage, why not just get on the right side of history now?
Indeed. Big political upside to getting ahead of the right side of history. Short term and long term.
Buckley’s famous aphorism that conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop” says more than it means to.
I dunno. I think it was pretty clear what the author of “Why the South Must Prevail” in 1957 meant by that jagoff comment. It didn’t require a decoder ring. It was clear enough to Lee Atwater, anyway.
Rick Taylor
Global warming is another area where your argument applies. With the exception of the skeptics, everyone knows we’re going to have to do something about it. Why not start now, and be on the right side? Maybe the reason conservatives are going so crazy is the world really is changing quickly, and they can’t deal with it.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Fxd.
PeakVT
So what’s the point of all the yelling?
They’re applying for a better position in the afterlife. Or so they think.
noncarborundum
I suspect that if you really believe the tidal wave you see coming will in fact drown us all, there’s a certain nobility in rising to oppose it, even if (or, perhaps, particularly if) you know that you’re doomed to fail.
Besides, as PeakVT says, they’re storing up treasures in heaven.
Hunter Gathers
Standing athwart history, yelling
STOP!FAG.Fixed.
Steerpike
Yelling “Stop” is easier than sitting down and talking. The agenda of “no” is, of course, not an agenda at all; it the antithesis of an agenda. If they succeed, they can go to voters and say “look, I prevented a disaster”; if they fail, they can say “I tried to prevent a disaster”; if the agenda ends up being, not a disaster, but a success, they can say, “Were it not for my resistance, the agenda (fill in the blank: Gay marriage, civil rights, Social Security, women’s suffrage, trust-busting, whatever) would have been disastrous, but because of our diligence, it was altered so that it is now acceptable.” It’s win-win-win for an obstructionist.
Zifnab
Are you kidding? Ask AEI or the Heritage Foundation or Inhofe or Sessions or Tom Tancredo. There is serious bank to be made for jamming the breaks on progress. Progress saps money from people enjoying the fruits of the status quo. And the wealthy of today will shell out buko bucks to the hacks willing to make sure we never get to tomorrow.
Had we all run off and converted to wind and solar power back in the seventies and eighties, how much money would Exxon have lost? If we went to single payer health care under Truman, where would the executives of HCA and BCBS be today?
There are giant mountains of cash to be had for yelling “STOP”, and for everyone you get to balk there’s a fortune you can fleece from them.
Money, money, money. That’s why.
chopper
@Rick Taylor:
for similar reasons: i’ll be goddamned if i’m going to agree with the DFHs
aimai
But I don’t think that these Albany legislators really think that “the tidal wave” will “drown us all…” I mean, the gayness is here, and has been here a long time, and still no “fire next time.” I doubt seriously any New Yorkers are under the impression that god is going to smite our latter day Sodom over Sodomy. Maybe in Utah they still think that way. But the New York Legislators? I’d be surprised if any of them aren’t closet atheists, as well as closet kinksters in their own right. They voted against it because they weren’t getting paid to vote for it. That’s all. As I think I recommended over at SteveM’s site the most logical thing to do is to create gay friendly businesses of a large enough variety that bringing them to districts in the boonies constitutes an economic resource, a source of graft, for republican legislators. That would be gay bars, gay nightclubs, gay everything. Then threaten to stop paying off if equal marriage isn’t recognized. This kind of extortion works every time for large construction companies, walmart, etc… and it would work just as well for gay marriage. The important thing to remember about the majority of legislators is the first thing that pops into their heads isn’t “WWJD” but “What’s In It For Me?”
aimai
Comrade Darkness
All the yelling? I think it’s just laziness. It takes work to concoct the propaganda on the next group they are supposed to hate. Easier just to extend the lifespan on the current playbook.
Zifnab
@Lolis:
To quote James Carville, it’s the economy stupid.
If Barack Obama can get the jobs market going again before 2012, he can nuke Milan while making passionate love to Tiger Woods on national TV and he’ll walk back into office with a super majority of voters.
The gay rights issue, from the perspective of Joe Average, is a non-issue. Everyone who has an opinion on it already thinks he knows how Obama “really feels” regardless of what he actually does, and the rest of the population who doesn’t care… doesn’t care.
Given that DADT can be wiped away with an executive order, there’s little reason for Obama to pull a punch. DOMA is another matter, and I honestly don’t think the gay community is angry because health care is preempting gay marriage. And we’ve already made legislative progress on including gays and transgenders in civil rights legislation. Those are ultimately issues with Congress. But DADT is easy. The fact that Obama hasn’t budged on it speaks volumes. If he’d blown that rule away inside the first 100 days, it would be a feather in his cap with the liberals and a non-issue for everyone else.
maus
You have to understand shame to be affected by it. Sociopaths are not covered by this.
valdemar
Riddle me this…
The conventional anti- argument seems to be that God and/or nature intended marriage to be between a man and a woman so they can have kids and perpetuate our wonderful species.
Okay, given this ‘fact’, shouldn’t those who rely upon it insist on banning hetero marriage where natural procreation is manifestly impossible? There are tests, thanks to modern medical science. And sometimes ladies who marry are, you know, rather old. If the antis reply: ‘Well, the couple can always adopt’, or ‘Marriage is not just about having kids’ they’ve shot themselves in the toe.
But I suppose I’m asking for consistency from irrational people here. Still, thought I’d mention it, as it constantly bugs me whenever this issue kicks off.
slippy
I made the observation about 5 years ago (right after the 2004 election’s quasi-referendum on both national security and gay marriage) that the people who were on the wrong side of this issue now should take a good look at themselves in the mirror, and then watch some footage from the 1950’s and ’60’s. Pictures of African Americans being washed down the street with firehoses. And then clearly understand that in 50 years, they would be viewed with the same kind of disdain and disgust that the folks operating the firehoses were 50 years ago.
Of course, bigots and assholes don’t think about themselves this way. They think they’re defending something noble or precious and are often shocked and insulted that the rest of us actually look down on them as if they are gutter scum.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
Yeah, I addressed this yesterday, Doug. Or was it the day before?
Anyway, the thing is, a Benevolent King is the way to get a government that does everything you want it to do, when you want it to do it.
But our asshole Founders stuck us with a Republic, with its messy and infuriating politics and factions and manipulations and dealmaking and coalitions. And delays. And unfairnesses.
They were stupid buttheads, but they did the best they could. And this complete failure of a country, which languishes in its position as the most powerful and influential on earth (in other words, dead last), just must muddle along as best it can.
Hang in there, man.
Nellcote
via Politicalwire
It’s the Dem’s fault? Please explain Log Cabin Reps to me!
Hunter Gathers
Which gives Congress an excuse to continue to do nothing, and it would be immediately repealed by the next Republican POTUS.
gex
I honestly don’t think the gay community is angry because health care is preempting gay marriage.
I can only speak for myself, but this.
He never promised it. He actually said he doesn’t support SSM.
He did talk about federal civil unions, and you haven’t heard one gay person scream about that, we clearly don’t expect that to be high on the list or early in the agenda.
Despite that though, we are accused of wanting to derail his agenda. By the people who themselves become part of the friction that makes this a topic that could derail agendas.
gex
@gex: BQ Fail:
I can only speak for myself, but this.
He never promised it. He actually said he doesn’t support SSM.
He did talk about federal civil unions, and you haven’t heard one gay person scream about that, we clearly don’t expect that to be high on the list or early in the agenda.
Despite that though, we are accused of wanting to derail his agenda. By the people who themselves become part of the friction that makes this a topic that could derail agendas.
The Republic of Stupidity
Huh??? ‘Vote their conscience’?
Orwellian double-speak of the day!
Or…
‘How To Sound Principled and Correct Whilst Saying Nothing and Still Managing To Blame the Other Side!’
Talk about Battered Republican Syndrome™…
licensed to kill time
Standing athwart history, yelling “Don’t gays me, bro!”
They’s secretly afraid it’s catching.
Zifnab
@Nellcote:
30 Republicans in the Senate. 32 Democrats. If all the Democrats had voted for it lockstep, it would have passed. Therefore, it is the Democrats’ fault the bill did not pass. QED.
Log Cabin Republicans really, really, really like their tax cuts. In a carnal way.
ellaesther
@Hunter Gathers: It really has to be a legislative decision, doesn’t it.
I think I’m going to look into what’s up with Rep. Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) initiative to have it overturned….
BBL, with news, I hope!
gex
@valdemar: I believe every court that has ruled that the ban is unconstitutional has addressed these kinds of arguments. The people who are fighting the gays are just saying whatever shit will convince people, not advancing a reasoned argument that withstands scrutiny.
Sentient Puddle
@Nellcote:
WTF, the Democrats didn’t promise 32 votes on their side. You would’ve had to not be paying attention to notice that they were having trouble whipping votes on their side!
Gah, I’m with you on this one. The Log Cabin Republicans are pretty moronic.
gex
@ellaesther: Legislative decisions have been overturned by constitutional amendment in CA and by referendum in ME.
The thing is, the rule of law is okay for most people. But court victories aren’t sufficient for us. Nor is actual legislation by democratically elected legislatures. Nope, only mob rule for the gays. But at least they didn’t implement the death penalty instead.
Zifnab
@gex:
The people who scream loudest about “derailing the agenda” are the same jackholes pushing for triggered co-op competition friendly health care nothings as a replacement to the public option. Because we need to COMPROMISE people. Not everyone can get what they want (*except old rich white dudes and stock holders of FORTUNE 500 Companies).
jrg
They yell because they cannot succeed in changing history. It makes them feel better about themselves.
They know they will not cause or contribute to any change (positive or negative). In their frustration, they whine like babies – because it makes them feel relevant, as if they have something to add.
It’s the same reason conservatives equate lack of education with common sense… To make themselves feel better about ignorance by assigning “value” to it.
kid bitzer
i will say this much for standing athwart history:
i read hawking’s “athwart history of time”, and bryson’s “athwart history of nearly everything”, and they were both fabulouth.
Zifnab
@Hunter Gathers:
4-8 years of an explicit ban on DADT followed by a new President declaring some sort of military gay purge would rock a lot of boats. I don’t see it happening.
In the meantime, Congress has a laundry list of excuses to continue doing nothing. Gay rights has one set of advocates, bigotry has another. That’s not going to change.
And when Congress does come back to addressing gay rights, it would be nice if they tackled DOMA, rather than “compromising” on DADT. I don’t see any benefit whatsoever to leaving this bad rule on the books. Take a stand. Set down a precedent. Let openly gay officers percolate up through the ranks. Prod Congress as you need to. That’s what we need. Not encouragement by doing nothing.
TTT
William F. Buckley: “Conservatism is lying flat on your back after being trampled by history and saying “what was that?” just before you lose consciousness.”
He used different words, but they mean the same thing.
Zifnab
@jrg:
Someone should tell Saddam.
Or everyone in the Twin Towers.
Or the city of New Orleans.
Or anyone buying gas between 2005 and 2009.
Hell, ask Al Gore.
4tehlulz
Sometimes they win.
ATW*T History
No need to bring Sarah Paling into this…Then again maybe she can give out endorsements in ’10 like she did for that guy in NY-23. Tea Partiers 4evah!!!
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/02/beck-primary/
jrg
Point taken, Zifnab, but I still believe that the average conservative mook likes to whine about gays, or nigras, or the clenis, or women priests simply so that he can feel better about the fact that he is a f*cking mook.
gex
By the way, today Dan Savage is wondering if Obama will follow the Swedes and Canada’s CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister in threatening to withhold aid money to Uganda if it passes the death penalty for gays, those who don’t turn them in, and those who think they should have rights.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Re: The Lame Cabin Republican statement.
Have you ever wanted to walk into a room full of strangers, pick up a chair and start whaling away on everyone? And not because you hate them but because it’s the only way you can think of to knock some sense into them before they do something really harmful like stick forks into the outlets.
That’s how I feel about those dimwits.
They want the Republicans to vote their conscience? Yikes. Hope I get adequate warning when they vote for a year-round, no limit hunting season.
It explains why their former political director started this bit of hilarity. Also.
Shygetz
Buckley meant exactly that. Conservatism does not, and cannot, stop history. Conservatism explicitly seeks to slow history down. The political theory behind it is basically that stable societies yield better outcomes, so necessary social change should come slowly to preserve the stability of the society.
The fact that conservatives also benefit monetarily from slowing down progress is just a beneficial side-effect. They really do this for Burke and Oakeshott.
Zifnab
@jrg: I won’t argue with that at all.
4tehlulz
In sum, conservatives are nothing more than history’s trolls.
Punchy
NY State pollys are some of the dirtiest fucking scumbags on the planet. When you add in the Madoff ilk, the Bankstahs/Wall Street, the crime syndicates, and general rudeness of NYCers, I say it’s time to push the entire state of New York into the fuckin Atlantic.
WereBear
@Rick Taylor: That’s what been bothering them my whole lifetime.
Now, that lifetime has encompassed the rise of television, computers, the internet, and cell phones. That’s a lot in a relatively short time.
They don’t handle it well.
Now me, I love it!
Little Dreamer
@Zifnab:
I’ll see your status quo and raise you starving children.
gex
@jrg: I have a more elaborately developed theory on the anti-gay thing.
We are so far from the original Christian view of sex (no masturbation, never before marriage, only for procreation) because we’ve liberalized on all those fronts. But these people still read their Bibles, and if they had to confront the fact that they have rationalized away all the things they claim to believe about sex and morality, who knows what would happen.
So they cling to the gay thing. Because they can say that that’s the one thing they never do. And they feel good about themselves for that, as though they’ve resisted anything. They’re getting heaven points for resisting a temptation that does not tempt them. And hey, getting there is hard, you can’t turn down those free points.
ellaesther
@ellaesther: Ok, according to govtrack, the bill, which has 183 co-sponsors, has been referred to committee(s), those committees being of course the House Committee on the Armed Services and its subcommittee on Military Personnel.
If you want to see DADT overturned, you can write to your US Rep and tell them so. Go to govtrack to see if your representative is among the co-sponsors, and if he/she is, drop an email that just says something like “I’m a constituent from XYZ, and I just wanted to thank you for your support for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Done. (Do this ESPECIALLY if your representative is a member of the Armed Services Committee and ESPECIALLYESPECIALLY if he/she is on the Subcommittee for Military Personnel. (I can’t link because I’ve already embedded two links here, but you can find that link on the Committee page).
And if your representative is NOT one of the co-sponsors, write a note to give them a piece of your mind! “I’m a constituent from XYZ, and I wanted to tell you that I hope that you will decide to support the bill currently in committee calling for a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Not only is DADT an affront to American values and the demands of civil rights, it represents a real security issue — the military needs any and all Americans who are willing to serve.” Something like that-ish.
Email addresses can be found at www house gov.
(And of course, ESPECIALLYESPECIALLY do this if your representative is on the Armed Services Committee, etc, etc).
Zifnab
@Little Dreamer: Nonsense. I heard on FOX News that there were no starving children, only Obama Propaganda. And Zuul.
gnomedad
Fixed, again. That’s the point of the yelling.
ellaesther
@gex: Well yes, that’s true. But that is much harder to do than to have the person with executive authority (Governor, President) just sign an order, and it is much MUCH harder to do on the federal level.
And one has to start somewhere. A new US law would be an excellent place.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Little Dreamer:
So, we are starting an orphanage? We are going to need a bigger place …..
ellaesther
@ellaesther: I should have headlined that long-ass comment in some way, so people would know what the hell I was going on about!
IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN THE PROGRESS OF THE HOUSE BILL CALLING FOR THE REPEAL OF DADT, PLEASE READ ABOVE POST!
Ahem.
gex
I’ll add one area where I think gays are completely in the right to be upset at Obama with.
And that is that he is most often cited by our enemies during campaigns against gays. Before Prop 8, he uttered the words that he does not support SSM. Yes, it was in the context of a more nuanced answer. But the robocalls sent out by Prop 8 proponents only used his voice stating that he does not believe in SSM.
When NY was debating marriage yesterday, “Ruben Diaz was the worst. He gave an outrageous floor speech. Then, as he was casting his vote, Diaz noted that he was on the same side as President Obama and Hillary and Bill Clinton. Senator Tom Duane pointed out that at least Diaz was wrong about Bill Clinton.”
That we aren’t moving forward given the shit that’s going on in this country is no surprise. But it just seems like not only is he not being a positive force for us, he can’t even seem to be a neutral force.
MichaelR
Apologies for being OT, but is it normal here for someone new having to wait over 3.5 hours for their post to finally be approved (and finally show up 3 threads back at its original posting time… where it will now never ever be read)?
If this is the norm here, why should a newbie bother posting if it never has a chance to be read before it finally appears buried several threads deep? (query if true, and if not true, why not?)
HEY!!! (No, this isn’t a lame excuse to try and argue for all posts to be treated like Haloscan and appear right away regardless of content.
I’m just wondering if there are additional trusted BJ users that are able to read and approve pending posts, even while the major site Principals remain away and out of touch?)
gex
@ellaesther: Really? Has it been harder to do? In two states they’ve tried it. In two states it has succeded. (Referenda overturning legislation.) Batting 1000 looks successful to me.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@gex:
What’s the big deal? The majority of Americans do not support SSM.
Meanwhile, the so-called Gay Rights community has not only chosen a battle over a hot potato word, while claiming to want rights that are not constrained by that word, they go about campaigning for their issue by calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with them, for whatever reason, a bigot.
One of the most spectacularly fucked and stupid political strategies I have ever seen, and I have seen a few.
If I were Obama, I’d caclulate at this point that LGBT doesn’t represent a significant bloc for me and obviously doesn’t have a political clue in any sense of the word, and I would just ignore them.
Luckily for LGBT, he is a kinder and gentler soul on this subject than I am, to the point that I consider it to be a flaw of his.
Persia
@gex: IIRC, they tried it in MA and it never got off the ground.
gwangung
@gex: So…more grassroots efforts indicated, no?
ellaesther
@gex: Well, in terms of logistics and organization and so on, yes, it is harder, all things being equal (by which I mean: If you have an executive interested in signing an order, which would be the case if Obama signs one repealing DADT, and then is replaced by a conservative who doesn’t like that order). Especially, very much especially, on the federal level.
I’m not suggesting that those losses aren’t losses, I’m suggesting that the legislative process is what we got, so we have to try to make it work. What’s the option here? Give up?
Tom
To me, this issue is all about semantics. We could end this whole debate if we stop using the word “marriage.” Like it or not, the word is associated with the religious rite. And, obviously, religions do not have to allow gays to marry.
We just need to follow the lead of Washington State and say “everything but marriage” and be done with it. There is support for civil unions for gay people, not so much for “gay marriage.”
The Grand Panjandrum
OT: Looks like Obama is really done for now. Even his “pal” Bill Ayers is upset with him. I can see him, arms locked with Glenn Beck, leading a crowd carrying torches, headed down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the White House, yelling, “Where’s my Constitution, dude?”
Just another Pogrom
@slippy – (comment23)
I made the observation about 5 years ago (right after the 2004 election’s quasi-referendum on both national security and gay marriage)
I think I remember listening to a commenter around that time saying that abortion wasn’t as big a draw as it used to be so they came up with teh evil gayz as one new possible way to rally the base.
jrg
@gex
I think you are reading too far into it. After all, roughly half of all American Christians do not know who delivered the sermon on the mount.
It has nothing to do with what is or is not in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that says water fountains should be segregated, but conservatives held onto that view for years (some still do).
It is all about pushing someone else around to feel better. The less value a person feels they have (many for good reason), the stronger that compulsion will be.
gwangung
@Tom: That’s a necessary, but not sufficient step. There are still ambiguities and loopholes that will still screw people over.
On the other hand, that’s a step that may be needed. To show people that “civil unions” AREN’T enough, and you’re still screwing people over. Or to change all marriage rights into civil union rights, no ifs, ands, buts or loopholes.
gex
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: Well then, why have the rule of law.
I thought the entire point of equal protection under the law was so the majority could not write legislation that applied only to the minority.
This is not the first, nor the last time, someone on here will judge the gay community for their tactics, while assuming they know all the things we have done to advance our cause.
It’s funny. I read this blog and in most threads, there are people screaming at Obama for something or another. The only people who are not allowed to be disappointed with Obama are gays for some reason. Whatever.
gex
@Persia: In one sense you are right. But the referendum never got to the people.
geg6
And this is exactly why conservatism as a movement has never made an ounce of sense to me. This is not a “conservative” thing, to be such a pie in the sky dreamer to think you can stop change or “history” or whatever Buckley wanted to call it. It is the ultimate in the unrealistic and impractical. More conservative is to accept that there is going to be change and to mitigate the bad consequences of it as much as possible and to be cautious in embracing all change as good. It’s a bit depressing to me to realize that, at least now that I’m older, I am more truly conservative than those who wrap themselves in the mantle of conservatism today. Me, a dirty fucking hippie my entire life.
gex
@gwangung: Oh. That’s right. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. You read my blog comments and naturally from that you know what efforts I have made on my own behalf. And you are quite correct in assuming I’ve done nothing but post angry blog comments at BJ. Well done. I stand corrected and apologize to all.
@Tom: Thank you. Finally someone who understands that ceding to the religious that gays are too disordered to join an institution that murderers can join, and that separate but equal is the best solution.
The Grand Panjandrum
@The Grand Panjandrum: Or maybe I could read the previous post. Reading FAIL.
Little Dreamer
@jrg:
Yes it does, it says that the living waters flow to cleanse the sinners only AFTER the elect are safely inside the gates of the city. Apparently YOU don’t know your bible.
Brick Oven Bill
I would like to correct the record. At a cost of $145 trillion, the Climate Change Bill would only pay for twenty-nine thousand (29,000) Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. I must have missed a button on the calculator in the Open Thread.
We should still be able to look at and analyze the raw data that we paid government workers to collect as 29,000 is still a lot of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@gex:
Nah, we’ve had that tiresome argument ten times in here, done with that.
It comes down to this for me: I am probably the most socially liberal person on the board. Okay, cow, but whatever. I don’t care about anyone’s private life or desire to constrain anyone’s idea of what a functional family should be.
I have never voted, and will never vote, against the interests of LGBT.
I am a strong straight political ally of LGBT interests and I think DOMA is family-hostile and toxic.
But because I have deigned to disagree with them politically, as to how to approach this issue, and because I absolutely do not agree that all opponents of SSM are bigots, I have been called a bigot.
Kids, when you call your politicial friends names and browbeat them, and pick fights over words that have nothing to do with the “rights” you want, and should have, then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, and I won’t support you. I will vote for your interests, and defend your rights, but I won’t lift a finger to help your movement. Sorry, too many other battles to fight that don’t carry this baggage with them.
Alex S.
Health care-debate now on McCain’s amendment. Now there’s some old-man rage.
ellaesther
@The Grand Panjandrum: We love you, GP!
Punchy
Jaw hits floor.
Holy fucking crap.
gex
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: I have not called you a bigot. So unless you think all gay people are the same…
geg6
And by the way, can I just say how much I love, love, love the anti-divorce measure petition the marriage equality folks in CA are pushing? I’ve said this for years. These asshats who are always screaming about defending marriage from the gheyness have no desire to “defend” marriage. Witness the divorce rates among the “religious” and in the South. If they value marriage so much, they should be getting on board with getting this measure on the ballot, right? Ha. Think again. But something like this can open other peoples’ eyes, people who don’t really pay attention, to the fact that the whole defense of marriage crap is a sham. And perhaps that would also push the agenda ahead.
Whatever. I, personally, would absolutely love the idea of illegal divorce (with, of course, an exception for abusive relationships). I’ve always said it should excrutiatingly hard to get married and divorce should be easy as 1,2,3. Since we’ve decided that marriage should be the easiest thing in the world for non-gays and that it is so sacred that no group’s civil rights can trump it’s sacredness, then divorce should be illegal.
ellaesther
@gex: gex, honestly, all gwangung was suggesting was that more grassroots organizing is necessary. Which is clearly the case!
Midnight Marauder
@gex:
And that is complete and utter bullshit. There might be a few assholes saying something along those lines, but in every gay rights
threadThunderdome on this site, the predominant number of people say the exact opposite of what you are articulating. It’s not that gays can’t be “disappointed” with Obama; they can–and should–be, and the vast majority of people around here echo that sentiment. However, there is a difference between being disappointed and then proceeding to actively knee-cap/character assassinate someone in an entirely unmeritorious and dubious fashion.Especially when there are folks running around here who want to place all the blame on Obama for the backed up legislative agenda in Congress (DOMA, DADT, ENDA) but don’t want to acknowledge any of the successes that have already occurred through the same process (Matthew Sheppard/James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act and ending the HIV-ban.) You can’t have it both ways and that’s the mentality that gets a lot of people (myself very much so included) pissed off because not only is it intellectually dishonest, but it also strangely denies the opportunity to celebrate some pretty monumental achievements.
DougJ
f this is the norm here, why should a newbie bother posting if it never has a chance to be read before it finally appears buried several threads deep?
Sorry, we can be a little slow on approving first-time comments.
aimai
Tom at 67 is wrong, its ” not all about semantics”–we already have civil marriage that has nothing to do with religious marriage. In all states the ministers and churches are liscenced by the state to perform a ritual–any ritual–that is then considered valid *so that* the state can step in and guarantee the rights and duties of a married couple in re property, parenting, illness, etc…
The anti gay marriage crowd have only just come around to arguing that its about semantics and being willing to concede “civil” unions to gays. The vast majority of them prefer to remain in utter ignorance of the current law so they can continue to be hysterical and anti-equal marriage with impunity. They are lying about what the word “marriage” means at law, and they will continue to lie even if gay people give up the word and just ask for “civil unions.” Thats because what they are protecting is the right to be bigoted and anti-neighbor for its own sake. They will continue to try to find ways to turn legal marriage into a privilige so that only they can enjoy it. The goal is not to achieve peaceful coexistence with liberals and gays but to destroy an enemy. Therefore not truce, however logical, will be permitted. The whole point is to force gays and liberals into second class status.
aimai
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@gex:
I didn’t say that you have. But plenty have, and are doing it right now. Go and read the churn over the NY vote at GOS yesterday. Every person who dares to hesitate to support the LGBT position explicitly and fully is declared to be a bigot.
It is basically a “for us or against us” argument, in the style of George W. Bush.
Okay, they can have it their way, I don’t care. I am not choosing my political views on the basis of pleasing a bloc that has no fucking idea on earth how to win over doubters, and just resorts to browbeating and seems to enjoy stamping its feet more than it enjoys getting the rights it claims to want.
If it were up to me, any two, or three, or six adults could sign an affidavit declaring themselves to be a family, and enjoy all the rights that are now assigned only to married people, to the greatest possible extent. Sign and drive, done. I am not opposed to equal rights, that’s why I carry an ACLU card.
But as for supporing the LGBT movement? Meh. Been there, done that, done.
gex
@Midnight Marauder: And I apologize.
Perhaps it only seems to me that the gays get more shit about complaining about Obama than anyone else.
jrg
@Little Dreamer
And that Bible passage has to do with racially segregated water fountains how?
I’ll admit – I don’t know the Bible all that well. I do, however, know the basics, like who delivered the sermon on the mount.
…and for someone who considers prayer one small step above beheading chickens for good luck, it’s pretty sad that I know the bible better than half of all American Christians, dontcha think?
Tom
Yeah, I think that’s the ticket. Each state should start a movement to change government-issued “marriages” to “civil unions” and to allow gay people to receive civil unions.
I really do think the fact that people associate the word “marriage” with religion is why these things keep getting voted down.
Well, there’s just nothing anyone can do if a religion chooses not to marry gay people. And it doesn’t have to be a “separate but equal” thing. Just change the name of the government issued license to “civil union” and let gay and straight people receive them.
Little Dreamer
@Punchy:
Damn Punchy, you do that and I expect to see something monumental, instead all I see if news from a month or two ago and the added knowledge that apparently the son of Phyllis Schlafly is part of it.
flounder
DougJ,
I don’t know if you still check out the Kaplan Test Prep chats, but you should sit down, pour yourself 2 fingers of something stiff and read this one, I believe it signals the end of the republic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/12/01/DI2009120103274.html
P.S. I was writing this BEFORE the question/answer in which Kaplan’s alleged financial/economy “journalist” promoted Amity Shlaes crap book. Seriously.
Brandon
There is so little that is interesting to read about today that I might …just …get some work done. Imagine that.
I mean seriously, is this a pathetic list or what?
1. Pres. Obama jobs summit
2. Deputy Att’y General
3. Tiger Woods (again)
4. Afghanistan (again)
5. Climategate (again)
6. Partygate (again)
7. Bill Ayers (again)
8. Republican obstructionism on healthcare (again)
Is there anything to even mock today? Sad, sad times.
Little Dreamer
@jrg:
I ask you to go back to what you stated and show me where you said “racially segregated”, you didn’t, you said “segregated”.
I can’t help it that stupid Conservadudes think segregation of living waters between sinners and saints means segregation between white and something else. I didn’t go there.
Log Cabin
@ kommrade reproductive vigor (#46)
DraftCheney2012.com
so are you saying the Log Cabin boys want Dick? Isn’t that obvious with him being such a manly man and all? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. :^)
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Brandon:
Animal rights. There’s something that gets my dew claws in a dither.
Midnight Marauder
@gex:
No worries, and in all honesty, a lot of my comment was fueled by residual anger from Michael D.’s performance in last night’s Balloon Juice Gay Rights ThunderDome Showdown – Part XVII. But on your other point, I don’t think you’re entirely wrong on that.
I think a large part of that dynamic has to do with a lot of heated passions on the side of equality, which leads to a lot of friendly fire in times of great frustration likes those that face us today. It’s perfectly understandable, and in the long run, I believe the gay rights movement needs some kind of internal pushback (similar to what takes place in every thread like this at BJ) to combat the “with us or against us/I WANT MY PONY NOW!” mentality that seems to be taking ahold in a lot of quarters.
Little Dreamer
@jrg:
Absolutely, I’ve been saying this all along. Do you know what group seems to know the Bible better than all others? Atheists!
American Christians wear the title like a mantle, but they really don’t partake in any understanding of the religion. The Christian religion itself is an excuse for those who would usurp the religion from the Hebrews to use the victimization to their own purposes.
geg6
@Tom:
Even better, take away the power for ANY church, synogogue, temple, whatever to perform a legal union. Let them have their church services to sanctify their “marriages.” But there is no government or legal sanction to any of these religious ceremonies. If you want to have the legal rights, advantages, and protections available under the law to a married couple, you will have to have a civil ceremony in addition to your religious one.
Get the fucking god botherers out of our legal system and a big step in doing this is by getting them out of the business of deciding who can and can’t get married.
jrg
My bad. I should have specified that I was not talking about the “sinners only” signs above water fountains in the early 1960s.
gex
@Tom: I think this is terrible advice. Everyone who gets married gets married by the state. Some also get married by a church.
Your advice to gays is to suggest that we take civil marriage away from everyone if we can’t get it. I’m sure that will help with our popularity. And I’m sure changing all federal and state laws that expressly use the LEGAL term “marriage” will be simple to do.
valdivia
totally OT but I keep seeing these comments about how Obama’s speech was so uninspiring ( I am looking at you George Packer, resident New yorker concern troll). Huh? What was he supposed to do, talk about the beauty of war? After 8 years? WTF is wrong with these people who first complain Obama is not serious enough and then complain his speeches are not poetic enough. As if poetry is suited for this shit sandwich.
gwangung
@gex: Well, given the relative lack of talk about grassroots work, and lack of action plans around here by the majority of folks, it’s something to brought up around here. Assuming it doesn’t need to be said often results in it not being done at all.
Jennifer
Well, we could begin to move the issue a little more in our favor if we would re-brand it from “gay marriage” to “civil marriage.” Because that’s really what we are after – the right for gays to enter into civil marriages fully equal to all other marriages under the law. The churches can decide on their own which civil marriages they will recognize and which ones they won’t. Calling it “civil marriage” leads into those points – this is about legal rights, not religion. If religious people disapprove of same-sex civil marriages, then they can refrain from entering into them, and in their churches they can elect to not recognize them as legitimate in the eyes of the church, or God, or whatever. But anything beyond that boils down to an argument of “they shouldn’t have the same rights I have because I don’t want them to have them/because I believe God thinks it’s wrong/because I think it’s icky/because whatever.” Referring to it as the “civil marriage” issue inserts the word “civil”…as in “rights”…right there up front.
gex
@geg6: It’s a fun twist on Tom’s idea, but still extremely alienating to straight people.
Among the options of:
1) give us marriage
2) no one gets marriage everyone gets civil unions
3) everyone gets marriage but religious people have to have two marriages if they want a sacrament and a contrac
I don’t see how 2 or 3 make our plight more popular with straight people.
Little Dreamer
@geg6:
I totally agree with this. Let’s do it!
Makewi
The problem with the “everyone knows” argument is that it just isn’t true. I remember when everyone knew that electing Bill Clinton would mean a positive change in US drug policy, and I also remember more recently when everyone knew that gay marriage would be gaining more footholds. Now it’s losing them.
This. I’ve tried to point out many times here before that this tactic is hurting the forward momentum on this. The truth is that good people can be pro gay and anti gay marriage simply because they believe absolutely that a marriage is between a man and a woman. The fight that needs to happen now is to shift the focus to ensuring that the rights that come with the institution are made available to anyone who is willing to stand up and say I will be responsible for this other (legal age) person legally.
To that end I would suggest a focus on the ideas of love and the strength of partnerships in life over that of the individual. The rights/fairness argument are hitting the wall of those who would be allies if you can get around the idea that some groups/institutions have a right to exclude that which has never been included. Boy scouts have a right to exclude girls, Girl scouts have a right to exclude boys. For right or wrong, a large enough percentage of the population still agrees that marriage has a right to limit itself to that which is already included.
Not all tissues are kleenex and not all copiers are Xerox and yet they are referred to as such. Over time it stands to reason that the same could be true as applied to legal partnerships.
MichaelR
DougJ Thx much for the reply.
Punchy Jaw hits floor.
Holy fucking crap.
“See? G_d gave us all this new technology so we could rewrite the Bible just the way we want to!”
gex
@Jennifer: Again, you advocate taking away from straight people that which they already have. The exact reason for your solution (the word is very important to people) is why this is not solution at all. Don’t you get it?
Brandon
I guess I forgot to add “Gay marriage” to my previous list of otherwise redundant “news” to read about today.
I’m still waiting to read something to mock or else my day won’t be complete.
Little Dreamer
@valdivia:
We had that discussion last night, the answer is since Obama is black, he’ll never earn support from those crazies, thus they continue to move goalposts so they don’t have to allow him a score.
Brick Oven Bill
Marriage between a man and a woman makes sense. The woman provides sexual favors in exchange for financial security and some level of assurance that she will have help with the kids.
I would look forward to a gay person explaining to me why in the world they would want to marry, other than getting government money.
MBunge
“Conservatism yells stop, but it never succeeds in actually stopping history. So what’s the point of all the yelling?”
Uh, I’d imagine that when folks were going through the Terror of the French Revolution or the Cultural Revolution in China, they’d have really appreciated ANYONE yelling “stop”.
Mike
Punchy
@Little Dreamer: I dont do monumental stuff.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@geg6: I nearly choked when I first heard about that.
I see it as my duty as a citizen to spread the fun to Maryland.
(Actualy there’s a TalEvangical group out there that really does want to ban divorce, maybe it will get them stirred up.)
Little Dreamer
@Brick Oven Bill:
Men often don’t help all that much with kids at all, and other than the kids angle, what you are offering is that marriage should be a legal form of prostitution (not that I’m against that sort of thing, but I think your side is).
Little Dreamer
@Punchy:
That’s news to me, until today, I have found all of your links to be monumental.
ellaesther
@gwangung: Yes, I agree (note my comment @ #84).
… and this is an excellent chance to once again point out the opportunity to take action from the comfort of the interwebz for the repeal of DADT, as discussed @ #54!
gex
This is the most up to date position I can find on the US response to Uganda. I wish we would try to prevent passage rather than respond if it passes. I would like Obama, as the head of our foreign policy, to do something about that. I have made my calls and written my letters.
If he places no pressure on Uganda, I don’t even know what to say. It has been days.
Has anyone else seen something more recent?
valdivia
@Little Dreamer:
thanks for the reply. I must have missed that last night as I was mired in end of term Evita Peron papers and +10 or so by the end of the night ;-)
Tom
gex
Yeah, I don’t know, you might be right. I don’t necessarily think there’d be backlash. I don’t think you’d have a whole lot of people caring if they get married at a church and then receive a civil union certificate from the state — and for those who just choose to get married by the state, I don’t think they’d care if their certificate says “civil union” instead of “married.” I think people would still say they got married, it would just be called a civil union by the state.
But, thinking more about it, marriage isn’t strictly religious term, so gay people should be allowed to be married by the state. It’s just that people think if they allow “gay marriage” it’s some how impacting the religious rite, which it’s not.
Maybe gwangung is right in that it’s a step… I just think we’ll continue to see “gay marriage” bill voted down because of the religious association.
gnomedad
@Little Dreamer:
Well, sure. Why read it if you already know you believe it? Reading is for atheist nit-pickers.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
If you guys don’t get rid of this “posting too quickly” barrier, which has interrupted me when posting TEN MINUTES after my most recent post, I am going to work up ten email addresses and handles on ten different machines and take away all of your ability to control anything I do here. WTF? Isn’t your site already the biggest pain in the ass on the planet, you had to find a way to make it worse?
Little Dreamer
Bill, I would suggest that you watch a few seasons of Six Feet Under to see what real gay relationships are like (since it would be easier I’m sure than getting you to go directly to the source). Two men or two women can LOVE each other just as fully as a man and woman can love each other, but I guess this is news to you.
Funny that you say that gays marry for financial benefits, yet, when I was very young, I (a woman) got a letter from my high school sweetheart (a man) who was in the military, who wrote me and asked me to marry him (him being a man who had sworn himself to bachelorhood forever) simply because “married personel get more benefits”. But, conventional marriages (between a man and a woman) are never about personal gain, are they?
Tom
@gex
I like the idea. The only problem is that I don’t think it has any chance of being adopted by any state any time soon.
gex
Someone has never met WordPress Error. There were times when the bookmark in my browser listed the link to BJ as WordPress Error.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Makewi:
The thing is, the whole matter is tangled up in a dysfunctional situation within our view of marriage and government.
Government has no place being in the marriage business. Government has no place deciding what a family can be.
The rights that we are talking about should be assigned under an umbrella called “Family.” And a Family should be any set of adults who agree to be a family, taking the responsibilities and the rights and benefits that go with Family by signing what amounts to a contract to do so. The government should just be the recordkeeper.
And if people want a church “marriage” let them get it. Who cares? Leave the government out of it. But the rights go with that Family, or Civil Union, contract. And the dissolution of a family of union will require legal resolution. But strip the whole thing of its maudlin, sentimental and religious overtones and make it all hang together with some kind of intellectual integrity, which the present system does not have. And best of all, TAKE AWAY from the scolds and the controllers and the religious idiots the right to claim ownership of these things and what they mean or don’t mean. Take away the right’s claim to being family friendly, because they certainly are not.
That’s what the real problems are and that’s what to do about them, but this LGBT thing just introduces more dysfucntion into an already dysfunctional mess. And look at the failure rate of marriage! What intelligent person would want to enter into a high stakes contract that has such a high probability of failure, anyway? Marriage is dysfunctional because its whole rationale is based on wrong assumptions and dishonest associations between ideas. In short, marriage is based on lies. It really doesn’t work.
SSM is tied to an intellectual albatross. Fix the real problem, and LGBT and everyone else gets the rights they really need.
Thoughts?
gex
@Tom: ??
Tom
Oops, that s/b @geg6
gex
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: Very libertarian ideal. I don’t disagree. But just as with most libertarian ideas, which make a lot of sense intellectually, there’s no way it will happen in the real world.
This is a case of letting the perfect get in the way of the good.
Brick Oven Bill
I’m all for prostitution. I have a friend who works at a whore-house and this is a Logical way to go for many.
The female, in most heterosexual interactions, yields in exchange for some sort of compensation. I understand that in the gay world, sexual relations are more of even exchange. This is why I do not understand why in the world gays would want to marry.
My first marriage also was as a direct result of the perceived military benefits of marriage (‘pussy-pay’). This was a bad financial move on my part. It would have been cheaper to buy a pass to the whore-house.
Origuy
@Punchy: As Little Dreamer said, the Conservapedia version of the Bible has is old news. Andy Schlafly is crazy. Did you know that black holes are a conspiracy by liberal physicists?
Origuy
@gex:
If I type “ball” in the address bar, the top link is labeled “Database Error”.
binzinerator
@gex:
I agree with you there’s some of that going on, but I’m inclined to believe a not insignificant number of them are in fact tempted. Heh. Ample evidence for that among the godbotherers and the goopers.
Also, I have to agree with what Tom’s saying — ‘marriage’ is totally a religious thing to them, it’s one of their sacrements, and getting fundies to see something from some other perspective other than their own Jesus-is-lord worldview is damn near impossible. They’re gonna see it as the courts legislating someone else’s religious values on them. In fact they do; hence all this ‘rammed down our throats’ talk from these guys on gay marriage rights.
Of course fundies have no clue or awareness that’s how the majority feels about having the fundies’ religious views on sex ed, contraceptions, and abortion legislated on everyone else. To be a fundie is to be immune to irony or self-examination.
FWIW I support and hope to live to see same-sex marriage, but I think a much more practical goal would be getting same-sex civil union rights recognized and established everywhere. Call it marriage and the godbotherers foam at the mouth. I think the current generation of DOMA godbotherer assholes (and truthfully, most of the non-fundie older generation too) have to die out before we get universal marriage equality.
Incidentally, I think there are some parallels to civil rights here, including how some fundies saw it as a religious thing to segregate and prevent different races from marrying. But I think as much as that religion connection was a huge obstacle to overcome, the religion tie-in (and acceptance of) of jesus-meant-marriage-means-no-gays is even stronger, more widespread, and more strongly reinforced across regions and religions. Church leaders condemned the shit that went on in Alabama, the bombings, attack dogs and water hoses, and often stood against racial bigotry. With SSM they’re among the bigots now.
I can see why Obama does not want to touch this. Johnson’s passage of civil rights cost him dearly (and precipitated the loss of Dem control of the WH and of the shaping the national adenda for decades). It’ll be worse for Obama. Lots else at stake right now.
Not saying he shouldn’t, only pointing out a reason why he wouldn’t.
Little Dreamer
@Origuy:
This has been another exercise in showing that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
MichaelR
“Marriage” as a concept sort of demands at least one or two separate contracts/legal ceremonies, with the option of a third –
a) legal – a binding contract with the gov’t involving 2 individuals that meet the gov’t’s requirements of a permanent joining of lives and rights
b) social – a public commitment ceremony of joining between 2 individuals witnessed by friends and family
c) religious – allowing a church (religion) to judge and approve a permanent mating ceremony between 2 individuals (not required to be widely witnessed by friends and family), mostly recognized as legal by local and nat’l laws
The question is, why should (a) have to involve religious terms at all? It’s a legal agreement and contract involving rights and benefits, not a religious document involving worship or demanding unquestionable faith.
geg6
@gex:
Dude. I’m a straight person. My BF is a straight person. My sisters and their boyfriends and husbands are straight. We all like the idea. Even my still-Catholic sister agreed with it. Separation of church and state. That is all it is. Religious ceremonies have no weight of law. Can’t think of anything simpler.
Bob K.
@ MichaelR (#61)
“Apologies for being OT, but is it normal here for someone new having to wait over 3.5 hours for their post to finally be approved (and finally show up 3 threads back at its original posting time… where it will now never ever be read)?”
A little patience please – Tunch and Lilly work their paws to the bone approving all these posts. Besides, there are some posts that are better off if they don’t see the light of day.
Notorious P.A.T.
Please stop. Please!
gex
Question for the blog.
Why would Obama prefer to pressure Uganda behind the scenes rather than openly?
I ask sincerely. Would there really be bad optics for opposing putting gays to death?
geg6
@Little Dreamer:
Well, BOB is pretty uninformed and stupid about most things, and obviously the history of marriage is one of them. Perhaps if he looked into the history of marriage, he’d see that financial benefits were the entire reason the whole piece of crap institution was invented. And funnily enough, it sure wasn’t about gays or even women marrying for the financial bennies. Surprise, surprise…it was about the financial benefits that would accrue to the men.
toujoursdan
As long as there are legal benefits and responsibilities revolving around marriage, government will be in the marriage business. One reason I am not quite so laissez-faire about polygamy (aside from the fact that they tend to be emotionally unbalanced relationships) is that both government and companies give financial and tax benefits to married people that the rest of us have to pay for. We already accept subsidizing one spouse and the avg of 2.5 kids now, but what if you have one guy working and 4 wives at home raising dozens of kids each of whom is eligible for health insurance subsidies, tax breaks, medicare (if they are poor) and all the rest? Who is willing subsidize all these benefits for all those non-productive spouses?
Gay marriages can be fit into the current monogamous structure without incurring extra costs because of the relationship itself, polygamous marriages don’t. Either we would have to allow discrimination based on marital status (i.e., companies and government should only be required to give benefits to the #1 spouse) which would introduce another form of inequality, or we would all see our costs and taxes go way up to support a completely voluntary arrangement.
I am also against civil unions because we already have 200+ years of legal and corporate legislation and jurisprudence around marriage. People have gone to court for a couple centuries to establish the rights and responsibilities for marriage. There is nothing to rely on regarding civil unions. It may work in Germany, but we don’t have that here.
Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: What’s the big deal? Fuck you, that’s the big deal. The equality of American citizens before the law is the big deal, you twit. The fact that you can’t figure out why that would be a big deal tells me everything I need to know about the depth of your thought and comprehension on this issue.
And tell me, Cattle Prod, why is it the “so-called” gay rights community? What, are you proposing that these people are only pretending to support gay rights? Maybe it’s something else, eh? Some hidden agenda?
Gee, do you suppose fundamental human rights should be decided on the basis of who’s got the best political strategy? I guess slavery was justified, ’cause it took black folks so long to “figure out” how to organize effectively, is that it, you myopic piece of shit?
And legal rights are constrained by that word, you moron. The GAO recognizes 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf Try learning something about the topic under discussion before jumping in with your under-ripe bullshit.
Educate your pathetic ass, and then come back to the conversation.
Oh, and if I haven’t already said this . . .
Bigot!
gex
@geg6: And if you and your family were the ones I needed to convince, that is fine. I guess I need to specify that I am talking about straight people who do not support same sex marriage. If you need me to add the qualifier “most” to the straight people descriptor, I am more than happy to.
The reason we are fighting over the word is that people think the word is important. Taking the word away does not solve that problem.
Persia
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
Angus, this comment, right here? This is how people start pulling out words like ‘bigotry.’ Because you’ve just suggested your support for gay rights– which as far as I’m concerned are human rights– are contingent on people on message boards being nice to you. It’s not ‘if you’re not with us you’re against us’; it’s ‘if your recognition of our essential humanity is conditional, you’re against us.’
geg6
@gex:
I disagree. It’s the semantics of it that causes the problem. I don’t disagree with Angus when he says to quit calling the legal end of such partnerships “marriage” for anyone and call all them, regardless of straightness or gayness, civil unions. Leave marriage to the churches. Heaven knows, I want nothing to do with it because of the religious connotations of the institution. I could, however, get behind a civil union for myself. I am a marriage and religion hater because I don’t see any daylight between the two.
Little Dreamer
@geg6:
I’m counting my dowry right now. ;)
toujoursdan
One possible important reason Obama has taken a low key approach on Uganda is 400 years of westerners telling Africans what to think and what their values should be. Doing this just doesn’t work anymore.
Anyone who pays attention to modern African history should e aware how African leaders and government are able to exploit the White Colonialist devil to consolidate power and root out enemies. Tyrants as diverse as Sékou Touré to Robert Mugabe have used it. Public statements are made more for western optics than to change anything in Africa.
Little Dreamer
@Persia:
Bullshit. He stated he would still vote for those rights. you apparently cherry-picked his comment and didn’t read it at all.
Little Dreamer
@Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion:
What I said to Persia goes for you too. Come on people, read a person’s POV before accusing them of saying things they didn’t say.
gex
@toujoursdan: Thank you. That makes perfect sense.
gex
@gex: Although that “white colonialist devil” is now a black man with Kenyan roots. It’s a pity, because having Obama, rather than the Swedes, comment on this might be an interesting twist on that angle.
Makewi
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
I tend to agree with the position of governmental involvement equating to governmental interference on this issue (and many others), but at the same time recognize that the government is the mechanism by which our society sets its limitations. In this case, I think that line of argument is a non-starter because it make what should be a simple argument over how society is strengthened by increasing legalized partnerships into a more difficult argument over exactly what the role of government should be.
In this case I think simple is better. In addition, I would shy away from anything insulting towards religion as that too can cloud the issue where it need not be. The simple religious argumentation to be used on this is the golden rule. Do not deny others the safety of legal partnership because they are different, instead remember that you are your brothers keeper. His sins are his and they bear no relationship to your responsibility to him.
You can bring the right around on this one, but you need to use the sort of argumentation that is convincing. As a society we have, rightfully IMO, moved away from the homosexual as acceptable pariah. The next step can be accomplished, but not by mocking the institutions that good people find comforting.
Makewi
@Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion:
An excellent example of why you fail. Your cause may be just, but you are a douche and as such your message is ignored. In fact, it’s likely more than ignored. You could easily make an enemy of one who was before an ally.
So fuck you very much.
Makewi
@Persia:
All support for anything is conditional. It’s how the world works. High ideals are often not met because they are being sought in the wrong way.
les
@MichaelR:
You’re making this way too complicated. (a) is the current situation, and all that is required to be married, with no religious baggage. Religious flunkies (priests, etc.) are licensed by the state, so that after (c) ceremonies (and no, that wasn’t a copyright, it’s the automatic misreading of the third item in a lettered list) they can sign the (a) certificate. State law prescribes who can get the (a) certificate; religious flunkies get to decide who they personally issue the certificate to, gov’t flunkies have to issue it to anyone qualifying under the law. SSM doesn’t qualify under the law; that has to be changed. Unfortunately in the US, bigots of the religious variety are marginally in charge of that decision. Couples can pretty much automatically get (b) if they provide food and booze.
binzinerator
@aimai:
I’m just wondering if, until that whole generation of fundies thins out some, calling the legal recognition of the rights granted to a couple by the state ‘marriage’ is going to be a tough thing to get for same sex couples.
Want I want:
Same sex couples who can enter a legally recognized relationship where they have the same legal rights as those granted to hetero couples who enter into the thing now called ‘civil marriage’.
Have no idea how that will happen in the next 20 years, other than waiting out the waning of the godbothering slice of this country.
[binz reads gex’s response to Tom] “Your advice to gays is to suggest that we take civil marriage away from everyone if we can’t get it. I’m sure that will help with our popularity.”
Yeah, that’s a good point. So I’m back to square one here.
Comrade Puppet
“Conservatism yells stop, but it never succeeds in actually stopping history. So what’s the point of all the yelling?”
Because sometimes it does inflect history, or rolling it back, c.f. gun control (now much more marginal politically than twenty years ago) or capital punishment.
gex
@binzinerator: A constant refrain amongst our allies now is that there are more important things. And this is while we are being denied something.
Do you think that there will be a will to change the separate but equal situation you prescribe later on? Will there indeed be nothing important to do but correct a semantic compromise we made now?
gex
@gex: Whoops. Linked to the wrong comment. Was not directed towards binz.
Tim in SF
Not really. People who were on the right side of history when it comes to Iraq—people who were proved right time and time again—are ignored now as DFHs. The people who were entirely wrong and have been about everything have well-paid jobs writing columns.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
Okay, seriously, WHAT.THE.FUCK is up with this website?
“Posting too quickly” when my last post was an over an hour ago?
The error messages and fuckups from this thing are just infuriating.
Fix it.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
I see the point you are making, but this item here sounds to me like “that’s the way we have always done it.” Which is true, but it’s not a reason to keep doing it that way.
There is no rational basis for government deciding what a family can be. Man and woman, or three women, why should the government have that power? It should not, it’s dysfunctional, and it is not family friendly at all. It is the opposite of what it is claimed to be, not protective of the family but destructive to the idea of what a family is for.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
Absolutely false, and a lie unless you have just erred by not reading everything I said, or badly misreading.
I said, I have never voted, and will never vote, against the interests of LGBT in the rights struggle. I am totally libertarian WRT the idea of what a family can be and its relationship with government. Both my actions and my position are clearly congruent with LGBT interests.
What I will not due is “support” the cause by lending moral support to a political strategy that I think is destructive, and stupid. Moral, or finnancial, support.
I don’t give a fuck what people say to me in here, never have. And I don’t choose my positions on rights based on who I like and don’t like.
When LGBT gets enough sense to stop alienating their true allies in this situation, they will do better at the voting booths. Or, they can wait another 10 or 20 years, whichever. I really don’t care, it is not my struggle any more.
And no, I won’t stand for being called a bigot, for one simple reason. I am not a bigot. Period.
gex
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: There is a plan, funds were raised, things start in Jan. There have been posts. It will be okay.
Trust me, as infuriating as this might be, the reason you may be the only one railing against this site is that it was much, much worse before.
Makewi
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
Don’t mistake my position on that score as disagreement. I just recognize that the government is proxy to polling all the individuals on every issue. I take the libertarian position on individual rights. Who are you to tell me that I can’t do that since I am not hurting anyone, is a very persuasive argument in my book.
I am merely suggesting that in this case the powers of government question broadens the argument when the goal should be narrowing it to why increasing legally recognized partnerships is good overall for society. The trick here is to convince everyone that they can have their cake and eat it to.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Makewi:
I am not sure what you mean, so I may have missed something. Clarify? I thought I was taking a libertarian position on this issue.
Update — LD clarified it for me, thanks, I get what you are saying now.
I also think you are saying, as I am, that DOMA narrows the view of partnerships (my version of “family”) while the LGBT position appears to widen it. But, where I diverge from LGBT is that their widening is … too narrow, parochial, and self-interested.
What we need is not “gay” rights, what we need are broader HUMAN rights. Which includes … LGBT, religious diversity, gender diversity, racial diversity, etc.
Anyway I think we are on the same page.
Makewi
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
We are on the same page as to desired outcome, and I believe also on the libertarian stance on individual rights. My argument is simple, don’t cloud the issue of securing the individual rights of legally recognized partnership by broadening the issue into arguments over what the limits of government are, or what the proper place for religion is. Instead focus on the idea that history has shown that a legally protected joining of individuals is a net good for society. Two are more powerful than one, more safe, more capable of economic success, and in general more happy. Who those individuals are is and should be irrelevant (as long as they are legally able to consent).
...now I try to be amused
@geg6:
Heh, I find myself feeling the same way. We should call the “conservatives” what they really are: radical reactionaries.
bemused
@Punchy:
The comments are interesting, some quite funny. I like the first one, “This gives me an idea to build a mental institution where those inside it’s walls are actually on the outside of the institution and just declare everyone else in the world insane”.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Makewi:
Works for moo! I mean, me.
ed
@Tim in SF
I hear you, but I think the dynamic is different for this one. Is there anyone who doesn’t believe Gay Marriage will happen? There could be some short term hit in some places, but on the whole, big political gains for being on the right side. Obama could have taken care of this a while ago, but there still may be time to benefit in 2012.
Tim in SF
@binzinerator:
Err… not all church leaders are in with the bigots. If you were to draw a Venn diagrams you would see that Church leaders are one group, bigots are another group, and although there is some overlap, neither group is entirely contained in the other.
latts
Very late, but:
@valdemar:
@
That’s only the text. The subtext is that marriage is between a dominant man and a subservient woman, and is meant to teach any resulting children to perpetuate that model.
Nellcote:
“We’d like our economic/gender/racial privilege, please.”
Tim in SF
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
As I’m sure you are aware, LGBTs do nothing in a monolithic fashion. We are as diverse as the larger society, hence the rainbow as the symbol. The diversity plays out here on B-J as well. Please don’t assume any of the gay people posting on B-J speak for any other gay person, much less the LGBT community at large, for which there is NO APPROVED SPEAKER. The only one who could come close to a gay version of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was Milk and we haven’t seen someone of his caliber in 30 years.
I don’t agree with what you are saying, but I don’t think you are a bigot.
Tim in SF
@ed: @174
Ed, you are so charmingly optimistic.
Stay golden, ponyboy.
PaulB
I don’t think he’s a bigot, either; just childish and stupid. His “solutions” make absolutely no sense and never have made any sense. And since we don’t buy into his “solutions,” he’s going to take his ball and go home, all the while yelling loudly about everyone who disagrees with him and insisting over and over again, ad nauseam, that he really “doesn’t care what people think of him” and that he’s “not going to post on this topic anymore,” all the while he posts the same shit, over and over again, ad nauseam. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
Makewi
What’s pathetic is to continue insisting that it’s your way or the highway in the face of the evidence that the choice being made is the highway. Now, that’s childish.
zoe kentucky in pittsburgh
Here, here. It’s as if people forget the most fundamental rules about The Intertubes– it’s a (mostly) anonymous forum and the people that you encounter don’t necessarily represent the views of others, no matter how much they may claim to do so.
I’m a lesbian in 10+ year relationship. I find it frustrating when our allies are attacked but I also find it equally frustrating when those very allies take the comments of a few to represent a many.