Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

x-post

(haha nabisco to thread)

Does that help the debate at all?

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

x-post

God, I hate that idiot.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

i'd rather not be KILLED

The government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate civil matters between consenting adults (other than in areas of fraud, etc.)

Okay, am I the only one who sees a deep irony here? The vast majority of the posters on this thread have been British!

But still, you are the spawn of our nation (i.e. you speak English).

It is probably best that I have four years to acclimate myself to the political realm before I turn 35 as right now I want to state all of my issues as satirical initiatives; my current solution to the gay marriage issue would be to pen a bill that banned divorce and heterosexual civil unions.

Ridiculous.

I have no problem with that. But you can't legislate to force a church to do that. On the other hand, it's the law's business to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore we should separate out what churches do from what the law does, and call the two things by different names.

You don't know this because you are a moron.

X-posts I don't want to force churches to hold gay services - none the less many would and want to, and saying that what happens in a Church is between a man and a woman and what happens outside is a civil union doesn;t help gay Christians.

I do know enough about the way that homosexuals are treated in Islamic societies to know that what happens to gays in Islamic societies is wrong.

You are still a gigantic, oxygen-stealing idiot.

Overcoming emotionalism and irrational fear with argument is admittedly classic, but it's not an automatic win.

these are the facts.

in case anyone's thinking that i may not know what i'm talking about, i went to 2 roman catholic schools for a combination of 13 years, i was an altar boy from the age of 9 until i was 16, and i read from the bible on the altar until i was 20.

can those in the 'anti' camp please stop quoting 'the bible' in relation to this subject, because it doesn't sound like you've actually read it, and it isn't doing you any favours.

cheers.

There's no real reason why the french *have* to give it a different name, though, other than to pander to homophobia. After all, in France, religious marriages are not considered legally valid, and haven't been since the 19th century. So why - considering that all couples who want a religious wedding in France aren't legally married unless they have a civil wedding as well - is there a need to differ between a marriage and a civil pact?

-- James R. (jgw...), November 4th, 2004 10:51 AM. (later) link)

And what a great idea this would be, except there are so many fundies who would call you a secular humanist and try to mandate teacher-led in-school prayer for your sins and then they'd bash you over the head with that big stone copy of the ten commandments they've been hanging in the courtrooms.

What I'm wondering - when did it become legal (in the US and/or the UK) to marry without religious supervision? That is, when did civil marriage - by a judge, notary, or what have you - become recognized? Was it controversial?

Are people who were not married by clergy considered "not really married" by some?

I'm not saying I'm in the anti-camp, but if you want to understand the intelligent side of the anti-camp your best bet is to research where they are coming from. A lot of them get their position from the bible. Ignore it if you want to just blindly oppose them without understanding them, and that will get your agenda no where.

and your stuff about Jesus is cute. Don't forget about him crying too.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_l.htm#menu

see nabisco's point on my "why do people hate 'the homosexuals' so much" thread.

They're either homophobes or they profoundly misunderstand the church/state nature of the argument.

"Circles" - Meat Beat Manifesto

Deuteronomy 23 to thread, pls.

OTM. i love you alex.

1 - I should love my neighbor as myself.
2 - When I am at a fault it would be best for others to rebuke me with the truths of scripture.
3 - So, loving my neighbor would entail rebuking them with the truths of scripture (as the bible often tells to do, and in a gentle manner).
4 - Scripture makes known the wrongness of homosexuality
5 - I should vote aginst a law that would give the impression that the government encourages (or does not discourage in anyway) a same-sex relationship

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

4 - Scripture makes known the wrongness of homosexuality

No, we've been through this.

5 - I should vote aginst a law that would give the impression that the government encourages (or does not discourage in anyway) a same-sex relationship

This is where the invalis jump is made. (even if we assume the other premises, which I feel are false). 'Rebuking' and pointing out someone's sins is not the same as coercing them with force, as the law would entail. Also, the idea that morally wrong = illegal is nonsense. Adultery is legal. Lying is legal. etc. etc.

4 - Many of them see this in the scripture. Like I said earlier it would be under the "sexual immorality" label

5 - This is too where I agree their easist to contest fault may be, but what they are concerned with is not coercing with force but rather not having the government endorse it.

Good heavens. You seriously thought this?

Yes it would. Christ was comforting those who scripture condemned, and protecting them from the indignation of those who seek to dish out God's Law. He comforts adultresses, prostitutes etc.

also, apart from the general homophobia issue, i heard in an interview on the radio yesterday (i.e. i don't know the veracity of the statement) that some US states have gone further with their referenda and are in fact considering excluding homosexual relationships from other benefits, such as caring benefits and superannuation and insurance. which will eventually place an increased cost on a welfare system under great pressure. that's not cool either if you ask me.

this stuff makes me feel a bit queasy about the world we are living in.

but there is a difference between "letting oneself be used by God to gently let someone else realise their fault" vs. "Thinking oneself is better than someone else and looking down on them; judging them" (in action they may appear very similar, but in motive they are opposite)
In the case of stoning the prostitute, Jesus was speaking to the second group.

This is the kind of thought that needs to be examined to see how to get your agenda across (to the non-homophobe intelligent conservative Christian). Just saying, "that kind of thought is religious and wrong" will get no where.

'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22)

'They shall surely be put to death' (Leviticus 20:13)

'Sons of Belial' (Judges 19:22)

''Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature' (Romans 1 :26)

'Men leaving the natural use of the woman ,burned in their lust toward one another' (Romans 1:27)

'Men with men working that which is unseemly' (Romans 1:27)

These statements would at first glance seem to defintively prohibit homosexuality, but on further consideration this conclusion becomes less certain, if not highly questionable and is a debate that must be very carefully addressed. Those who do come to a decision against homosexuality can do so only with caution, as it results in significant implications for a number of wider issues.
Two overarching questions must be kept in mind throughout, which are of great importance: 1) What is a sin? A sin is usually defined as an act or thought which in some sense is contrary to God's will for humanity. Is this always inescapable the case with homosexuality? 2) Equally crucial is in what manner scripture is to be interpreted, how literally? With what freedom? Can science, theology and philosophy make valid contributions to the debate?

From the outset it is important to point out that despite the length of the Bible there are very very few mentions of a topic which today is considered of great importance, and these are almost equally distributed between the Old and New Testaments. This sparsity should alert us to the fact that it was not an issue of great concern throughout the Biblical period, no more than a very minor issue, and thus suggests that there was no developed theological stance upon homosexuality. Thus prohibition of homosexuality is more likely to be the result not of a theological given, but an imposition of social prejudice and taboo upon scripture. Prejudice against what? This might seem a strage quesstion, but did the ancient Israelites who wrote Leviticus or the Jews of Jesus' time have any real notion of homosexuality as we might do now? The word certainly did not exist. For those who did, homosexuality was not seen in the light of a loving committed relationship between two individuals, but as a lustful act committted by the depraved. It was a degradation of one individual by another, upsetting the natural order of things. This concept of 'natural order' is very important in understanding the Biblical statements. In Genesis God creates man and woman and commands 'go forth and multiply', thus homosexuality would seem to undermine if not directly threaten this command.' Homosexuality as an act then is perhaps less of a sin in itself, per se, but more because it prohibits this injunction, and upsets natural order. It is for this reason (amongst others) that contraception is banned by the Catholic church. Consequently, any church which accepts contraception (which i believe is all except the Catholic) runs a risk of contradiction on this issue. Why should some acts be condemend on the basis that they deny the possibility of life and not others? Moreover, it was for this reason that barren women were so stigmatised in the Old Testament, being incapable of having children they were a shame upon a godly society. This would be considered unacceptable now- yet the basis of the rejection of barren women is virtually the same as that of homosexuality. The importance of children and the idea of a natural order in terms of relationships to the ancient Israelites (as it continues today amogst many Jewish communities) cannot be underestimated. Equally significant was the idea of purity and impurity. Those who did acts contrary to God's will were considered ritually impure, they could not partake in any religious activities and were considered abominable, they threatened the entire community in fact, because of the potential callimg down of God's wrath. Part of the significance of the New Testament (for Christians of course) is that God/Jesus sweeps away this conception of the divine, God is no longer a 'jealous God' who demands the complicated ceremonial observance of the Jewish law as exhaustively outlined in the Law books, and enforced by the Pharisees. Instead the God of the New Testament fundamentally alters the divine-human relationship, reorientating it and internalising it, making motive, namely love, the chief criterion of a sinful act. For tis reason Christians do not follow the Laws which many Jews follow today such as those of food and that of circumcision. The prohibition s of homosexuality in the Old Testament must thus be considered very carefully- are they still valid? The Early Church Fathers decided that while ceremonial law was to be discarded, the moral must be kept. In many ways though, this is impossible to carry out, it is an artificial distinction, for the Israelites has no separation, all acts, were ceremonial and directly related to ritual purity. Most people today would consider it highly unethical to shun the ill and the infirm, but these individuals were considered impure and to be avoided. If one is to condemen homosexuality on the basis of the purity laws, it is done at the very great risk of ignoring the fundamental message of the New Testament, and by that logic the ill, the barren and the infirm must also be rejected as sinful and outside God's Kingdom. That there are references aginst homosexuality in Romans thus adds weight to the concept that it was a social and not divine prohibition, the result of Pauls' Jewish background. While Paul's marvellous contribution to Christianity cannot be denied, as neither can his importance, one must be caitious about accepting on face value all that he writes. If Paul's views are to be followed exactly then slavery is tacitly accepted as is the subjugation of women as naturally inferior to men (eg 1 Corinthians 14:35 'If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.') Paul is thus clearly speaking in the mould of treditional Jewish belief, and this has serious implications for the woman's movment. It goes without saying that any church that gives women any role within it is already inconsistent with Paul, thus condemning homosexuality is a double inconsitency. To follow Paul in all things it to reject female equality and the dignity of freedom to all individuals. This is not to undermine Paul but simple to be aware of his limitations as an individual of his time, albeit inspired by God as an apostle. Jesus noticably says nothing on the issue of homosexuality, it is simply peripheral- does this not suggest that it is irrelevant if one's relationship with God is one of reciprocal love? A mentioned, God's love and HIs wish for this to be extended to all individuals is the defining feature of the New Testament revelation for Christians. Consequently, those who condemn homosexuality must do so with great caution- are they themselves failing to live up to a far more fundamental injunction of love? Love in its fullest sense surely inclides the wide-hearted, prayerful acceptance and tolerance of individuals. This is not a blanket acceptance that does away with morality, but that the debate must be conducted on this basis and that homosexual people must be considered as individuals with needs and desires who have their own relationship to God. Jesus in the New Testament is the friend of the outcasts and reviled minorities and those who condemn homosexuality should be very much aware of this- they may be attacking those whom God holds dearest as the persecuted. Moreover, modern psychology and genetics shows that homosexuality is not a lustful whim of devil possesion as the Israelites and the first Christians saw it, but an unallterable aspect of an individuals sexual preferences. Why would a loving God implant such inherent sinfulness in such a basic human urge? Romans might prhibit homosexuality as it is not a 'natural use', but surely it is a natural use for those whom it is their sexual orientation? Prohibiting homosexuality runs the risk of denying God's essential goodness. God as loving surely wills all His creatures to be happy and fulfilled. Relationships (whether woth other humans or with God) is the chief means to do achieve this- espescially the close loving bond of sexual relations with another person that simultaneously is a groing towards God, and for this reason marriage is considered a sacrament that should take place within the Church. Are homosexuals to be denied this, because of an unalterable facet of their nature which God himself has made? Other sexual practices such as bestiality or incest are immoral because they can never be non-exploitative and thus truly loving, but homosexuality is of another category and can fulfull these criteria, surely where love is, God is, as God is love? Moreover,to take the Biblical texts at face value is in many ways a direct affron to God's love and wisdom. A literal reading is a superficial one, and thus is failiure of respect for the Bible, and incredibley beautiful and complex text that God has caused to be written over thousands of years and through hundreds of individuals, it is truly representative of the mass of humanity and its thirst for God over time. To take it literally is to debase it to a simple text and without its true richness and value, and surely such a rejection of God is far more serious a sin than homosexuality ever sould be? As is the mental torture and judgement of individuals whom God loves. it strikes me that homosexuality can be seen as a challenge by God, a particular one of the present time to mankind to widen their love to more people. And it is interesting that the debate on homosexuality is espescially conducted in America, which (with the greatest respect for the diveristy of views that exist there) is having great difficulty in applying Christian love to people on an international basis. The Bible, far from declaring homosexuality a sin, actually may suggest that it is one of the many ways that individuals can reach out to God and reach out to each other in mutual love, trust and tolerance.

Fine, let gays have marriage. Whatever, they can keep it. So long as heterosexuals get to have SUPER marriages!

LOL

They aren't official anymore, unfortunately.

Hahaha this is actually my baseline opinion and why I think "marriage" should be secularized! Why should a household be defined as a married man and woman? That doesn't describe every household out there and there are certain living situations that make enough long-term sense that it seems odd to me that the people involved can't enter into some type of legal contract that would grant them the same legal status as a traditional married couple.

I think her point is more that there is a slippery slope for the government to validate gay marriage.

Gay activists often point out various same-sex unions that have outlasted many heterosexual ones. But I don't see why sexual relationships of any stripe, if they're not at least inherently procreative, should trump all others.

I'm surprised it even shows up on the screen, so quickly is it disappearing up its own ass.

or a man's relationship with a man, or a woman's relationship with a woman - if you want to be unbigoted about it. I hope you realize, don, as the essayist you link above apparently does not, that many gay couple decide to have children via adoption, IVF treatment or what have you.

your suggestion, of course, amounts to a very slippery, very short, slope towards taking away privileges from people who decide not to have children, which hardly seems fair.

A year and half later, still roffleicious!

Which privileges are eliminated from people who don't breed in my scenario?

The columnist's position rests on the assumption that gay marriages are "inherently non-procreative"; the increasingly large number of gay couples whose coupledom is reinforced and tested by the experience of raising children together looks an awful lot like any other marriage-with-kids to me. Why not grant it the same protections and benefits?

"It's a straight thing, you wouldn't understand"

I think what Cathy Seipp is saying is that if we allow gay marriage then what logic does the law hold against polygamy or Kate & Allie or a handful of broke college kids getting married to achieve the same privileges as two guys or two gals whose basis for this privilege is homosexuality. I think she's pointing out that marriage as a legal institution probably isn't going to ever leave the cages of government intervention, so we're better to be vigilant about trying to limit it less we face a slippery slope in the other direction.

MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP GAY MARRIAGE BECAUAES ONE DOESNT KNOW WHERE IT COULD LEAD

Under the old monogamous system, we didn't have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents -- Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck -- and need a program to keep track of the actors.

And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife's first husband's second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin's in-laws and Bruce's ex, Mark, and Mark's current partner, and I suppose we'll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children.

Not something I expected at all:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reversed his public opposition to marriage for same-sex partners and revealed that his adult daughter is a lesbian.

Sanders on Wednesday signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He previously promised to veto it.

The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.

He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws.

"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.

It's going to start coming down to this more and more, I figure. It'll be interesting to see what the reaction is -- Sanders is a perfect fit for San Diego as mayor (former police chief, Republican, etc.) and without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this. (Two to one Duncan Hunter is off banging his head against the wall right now.)

without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this.

Reading this on Sulllivan's site this morning, I had the same thought, then dismissed it. I mean, he's articulated his change of mind as clearly as possible. What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one - I certainly agree that gay couples should have all the same rights and legal priveleges and distinctions that straight couples have, but how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid. Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?

It's a hell of a glove to throw down, for sure. Wouldn't be surprised if someone tries it, though.

It was nice of the Catholics to decide last year that unbaptized babies' souls now go to heaven instead of limbo.

What happens to those in limbo already?

luckily nothing, since it never really existed in the first place, but not soon enough to prevent hundreds of years of psychic sorrow for believing Catholics whose kids were stillborn, aborted, etc...

but I guess that's another thread...

so wheres the motivation for baptism now?

My Mom is married to a Lady, but it looks like their union isn't legal anymore. They got married in Oregon. They've been together for nearly 25 years.

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one

That's really odd...I'm legally married, but the ceremony was totally secular and performed by an agnostic friend who filled out a form on the internet. There's no box on my tax forms for "civil unioned filing jointly".

I see what you're saying though, if churches don't want to marry people, they shouldn't have to. But if marriage is exclusively a religious institution, then I guess I'm not married, despite all evidence to the contrary.

you're not married according to any CHURCH, but you are married according to the law. That's the whole problem with this debate, the conflation of the two concepts together under a single term - its just not helpful.

The Catholics wouldn't have to marry gays if gay marriage were legalized. They don't have to marry straight atheists or Jews or Lutherans now. Marriage is a weird religious-civil hybrid. (xpost - yeah pretty much)

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one

You're joking, right? Or do you think atheists can't get married? Marriage is a religious and a civil union -- and it's the religious part which is optional. No one is saying Catholics have to marry anyone they don't want to.

xpost

yeah I mean death is a religious and a secular concept too, it's only when we hook a bunch of machines up to a medulla with lungs that we run into problems with that

Isn't marriage the death of hope? (spot the quote)

I'm not joking at all - there's nothing in the Constitution about marriage, for ex., and there's nothing in the legal rights granted to couples that requires using that term.

Yes, but marriage is two separate things. It is ceremonial and a civil union. And you're getting it all backwards. Nothing is stopping a gay couple from getting ceremonially married in a church that is open to it. It's the civil part of marriage that they are denied: the right to get married in, say, city hall and according to the law. And no church would be "forced" to marry gay couples if gay marriage were legalized, churches are not *required* to marry anyone.

It's the civil part of marriage that they are denied: the right to get married in, say, city hall and according to the law.

I understand that perfectly well - which is why, say, Obama's position that he is for civil unions and wants to leave ceremonial marriages up to churches is perfectly understandable. But it seems apparent to me that there are people on both sides of the debate - gay and homophobe - who seem to think that a) "legalizing" gay marriage will force churches to marry homos, or b) that civil unions don't "go far enough".

There's also the whole "but if we legalize gay marriage people will be marrying box turtles/their cousins/five wives!" tack, which likewise makes no fucking legal sense whatsoever.

<i>there are people on both sides of the debate - gay and homophobe - who seem to think that a) "legalizing" gay marriage will force churches to marry homos</i>
And they are both wrong, so what's your point?

<i>b) that civil unions don't "go far enough".</i>
Well, why not call it what it is? Why give them a ghettoized version of marriage?

so that there's a clear distinction between LEGAL RIGHTS and religious ceremonies. Its just a word, is semantics what this debate is really all about? How is calling it a civil union "ghettoizing" it? Who is hurt by it, and how, exactly? This isn't like a "separate but equal" clause - just call all legal arrangements between couples civil unions and be done with it. Let the churches have "marriage", they invented it anyway.

And they are both wrong, so what's your point?

my point is there confused by this willful blurring of the line between legal rights and religious ceremonies, and the sooner such distinctions are more clearly spelled out, the better.

the only people benefitting from this confusion are demogogues.

That wasn't what you were arguing to begin with. You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people, and you were wrong about that. And now you've moved the goalposts to legal definitions. I think ceremonial marriage and civil unions *should* be separate matters, but that's a whole different argument. So for the time being while the two things remain entwined, I see no reason why gay people should be the only ones who have to get "civil unioned" while everyone else gets married.

I see you can't read very well.

I see you can't reason very well.

to repeat:

how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid... if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people,

seriously I never said this, go back and read the thread.

You said: Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

And through that passage, I came away with the idea that you don't seem to realize that a) Catholics will never have to marry gay people, whether gay marriage is legalized or not, and whether it is called marriage or not.

I'm sorry I snapped at you but maybe I used too many double negatives for you or something. The law can't make churches marry anybody, as my statement "I DON'T SEE HOW THE LAW CAN TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO" should make clear.

anyway hurray my point is illustrated that semantics have completely fucked any rational debate about this subject

o the irony

What I am trying to ask you is why do you think the law is ACTUALLY TRYING THIS? Or that this is actually a goal to ANYONE?

I mean, churches can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want even with regards to straight marriage, so I don't think this is part of anyone's mission.

I don't know, were you just stating the obvious in the worst possibly phrased way?

yes probably

What I don’t get is why marriage should be restricted to couples. Why should a merry gang of lifelong friends be deprived of the possibility of sealing their togetherness? For it’s scarcely about love. I love plenty of people, and it’s revolting that I should have to single them down to some “significant other.” Coupleism — the last form of acceptable repression?

Yeah, but think about how expensive dinner would be.

What I don’t get is why marriage should be restricted to couples.

cuz making it otherwise is a massive legal headache. the very concept of marriage "benefits" requires that those benefits not be conferred to anyone in any situation. sorry, some restrictions are necessary. besides, who wants to create a whole legal framework for polygamy, sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

polygamy also traditionally oppressive/beneficial to one gender at the expense of the other.

Threesomes are fun and all, but I wouldn't want to worry about a partner's sexual stability when I have to wait in line for the bathroom.

Hi everyone I can remember sleeping with steals covers, I should MULTIPLY that by some larger number and freeze to death completely??

Also fuck you, you people, a bed is not a burrito.

my friend used to babysit for a kid who would say "tuck me in LIKE A BURRITO"

I thought that said "fuck me like a burrito"

sorry

me too

Funniest possible things to say during moment of climax.

A very good thing -- but let's see what happens in November.

Of course, I can see people using this as a talking point:

One of the first couples to wed, the lead plaintiffs in San Francisco's lawsuit challenging marriage laws, has since separated and is no longer part of the case.

You mean gay couples can divorce like straight couples? You don't say!

I'm not optimistic about the amendment on the Florida constitution, up for voting in America.

Connecticut Supreme Court joins the party:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story

Does that make you angry Morbs?

?

no. As long as the state is marrying people, it should be marrying everybody.

Need to bait the hook better next time.

bait yrself, Jersey hater

As long as the state is marrying people, it should be marrying everybody.

http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/wt/wt070226let_oscar_be_oscar/benigni-lg.jpg

yes, let's get Rev Moon to marry us all to Pinocchio.

I don't actually hate NJ. I just think it's cool that there's a character than looks like NJ.

i think gay marriage is bullshit--i think all marriage is bullshit. i was walking around christopher st this summer and some woman from fox news with a big camera wanted to interview me about the subject--i assume b/c i was the gayest person she could find in the village, but i declined.

it's a weird issue b/c i think it's so consumed the queer movement in the US that, at this point, if someone says theyre against gay marriage, it means they're homophobic. which made it hard to watch biden sidestep the question in the debate.

but in the end--why would i want to be part of your fucked up, heteronormative, historically misogynist tradition? so i can have my relationships okayed by straight people? whatevz.

I hope this doesn't wind up giving fuel to the McCain campaign, given that both tickets are against gay marriage anyway.

While I have some sympathy for the "all marriage is bullshit" argument, I think it's a bit short-sighted. I don't think it takes into account why people enter into marriages, which is not always for normative reasons. (And there is nothing at all heteronormative about gay marriage? Almost by definition? I mean the whole problem is that it's a queering of a text/ritual/concept, surely.)

i think that the reason gay marriage has become the center of the gay rights movement is that it seems totally safe to straight people. i.e. they can see it as "oh, gay people are just like us!" which then leads to real downwithit straight folks asking halfjokingly who "the man" is, ha ha. i don't really buy that it's queering anything.

seems to me that any legit reason people enter into marriages for (i.e. civil rights, immigration, etc) should be guaranteed to people whether or not theyre fucking anyone.

gays should go back to reminding us that they're not totally safe to straight people

I am using that post as evidence that when you die and your estate is getting divided, ptero

remove "that" from sentence

the second "that"

ABORT SNAPPY POINT ATTEMPT REPEAT ABORT

i dont have an estate b/c i am so RADICAL & QUEER

i float above your petty economics like a revolutionary fairy!!!

Face it, breeders. We're just not cool enough to hang with the queers.

i float above your petty economics like a revolutionary fairy!!!

No, just a powerless one...

as opposed to if i had the incredibly powerful right of marriage? o please, bless me with yr straight privileges!

take us to your magical land free from historically misogynist institutions

welcome to lesbian separatism my friend

you will feel weirdly at home here.

Crutis, are you considering becoming a lesbian?

I mean, some gays aren't safe to straight people, and some straights aren't safe to gay people, and some are, and some of each want to get married, and some don't, etc., etc.

sure... it just is disappointing that the whole queer movement focuses around marriage when (it seems to me) there are so many more relevant & important issues. & i recognize it's a PR move, but for who?

i teach HS... i hear kids getting called faggot & dyke several times a day; see kids struggle vs in tolerant parents; watch pregnant teens slowly drop out. & then i'm supposed to rally behind the very (i think) middle class issue of gay marriage? like that's gonna make an iota of difference to the 16 yr old queer kid in my class? like thats gonna help transgendered people or poor people or anyone who isnt already doing ok?

i mean god bless the middle class & everything but it just isnt a movement i feel particularly inspired by.

marriage is gay

i totally support gay marriage. equal rights, this is HUMAN BEINGS we're talking about!

It's not going to make a difference to them now, maybe; it surely will make more of a difference to the queer kid in your class ten, twenty years from now. Did Stonewall make a huge difference to the queer kid in a Seattle classroom in 1969? Maybe, but probably not right away.

(Also many European countries that have legalized gay marriages have also seen a steady decline in all marriages -- though of course correlation is not causation.)

i think stonewall (insofar as it was about people's right to exist as queer) was significantly more radical than gay marriage. and as such--perhaps trickled down to the rest of the queer community in a more meaningful way.

i buy this philosophy pretty much: http://www.beyondmarriage.org/index.html

i mean, i get the argument--that thru middle class gay folks becoming more mainstream the freaks and faggots and transpeople and whoever will benefit. but it's kinda a lame movement anyway. it's like--sure, mainstream 1970s white feminism helped out women of color, too. but it was still pretty wack the way that went down.

(not to draw inapplicable parallels or WHATEVZ)

I feel like such a hypocrite about gay marriage because I have zero interest in being married myself, I've been in a relationship now for sixteen years and I'm psychically as married as I could ever be to another man, but the state has no business confirming/denying/permitting what is already true.

That said, the painful way that gay marriage's untouchability united McCain and Obama was truly cringe-worthy, and it reminded us all watching at home on TV that the whole "we'll give you whatever you want, just don't call it marriage" line that they BOTH trotted out is some seriously "separate but equal" segregationist bullshit that stinks to fag heaven.

with that said, if granting marriage to the homos can somehow magically undermine the institution of marriage, i am all for it!

xpost

to pigmy: yeah, i agree totally. it's funny cuz when they asked that Q at the VP debate i was like, "oh who cares" & then by the end of biden's answer i was like, "YOU PIECE OF SHIT HOMOPHOBIC ASSHOLE!!!!" (let alone whatever palin was spewing about her 'tolerance')

Yah, most queers I know are thoroughly modern and blase about their own queerness, kind of just getting on with particulars really, and then you see displays like that and realize that you're still a "touchy issue" for all these unseen millions.

ugh that 'tolerance' garbage was reprehensible

Yeah, I didn't expect him to come out swinging against it so strongly. It made me sad.

And Palin's answer wasn't nearly as bad as her record in Alaska (regarding benefits).

It's kind of perfect that marriage would be the topic that introduces this phony pretense of "I'm tolerant personally, but . . . ". That is in fact the Zizek formula for ideology- "je sais bien, mais . . ." ("I know very well, but all the same. . . ")- I say that it makes sense that this would be brought up in relation to marriage because marriage itself is almost always compromised by precisely this kind of performance for the Others who are watching- "We aren't religious, but Grandma really wants us to get married in church so we're doing it for her"- the ideology is perfectly happy to ride piggyback on precisely such supposed displays of "disbelief" since the outward form gets to stay the same.

yeah it was kind of jarring!

it's funny tho, it's like how homophobia is lurking there somewhere. like how i grew up in a nice liberal northeast town and could have told you from age 5 that there was nothing wrong with being gay & still found myself horribly ashamed & in denial & not having met a single queer person by the time i was a teenager.

& maybe that's part of the argument behind gay marriage, that by normalizing it you can fight that sort of secret homophobia, otherness. but for some reason that argument doesn't really hold much sway for me.

(xpost)

Face it, breeders. We're just not cool enough to hang with the queers.

― NJ Sucks (libcrypt), Friday, 10 October 2008 23:44 (Yesterday)

aren't you 40 and a big radiohead fan?

sorry pterodactyl but gay people like you make me wish i wasn't.

40 yes; Radiohead is good but not my fave in any category.

i.e. get over yourself x-post

I wasn't being sarcastic. Just goofy, Matt P.

am i reading it right that you're against gay marriage cause you personally don't want to get married/aren't down with the whole concept?

well thats kinda mean!

cuz i'm not particularly inspired by gay marriage ?

Ptero, I wasn't saying that gay marriage is as "radical" as Stonewall. You were talking about how effective it is for your student. I don't think either made much of a short-term difference in the lives of most of the contemporary queers, no matter how legendary Stonewall is treated now.

Also, I am totally willing to have Biden play the "give them equal rights but don't call it marriage" game if the alternative is Obama losing the election. I mean, ffs!

yo--i'm not against gay marriage!

i just think it's a lame issue to focus a queer movement around. b/c it doesnt address the actual issues/problems of a majority of queer people. & it also doesnt address the underlying inequality of the whole marriage debate, which is that whether or not you have health care or can immigrate or have visitation rights or whatever shouldn't depend on yr sexuality or who you're sleeping with or if you're sleeping with anyone!

AND i object to it cuz i think it's a fucked up heteronormative, misogynist institution that i honestly dont understand why anyone gay OR straight would want to participate in.

@ to casuistry--naw, i agree with you re: stonewall. wasnt trying to argue, was just kinda typing my thoughts aloud...

"well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman and, unfortunately, that's where those steps sometimes lead"

Examples please? When and where has this happened?

Well, I still think there might be some things to salvage in that institution. You're not signing up for 1950s marriage, after all!

Plus I'm not sure what issues you're thinking of, but health insurance, hospital visitation rights, and parental rights have been fairly central issues to queers for a while now. Unless you think being queer should automatically mean you don't want kids? I mean, I don't want kids, but I don't think it's because of my queerness -- that just secures that I don't have any "happy accidents".

I just find the word tolerant really offensive, like, I feel like a bad smell is what you tolerate.

blondiegurl143 (1 hour ago) 0 Reply | Spam
ohmygodd.
this country is so fuckked up.
all love is the same.
my lesbian mothers will probably not be able to live to see gay marraige legal across the US. maybe even i wont.
this is so fucking ridiculous.
traditional marriage?
bullshit.

T., did you come here because of the "gay" or because someone mentioned "Zizek"? ;-)

I was really uninterested until then!

Great bit of Zizek upthread for anyone who's interested!

@ i know right (examples): connecticut!

casuistry: i dont think people shouldnt have/want kids, and i think middle class queer couples should certainly have the right to adopt kids. which is an issue that i actually feel slightly more mobilized by than gay marriage.

but i think health care, hospital visitation rights, parental rights, immigration rights, etc, shouldnt have anything to do with who youre sleeping with. a 20 yr old living with his older mother has just as much a right to all those things, in my mind, as a queer couple. a woman living in an apt with 3 friends who wants to raise a baby there should have just as much a right as a queer couple. or a straight couple.

i think marriage as the inevitable goal of all relationships limits our imaginations to other possibilities, other forms of kinship. & in poorer communities, i think those 'other' forms of kinship are, by necessity, much more common.

Your examples maybe don't make sense? A 20yo does have visitation rights to his mother? A single woman who has a baby doesn't have anyone else who needs legal authority over decisions in the baby's life?

You're also acting as if marriage rights impede other types of relationships, the way some people think gay marriage somehow impedes straight marriage, even though there's no sane way it would.

I think this is all getting a bit pointlessly idealistic, and to a point, ptero, you're right. But maybe gay people don't all share your dream of queer otherness, maybe they just want everyone to start out on the same page. I mean, its gays who want this, not really anybody else, do you not think that undermines your implication that this is about appeasing conservative white middle class straight people? I mean, they're pretty much the ones saying no, aren't they? Or maybe it's just that there's a lot of middle class white gay people now who don't want to be so different from their friends. I mean, I don't think that we're all falling over ourselves to keep it queer, most people just want to keep their head down and get by and not really worry about redefining or subverting or whatever all the time. Like, I'm pretty whatevs about the whole thing, though, mainly because I think weddings are pretty naff.

I mean I don't disagree with the things you're for, I just disagree with the things you're against. If that makes sense.

Also I think my point is that straight people also engage in relationships that aren't "marriage". Like, plenty of them do. Perhaps the same proportion as queer people who do?

a 20yo taking care of his mother does not have the same benefits as a married couple if he wants to put her on his health insurance. or if he is american and trying to have her immigrate to live with him.

a single woman cannot in many states adopt a baby, right? which is the same battle that queer couples are facing, right? cuz a lesbian couple can certainly HAVE a child, wherever they're living.

i don't think marriage rights impede other rights, which is why i am for gay marriage. but i think the idea we have that the ultimate (successful) end to any relationship is marriage limits the ability of people to imagine alternatives. ask any 8 yr old what they want to do when they're older.

& i also object more to the 'queer movement' focusing on gay marriage than i do to gay marriage as an issue.... cuz i think it reinforces this idea of gay ppl as 'just like straight people' & very mainstream & etc. & again, that mode of activism just doesnt resonate with me very much.

x post x 4 or so

ptero's argument is weird, its not like its forcing ppl to enter into this 'heteronormative tradition,' its giving ppl the option

isnt this the equivalent of arguing that bcuz white school taught eurocentric history black students would be smarter not to try to integrate white schools in the first place? like theres certainly something legitimate to it but for christs' sake lets at least get ppl over the straight-up ban on it so they have the OPTION before arguing that it might be smart to forgo it after all

naw, i think it's a movement led by gay people!!! just like mainstream 1970s feminism was run by women! but they're still just not movements i feel particularly inspired by. i mean, by all means, pass gay marriage. but i don't want that to be the end of queer activism.

I dropped by for the Zizek. Hi peeps!

(Also, I'm a straight dude who is married and loves being married and thinks anyone who wants to be married should be allowed. Cause like - it's pretty cool and makes me happy.)

which is the same battle that queer couples are facing, right?

No, that's not, although it's a different problem. My friend had a baby (gave birth to it); her partner (other mommy!) has no legal rights over that baby. THAT is the problem. So if the baby is sick and birth-mommy is out of town, other-mommy has no rights; if birth-mommy dies, problems might ensue with other-mommy's rights to be mommy; if other-mommy gets health insurance, she might not be able to cover her baby on it; etc.

which is the same problems that unmarried straight woman would face, right? when she leaves town lovely roommate surrogate parents have no rights. b/c we can only imagine child rearing occurring within some sorta partner-union.

Sounds like a conservative move to me

Also, let's put it another way: I think your sense of "straight people" is weirdly prejudiced. Straight people are not homogeneous. To be "just like straight people" means to have the legally and socially recognized right to be yourself. I mean it's more complicated that that, of course, but it's really hard, in 2008, to see straight people as inherently heteronormative -- even if some are, maybe most!

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you that there shouldn't be other types of coparenting arrangements! But gay marriage does seem like it would do a lot of good for a lot of people, even if it is by no means a cure-all.

AND i object to it cuz i think it's a fucked up heteronormative, misogynist institution that i honestly dont understand why anyone gay OR straight would want to participate in.

:(

That sounds like a failure of imagination to me.

Ptero, I swear I'm not having a go, so just tell me if there's a tiny kernel of truth in this. You're like 24 right? If so, then three years older than me. And I always feel like my generation, was pretty post-gay, like it's not really a thing y'know? I never really worried about it in school or anything, it wasn't some angsty burden and I wasn't the only one. And I grew up in a small, rural, farming town in Ireland at the exact age where I was from the last generation who remembers Ireland pre-boom years. But like, it seems like all that Stonewall shit is a bit whatevs too, I mean, I don't really care about that narrative or see it as something I fit into and it's because, mainly what defines your version of queerness is, well, marginalisation, it becomes a sub-culture, a minority, but you know, its not really defined the way other subcultures are and you know, we're more everywhere. But basically what I'm getting is, like you've missed our '68 or '89 or whenever, I just feel like this definition of queerness is really dated now, and not really relevant.

My posts are really illegible tonight.

i don't think straight people are all heteronormative; i think the idea of MARRIAGE is heteronormative, and therefore is a 'safe' right to argue for with straight people cuz it's very easy for them to be like, "oh they're just like us, mainstream normal straight people!"

of course a lot of straight people don't fit into that mold... but i think that's the political environment in which the argument for gay marriage is made (i.e. from joe biden). which is also why someone like biden can argue for rights w/o marriage. "of course they deserve what we have! who wouldnt want that! but dont forget theyre still kinda freaks."

@ i know right: i think that i am arguing for queerness in a context that is not dated, and is also not limited to queers. i guess i didnt make that really clear. but i think our generation has the potential to choose NOT to participate in institutions that are oppressive. and part of that movement is antiracist and part is feminist and part is queer. & it feels to me like giving in (symbolically) & accepting all the BS that was handed to you as a kid, whether youre straight or not, to get married. & queer people especially are given the clear choice to reject that in a way that often straight people are not.

yep, I have to agree with ptero here. Even if the waning otherness of gay and lesbian as places in social space, and the dawning of a homo-normativity (or what gets called homonationalism by Jasbir Puar) means that increasingly young same-sexors have more options, that is cool and a good thing, but I don't want having a critical relationship to mainstream society to become thereby "dated". Let's not lose the minoritarian self-awareness in a baby/bathwater switcheroo.

I really didn't say that, I'm pretty sure what I said was mainly summed up by the rest of your post though! ; )

In fact I find it a vaguely offensive and dated concept to imply that my sexuality needs to be an impetus. Its this thing where you need to piggy back onto some minority card to be allowed to be radical about things, like if I was straight my voice on this wouldn't be as relevant somehow, and that's pretty fucked.

I wish the queer mission weren't to pat ourselves on the back for being so awesomely minoritarian, but rather were to make people who assume they are in the majority realize that they too are minoritarian.

Also you could draw up an argument along the lines of: How can you have an informed critical relationship to a social institution, such as marriage, without entering into it and seeing how it functions? Who's the colonialist in that context, eh?

Or: Rejection of a social institution isn't much of a critical response, now, is it? I mean, you're arguing that queers shouldn't engage in the evolution of the institution, wtf?

i dont think that is the queer mission & i dont think that's what i'm arguing. i like queerness as a concept--in opposition to heteronormativity--and i dont think thats limited to people who identify as gay. i think it's about opening up the options that people can imagine--whatever their sexuality, whatever their preference. & then making sure that those options are legally protected.

gay marriage, in that sense, is (to me) a conservative ideal, as most marriage is a conservative ideal. it's a right that i think should be protected & fought for but not one that inspires me in the least.

and i think that sexuality CAN BE and IS for many people the impetus to engage in that struggle or that lifestyle or that imagining or uh whatever.

Also, let's put it another way: I think your sense of "straight people" is weirdly prejudiced. Straight people are not homogeneous. To be "just like straight people" means to have the legally and socially recognized right to be yourself. I mean it's more complicated that that, of course, but it's really hard, in 2008, to see straight people as inherently heteronormative -- even if some are, maybe most!

― Casuistry, Friday, October 10, 2008 8:26 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is what i was trying to say

ok, so maybe we do disagree cuz i believe that rejection of a social institution is totally a critical response!!!

& i also believe that conflating "being just like straight people" and "having the legally and socially recognized right to be yourself" is seriously problematic!

i think considering the number of gay people who wish to be married, its really hard to ascribe 'heteronormative' to it any more tbh.

its like opposing marriage on feminist grounds bcuz a ring used to symbolize ownership

XXXP, pterodactyl, aren't you stigmatizing marriage as a conservative convention? i see it more as value neutral - it can be a radical relationship or a heteronormative relationship. Part of the gay marriage argument for me (as a straight male) is not just about opening it up to non-heterosexuals, but opening it up to a variety of challenges and new meanings. I don't consider my marriage a standard patriarchal relationship (and I don't think my wife does either). Gay marriage isn't just about "giving permission" to homosexuals to marry. It's about suggesting a new dynamic in what could be generally considered a conservative institute.

+ obviously I recognize that as a married, straight male I have a stake in this position.

xp exactly

mordy, that argument is why, in the end, i am for gay marriage. but i think that in the vast majority of cases, marriage is not about suggesting or creating any kind of new dynamic.

also i have trouble with the idea of marriage as a radical relationship--state sanctioned radicalism ? particularly in the current environment where anyone getting married knows that it is a state-sanctioned right that is ACTIVELY DENIED to other groups of people. including but perhaps not limited to the gays.

Well, marriage isn't historically a state sanctioned institute. It is now, but marriages have existed in radical contexts. Certain gnostic anti-establishment traditions for example have marriages, etc. (Not to derail the conversation.) I don't think we disagree tho - I have trouble with the same thing. And certainly it's problematic when you are married and deny others the right. I don't know if my contributing to defeating Prop 8 is just a way of alleviating my guilt over that problem, or in fact an appropriate way to validate my own marriage. Obv it's something on my mind.

See I have no problem with institutions. I don't see them as something that needs to be, I dunno, railed against, so much as used. Marriage is sortof a contract, on a legal level it really is just about establishing a position in which certain terms and rights become applicable, but it is used to become a declaration of love a very personal thing and a very beautiful thing and is sortof radical when you think about how it subverts this legal institution with private narratives. I don't really see a problem with this really. The same thing for really all institutions, so long as we're free to reject their terms, and really, nobody's forcing you and your gal-pal to get hitched.

and is sortof radical when you think about how it subverts this legal institution with private narratives.

I really like this idea.

i want to know/understand what exactly the grounds are that ppl should be pushing, in terms of federal action/large picture politics, that isn't marriage. whats the better pathway? sullivan's 'politics of homosexuality' made a pretty strong argument i think for marriage being the central platform for the wide view

xpost

You would, breeder! ; )

Tsk. I use birth control. The potentiality of progeny != breeding. :P

Birth control is not as effective as homosexuality in preventing pregnancy.

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/scanner/2008/junior.jpg

c'est la vie. so i'm not perfect. :P

folks we got ourselves a nice spectrum here from reformers to radicals, some want to reorient marriage from within, others want no part of it . . .

I think if you're looking for a case for "why rail against institutions?" you could take a peek at the early Deleuze essay "Instincts and Institutions", which makes a pretty portable ideology-critique case against the ways that institutions legitimize themselves as the best/most inevitable/universal endpoint through which to satisfy our natural instincts. Deleuze's point is that institutions hinge their legitimacy on our instincts in order to survive, but our instincts don't require institutional support in order to be satisfied. This makes the "sooner or later you'll get over your sour grapes and join us" line about marriage all the more maddening and symptomatic of the trouble with institutions. I would also point out that your sense that institutions are there for you to be used is probably not unrelated to who you are/where you live/your demographic. I doubt that, say, a Palestinian living in Israel or an African American in the 50s in the USA would have the same feeling that they could 'take or leave' institutions, that institutions were just something to tip one's hat to or not.

The thing is, Deleuze is wrong.

also i have trouble with the idea of marriage as a radical relationship--state sanctioned radicalism ?

I have trouble with the idea of the state as something that is always already in an antagonistic relationship to the people who constitute it -- the situation is clearly more nuanced than that. I have trouble with the word "radicalism" being used interchangeably with something like "awesomeness" -- the Bush administration has been wildly radical.

particularly in the current environment where anyone getting married knows that it is a state-sanctioned right that is ACTIVELY DENIED to other groups of people. including but perhaps not limited to the gays.

Do you also reject health insurance, knowing it is actively denied to way more people than gay marriage is?

Anyway this is getting more heated than I really want it to, and I'm not helping. And, I don't disagree with you, but it seems like you're letting your disinterest in marriage as a viable institution to engage in dictate what you think other people should feel is right for them, or how you think society as a whole should go. But you also are ultimately OK with gay marriage. So. La la! It's all fine.

For instance, no one here is making that argument about "sooner or later you'll join us", and it's maybe hard to say that there has been pressure on gay people from the straight world to legalize gay marriage so they could get married and be just like straights already.

What is the "sooner or later you'll join us" argument?

yr being too kind imo.

This makes the "sooner or later you'll get over your sour grapes and join us" line about marriage all the more maddening and symptomatic of the trouble with institutions.

As far as I can tell, this line doesn't plague straight people nearly as much as it did 30 years ago; has the queer movement helped homo-normativize the straight "community"?

Deleuze is right. It's just the wrong Deleuze being quoted. A rhizomatic approach to marriage, ala A Thousand Plateaus, could potentially be very useful. There's no one particular entry point or exit point, but a variety that is always changing. No two heterosexual marriages are the same, and there's no reason to believe that a homosexual marriage would be the same either.

It's always the wrong Deleuze being quoted! Sigh. But that does seem more sensible. That's the fun thing with Deleuze, I guess, you can mine for sensible quotes.

(Also... I am being too kind? Is that... a bad thing? I'm pro-kindness, usually.)

i much prefer marginalizing your enemies

Apropos of something, Deleuze was very interested in a variety of holes. Bataille may be relevant here too... (Sorry! I'm being immature!)

kindness is hot

why is everyone talking about gay people tonight? is it gay week? it's leather weekend in nyc. same thing?

Probably cause of Connecticut, I'd imagine?

some of our best friends are gay, dude

some of my best gays are dudes, friend.

I'm not saying that Deleuze's account is the only account of institutions worth knowing about, or that his account is complete. Obviously if you're really interested in the topic then you read the work of the so-called "New Institutionalists" (a cluster of historians and sociologists I just learned a few weeks ago about, folks like March, Olsen, Peter Hall, Rosemary Taylor, etc. who study the enduring forms of institutions via all sorts of metrics) But institutions qua institutions aren't a great locus for transformation at the hands of particular individuals within them because of their slow metabolism, their very capacity to endure past and across generations, lifespans. They endure because of a glacial sluggishness, and yeah, they still change, duh. But they're not the only game in town.

xpost

word?

i don't really think about getting married that much anymore. i don't remember if i ever did, actually! i'm happy in my relationship as it is, so while the idea that i can't bothers me when it comes up, it doesn't on a daily basis.

although you know what sucks, is the money. i have to spend money on weddings too often for me to never have the opportunity to get a cuisinart or a vacuum as a gift.

damn i miss having a cuisinart.

solution: rob your married friends.

geez my one friend, she had like 4 parties to celebrate the whole thing. i was done!

so sur, i know you're not a playa, but don't you crush a lot?

hmm. ya? crushing is good i guess. glad you know i'm not a playa tho

haha sorry xoxo

lol no rly :) no need

But institutions qua institutions aren't a great locus for transformation at the hands of particular individuals within them because of their slow metabolism, their very capacity to endure past and across generations, lifespans.

Yeah but... gay marriage seems like an organized thing? Involving many individuals?

It's like people at church: We have this model that it's a top-down sort of thing, where the Pope says jump and the Catholics say "how high", but of course the relationship between the institution and the people within it (and the Church is waaaaay more of a top-down kind of institution than marriage is!) is far more complicated than that, and the church-goers relationship within the church is rarely one of blind obedience, or even of complete definition; but it serves as maybe a set of axes from which we can plot our sense of identity, and we might be able to use it in ways that it doesn't expect to be used. (Compare, say, the entire history of the internet, an institution which has had a magnificent upheaval every few years -- and an institution more dispersed that Catholicism, but perhaps as less dispersed than marriage!)

i am going to my first gay wedding tomorrow!

I doubt that, say, a Palestinian living in Israel or an African American in the 50s in the USA would have the same feeling that they could 'take or leave' institutions, that institutions were just something to tip one's hat to or not.

Dude, that is just willful misreading of what I actually said right there. The provision is that we are free to accept or reject the institution, and I really don't think an institution like marriage is totalitarian, its just an institution that grants rights and privileges based on restructuring and reforming familial units. I would like to see this become a more homogenous entity, open to everyone, because culturally it is letigitmising. Obviously if you move away from society where institutions bear down upon citizens within that society or on another one, then that is just fucked, but we're not, so it's kindof strawman-ey

But institutions qua institutions aren't a great locus for transformation at the hands of particular individuals within them because of their slow metabolism, their very capacity to endure past and across generations, lifespans.

Pretty much what Casuistry said. I don't really feel like the point here is to transform the institution (I think the institution's "slow metabolism" is a steadying force within society) but an ideology for people to situate themselves within or against, and here there are so many, many shades of grey. That's why I think its more interesting for people, in all their various peopleness, to adopt the institutions and, regardless of changing them, (the introduction of gay marriage is a transformation, btw) for them to use them. Like I doubt Mordy gives a shit about owning his wife like a piece of property, he seems like too nice a guy, I'm pretty sure he and his wife just love one another and used marriage (srsly correct me if I'm wrong) as a way of regrouping their own family unit. But the fact is, this doesn't mean they have to have four kids or that he has to get a job and she'll look after them, there's all sorts of way that that family can work and it doesn't really allow for the prescription of an institution.

The institution becomes a tool, and that's what I figure it's for. It's like any institution: museums, churches, etc. their function can't really be prescribed in the cold theoretical way you're doing because it hinges too much on an individuals, and I would argue especially those who count themselves within that institution, and how they themselves actually behave, with and against the prescription of the institution.

meant to italicise that quote in the middle, sorry.

i think gay marriage is bullshit--i think all marriage is bullshit. i was walking around christopher st this summer and some woman from fox news with a big camera wanted to interview me about the subject--i assume b/c i was the gayest person she could find in the village, but i declined.

it's a weird issue b/c i think it's so consumed the queer movement in the US that, at this point, if someone says theyre against gay marriage, it means they're homophobic. which made it hard to watch biden sidestep the question in the debate.

but in the end--why would i want to be part of your fucked up, heteronormative, historically misogynist tradition? so i can have my relationships okayed by straight people? whatevz.

― pterodactyl, Friday, October 10, 2008 11:11 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Just because *you* don't want to get married shouldn't mean that you or anyone else prevents my mother from marrying the woman she's been with since the 80s. As a married person, I'll tell you for me marriage is not about religion and it's not about being heteronormative or whatever, it's about becoming part of your partner's family. It's about your partner's parents becoming your parents, about your partner's siblings becoming your siblings. It may just be "in law" but it's more -- it's a feeling [queue "what a feeling"] You join two families. My mom has been with the same woman for so long, but when she said, "we're getting married!" I thought of her girlfriend differently, more like a step-mom. And I felt more secure that they will care for each other as they age. I've always understood that if my mom were to go first that her lady-friend would get the house but now she's her wife, it really sealed the deal, but people in other less tolerant families might not get that with a lesbian couple. There are so many good reasons to allow people to get married. That doesn't mean you have to.

Of course they got married in Oregon and now their marriage is no longer valid - it's just a civil union. It's a disappointment to them and to our family.

I'll also mention that the choice to get married was a very radical one for my mom's wife, because her family is not pro-gay and she had never officially come out to them. It provided a very healthy "good news" moment to finally talk to her mother and legitimize her relationship with my mother. They've lived together for 25 years and share a bedroom, but it's amazing how blind people can be when they don't want to admit that their child is a lesbian.

I'm wondering if more lesbians support gay marriage than gay men do, or if more women want to get married to each other than men do.

mordy, that argument is why, in the end, i am for gay marriage. but i think that in the vast majority of cases, marriage is not about suggesting or creating any kind of new dynamic

hooray!

And by the way, do we have (m)any lesbians on this board? Dykes, holla!

pterodactyl is our new lesbian pal, I don't know of any others.

Meanwhile there's this nonsense in Florida to deal with. Stick this in your heteronormativeness and smoke it.

oh, I assumed pterodactyl was heterogametic

sure... it just is disappointing that the whole queer movement focuses around marriage when (it seems to me) there are so many more relevant & important issues. & i recognize it's a PR move, but for who

OK, I'll bite. What's more important?

i like queerness as a concept--in opposition to heteronormativity--and i dont think thats limited to people who identify as gay.

I think that the key to understanding pterodactyl's position is this ^^^. The key value is minority-group-identification, whether that group be "queer", LGBTQA, or what have you. Marriage fundamentally undermines that structure. Hence, marriage is bad.

I'd like to know what institution pterodactyl proposes as a proper replacement for marriage. Because there certainly needs to be some state-sanctioned institution according to which visitation rights, health care benefits, inheritance outside of bloodlines, etc., may be assigned and conferred. Marriage may have an imperfect history, but I think it's still the best vehicle for establishing certain legal rights and responsibilities between unrelated people.

1. i have a (successful) policy of ignoring queers that don't live up to my hopes
2. yeah, lesbians would be great at running things. in my experience, they have been really good at organizing softball teams and adopting foreign babies.

― pterodactyl, Friday, October 10, 2008 11:56 PM (Yesterday

Well, there are also contracts.

The problem is a semantic one. Sure there need to be benefit-related unions recognized by the state -- at least til we get a more mature state in about 2000 years -- but calling any of them "marriage" brings religion into it, mistakenly.

So if "unions" are approved that bring the same benefits, let them have their word.

Fuck that. Except for all the airy-fairy imaginary crap, I don't think we should let religion try to exercise a monopoly on any word or concept, especially if that concept exists exclusive of religion.

The first problem with civil union laws is that they create institutions that are "separate but equal" to marriage, i.e., not equal at all. Marriage is too deeply interwoven into the laws and culture of the US to be mirrored in law without language that makes "civil union" an apparent synonym to "marriage", language that upsets the fundies just as much as "gay marriage" and which would never see the light of day at the federal legislative level. The second problem is that marriage is a civil union already! Nobody's arguing that anyone's church should have to agree (against what the proponents of prop 8 say). There's simply no good reason to have a ludicrous synonym for "marriage" written into federal law just because a bunch of bigots hate gays.

No, nobody's arguing that anyone's church should have to agree. But we're up against ppl like McCain's "Obama's an Arab" woman. They'll never get it.

They'll never get it.

dick?

hay pterodactyl know what u and the thing u like to have sex with have in common? they're both dicks!!!

I thought someone said that pterodactyl is a lesbian.

Not to be openly contradicting you or nothing kool aid.

hay pterodactyl know what u and the thing u like to have sex with have in common? they're both cunts!!!

good save

I think we need more words that mean basically the same thing as marriage, to make the issue confusing. Right now the positions are all but clear-cut between moderates, liberals and conservatives. That's unhealthy for our discourse and endangers the job security of the bench.

for those who came late, Human Rights Campaign is useless:

"You will notice that the website of the biggest gay rights group in the country has one single mention - it's a blog about a celebrity, of course - of the massive protests that occurred for marriage equality across the country yesterday. (A letter from Joe Solmonese tells us to be nice.) You will also notice that a handful of young non-professionals were able to organize in a few days what HRC has been incapable of doing in months or years.

"You will know from brutal experience that in the two decades of serious struggle for marriage equality, the Human Rights Campaign has been mostly absent, and when present, often passive or reactive. Here's a simple statistic that might help shake us out of complacency: HRC claims to have spent $3.4 million on No On 8. The Mormon church was able to spend over $20 million, by appealing to its members. Why are non-gay Mormons more capable of organizing and fund-raising on a gay rights measure than the biggest national gay rights group? I mean: they claim (absurdly, but bear with me) 725,000 supporters and members. In the summer, the major problem for No On 8 was insufficient early funding. If HRC had led, they could have thrown their money weight behind it. If every supporter had given $20 - chump change for the biggest ever battle yet for civil rights - they could have delivered $14 million overnight. So why didn't they?

"They will argue that this was a state, not a federal, measure. Sure - but its implications were obviously national, as protests in almost every state revealed. They are supposed to have "expertise" - but the ads that ran in No on 8 were the usual fearful, focus-group driven, conviction-free pap. So in the biggest national struggle in the history of gay civil rights, this organization - which has vacuumed money from the gay community for years - were by-standers. Why is that not a scandal?"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-useless-hum.html

The protest in SF on Saturday was a little disorganized but in an almost spontaneous, fun way.

Anyone watch Jon Meacham, Dan Savage, my local rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and, er, Ashton Kutcher on Bill Maher's show? Kutcher was pretty effective, and I was reminded of why I voted for Ros-Lehtinen over the Democrat despite her love of war and Israel.

yes, i watched. Kutcher was 'pretty effective,' yes, and also 'kinda crazy,' if you disagree with him. also, not quite as informed as he might appear. were you aware that R-L's district went for Obama and is that consistent with your take on the cuban vote?

"Pretty effective" in this context means "cut through the bullshit." But he can be Dan Savage's cumboy.

were you aware that R-L's district went for Obama and is that consistent with your take on the cuban vote?

Not only did my district go for Obama, but the Cuban-American vote went overwhelmingly (by forty points in some districts) for McCain.

The speeches at the end of the rally in Seattle (including Balliet) were deadly boring and sucked the energy out of the crowd. The next thing ("Day without a Gay"?) is supposed to be on 12/10, with the idea being 10 months of events on the 10th of each. It was fantastic to see the huge number of people streaming down Pine St. from Capitol Hill though.

The Mormon church was able to spend over $20 million, by appealing to its members.

Why aren't people burning down the Mormon temples right now?

There would be complaints.

I'm proud we (Seattle peeps) were able to get about 6000 people together spontaneously, tho. I make a point to avoid podium protest speeches though.. sorry, Jaq.

A small but spirited bunch at South Coast on Saturday -- around 300 to 500 total, a lot of support from passerby.

There would be complaints.

Not from me!

I used this quote elsewhere, but any entity that spends at least $20 million dollars to help take away rights from people whose presence doesn't affect it at all must, in its inner core, hate itself -- severely. At this point, should people help allow it to implode? Or should it be left alone. /rhetorical.

The Mormons have made history with this, and it's a history they'll* eventually regret.

*"they" in "they'll" being those who stand to benefit most within the church. I'm leaving the pawns out of this.

lolz protests. the time to protest was BEFORE the election guys

ppl are saying this (ditto fundraising)

Shakey, you're right but you're sooo wrong as well

protests aint gonna do shit at this stage. now it goes to the courts.

I wonder if the missing chapter in the Book of Mormon ordered all residents of Utah to procure catamites.

we protested by voting no. not enough apparently.

I was trying to cast it as a Marriage Equality rally, rather than a protest against Prop 8 - I mean regardless of how much time I've spent in Orange County, I can't vote there. Still, my favorite slogan was "Keep Your Magic Panties Off My Civil Rights".

I liked the sign that said, "Do You Want ME Marrying Your Daughter?"

shakey, if you think the post-election protests aren't doing shit right now, please step up and explain, or step off, seriously.

Enough waiting for the fucking courts.

i think the el coyote protest/boycott is stupid -- one person gave $100 to the "yes" effort and the entire business has to go down with the ship? granted the restaurant sucks, but FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY etc.

Enough waiting for the fucking courts.

Well, it looks like the fucking courts will probably deal with it next.

shakey, if you think the post-election protests aren't doing shit right now, please step up and explain, or step off, seriously. Enough waiting for the fucking courts.

Not sure what course of action you're advocating here, exactly...? what are the protests accomplishing? how will marriage rights be guaranteed without the legal process? Prop 8 has passed. There is no un-passing it (at least not until the next election). The only way it will be struck down is through legal challenges.

Look, this is the civil rights challenge of our generation, and it took the Warren court to give steel to the legislation.

Dan Savage on Colbert was spot on about old people. It's a shame that bigotry has to die out vs. people getting mellow and enlightened in their last decades.

what are the protests accomplishing?

A whole helluva lot of publicity that's keeping the issue in the news... which is exactly what it needs as long as possible, especially now that we know Obama has been elected.

Yes, nothing can't officially change until the courts or a reverse initiative passes, but you can't just tell people to shut up and be quiet about it, then just wake up before the next call, which was EXACTLY the fucking problem BEFORE Prop 8 passed, right?

(Savage has been great on this issue btw)

Dan Savage on Colbert was spot on about old people. It's a shame that bigotry has to die out vs. people getting mellow and enlightened in their last decades.

i agree with this. but it's true that every time attitudes change en masse, it's because of one generation dying off and a new generation being born that can think for itself. unless they become born-again xtians. but i think the fundie youth is a vocal minority.

and for the record I'm not telling people to "shut up" I'm just noting that protests at this particular juncture aren't going to accomplish anything beyond giving people a forum to vent their anger. which is all well and good. but not exactly crucial to developing and implementing an effective legal strategy.

also don't expect anything from Obama on this on a federal level. while I take him at his word that he believes gay couples should have equal marriage rights, his position is to let the states' and the courts fight it out.

I'm just noting that protests at this particular juncture aren't going to accomplish anything beyond giving people a forum to vent their anger. which is all well and good. but not exactly crucial to developing and implementing an effective legal strategy.

With that attitude, white males would still be the only ones allowed to vote.

xp - Old people *can* change once they find out their loved ones -- friends, family -- are gay or have close friends who are gay. Not all of them do, but I don't completely buy the "old people have to die out before we get anywhere" meme.

*sigh*

if you think protests now have the same PR effect as civil rights protests in the late 50s and early 60s you are sadly delusional

I think it's incredibly toxic to label civil rights' protesting as something that has missed its window of opportunity.

Having said that, if your protest does not have focus and organization, I do believe it is less likely to be successful. All of these things should really be linked and, where possible, feed into a larger machine, preferably one using the legal system to cement its case. That lack of organization is precisely what makes protests turn into venting sessions or out-and-out riots.

my "favorite" argument among the yes on 8 guys is that being gay is "not natural" -- but all the artificial crap you put in and on your body every day, all the toxic chemicals in your household products, all the synthetics in your clothing and furniture, that you CHOOSE to buy, that's all god's will.

HI DERE completely on the money. I'm rarely a pro-protest guy, but the concurrent Saturday protests was definitely a step towards the organized and angry protests that can make a difference, as Dan notes. As far as I know, none of them turned into riots. I might agree that the venting sections are past their prime.

As Mark Leno pointed out on Saturday, here in SF, Prop 8 won 52%-48%. Prop 22, in 2000, won 61.4% to 38.6% with the same wording.

Michael, surely you mean California voted that way, not San Francisco?

one of the reasons civil rights protests (and the Gandhi-an tactics they were based on) worked so well was because they provoked an inappropriately violent response on the part of the opposition, and for the first time the mass media was there to document it. It wasn't that a bunch of people showed up in public angry about something - it was the fact that they're showing up resulted in them getting beaten, hosed down, attacked with dogs, etc. and those images went out into the national press, which garnered sympathy for the civil rights movement on a previously unheard of level. That shit is not going to happen this time around. Law enforcement is smarter now. And if anyone is successfully playing the victim card, its the right-wing fundies who are complaining about being "threatened" and "harassed" etc.

I hope its clear that I am entirely supportive of the cause here. I am just concerned about effective tactics. The tactics that are the most emotionally satisfying are not necessarily the ones that will result in the desired outcome.

x-postiness

protests can and still do have an effect imo. especially when the other (wrong) side doesn't have a reasonable argument beyond bigotry and some lame shit about how marriage must be preserved. the protests here can and perhaps are working because it's such a one-sided issue.

So, protests need to get to Kent State levels and circumstances to be effective? Please try again. And I'm glad you're trying, but come on.

there's no mention of Kent State in his post, Mackro, nor is the analogy apt.

There was some venting on Saturday here, but many of the speeches were more about equality than revenge and were intended to appeal even to religious people by keeping the argument about fairness and equality under the law. As a positive sign of an inclusive movement, I think they're useful for PR and as an opportunity for the aggrieved to bond and feel less hopeless, they're good for the base.

fair enough - xp

Old people *can* change once they find out their loved ones -- friends, family -- are gay or have close friends who are gay. Not all of them do, but I don't completely buy the "old people have to die out before we get anywhere" meme.

Defection at the fringes ain't a trend. People currently under 40 were overwhelmingly against 8; people currently over 60 were overwhlemingly against.

The difference was 300,000 votes. Next year a whole bunch of under 40s will be old enough to vote for the first time, and a whole bunch of over 60s will be dead. You do the math.

xpost and yeah those are Cali numbers SF was 25% for 75% against

wow, 1 in 4 people in SF or SF county voted for Prop 8? (sorry, I guess I can't be happy with any data today.. apologies)

xpost and yeah those are Cali numbers SF was 25% for 75% against

sigh, i love SF (even taking what mackro just said into account)

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/august_26_wed.htm

oh look, they protested too and no one turned a hose on them, yet their cause was victorious

I think, Shakey, you are conflating "one reason why the Civil Rights Movement protests worked" with "the only reason protests work".

Honestly, I think the more effective thing to do (in terms of making a rhetorical point, not in terms of making an actual legislative change) would be to organize a lobby to completely divorce the legal status associated with marriage from the marriage union itself and make civil unions mandatory for things like property ownership/transferal upon death, medical access rights, etc etc and make all people who want those things to have a civil union, as we are talking about civil rights here and not religious rights.

xp: Scary idiots live everywhere, guys! This is not news!

l.a. county was REALLY FUCKING CLOSE -- it ended up being something like 51%/49%, but toward the end there was something like a half percentage point difference.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/11/13/ba-sfvote1114_gr_SFCG1226624392.jpg

A little outreach will be required, it looks.

xp: Scary idiots live everywhere, guys! This is not news!

I know I know.. just the idea that 25% of SF is filled with Raymonds (of Raymond & Peter fame). SHUDDER.

(granted, I'm avoiding the can of worms labeled "race")

see, the thing is when we all get pissed about conservatives saying we live in a center right country, the reason we get pissed is because they are right and they really shouldn't be

i think what is now "center right" was once "middle left" maybe?

HD OTM up there aways. Thoughts I had while walking back home on Saturday: ministers and preachers may perform marriages because the state allows them too, and what definition of marriage works for all, at its most basic level? All I could come up with was "mutually beneficial, non-exploitative legal partnership". Let churches layer an extra dose of sacred bond and sacrament, etc on top of that basis if they want to.

"no" voters in l.a. county were on the westside, santa monica, malibu, hollywood, los feliz, the valley, downtown, pasadena, basically all the educated and somewhat affluent areas. the areas with the "yes" voters are the poor ones with A LOT (seriously a lot) of churches.

Jaq and HD, OTM

The can of worms called race has to be faced, though, Mackro. No on 8 didn't even try to talk to some black churches 'cause they figured they wouldn't be interested - self-defeating prophesy. You can't change the minds of people you don't talk to, especially when you're not treating them as ordinary people but as racial stereotypes.

Oh I agree the can of worms must be opened as a public issue. I just didn't want to open it on ILX today, especially since we opened it two weeks ago.

Back to legalizing gay marriages/unions, it depends on the state, ultimately.

Not sure if it's worth a gamble in 2009, but a pro-gay-marriage/repeal-Defense-Of-Marriage-Act initiative has chances of passing in Washington state -- barely. Washington and Oregon are each different from California in that there are less churches in each overall, the BIG lefty cities in each state makes up a bigger chunk of the population, and among the churches, there's a large percentage of Anglican churches that have states they would honor gay marriages -- which doesn't seem to be the case in California.

"that have stated" not "states".

The Anglican/Episcopalian churches in SF were among the first and most vocally supportive of the gay community.

How much of a percentage of California do Anglican churches make (among other churches)?

Good grief, I go away for an hour...

If anything I see the protests almost as a sign of gauging things. And I have to say that if you had told me up through recent years that a loud and noticeable pro-gay marriage protest on all four corners of a busy intersection near the biggest mall in all of OC was not only going to happen but that nearly 99% of the reaction to it was loudly positive in turn, then I wouldn't've believed you. And damn if it wasn't nice to be proven wrong.

What was interesting to me on Saturday was that there was less of the anti-Mormon, anti-anything feeling about it all and more of a positive vibe about making this a broad civil rights thing; not specifically pro-gay but anti-enshrining discrimination in the State Constitution. If the appeal is braod and not made with too much finger pointing , I think the goal can be achieved with greater ease and speed than if it looks too 'shrill' and 'special interest'y.

see, the thing is when we all get pissed about conservatives saying we live in a center right country, the reason we get pissed is because they are right and they really shouldn't be

― Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, November 17, 2008 3:01 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest

its not really any more true than us being 'center left' - it depends on issue to issue

i've read that the jewish faith doesn't have an official stance on gay marriage because the orthodox jews are against it and the reform (more liberal) jews are in support of it or don't have a problem with it. most non-religious jews are bleeding-heart lefties.

Mackro, not much I assume. It's pretty old school Anglo in its origins and modern immigration has favored the relative growth of the number of Catholics and Evangelicals.

Having been raised Anglican, I can assure you that we're generally a more freethinking and inclusive bunch out here, and we're also a distinct minority in terms of religion.

ok, lol at Wikipedia, I know, but I grabbed chunks from the Religion section of California, Washington, and Oregon each...

California:

The largest Christian denominations by number of adherents in 2000 were the Roman Catholic Church with 10,079,310; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 529,575; and the Southern Baptist Convention with 471,119. Jewish congregations had 994,000 adherents.[25]

The state has the most Roman Catholics of any state and a large Protestant population, a large American Jewish community, and an American Muslim population.

With a Jewish population estimated at more than 550,000, Los Angeles has the second-largest Jewish community in North America.

California also has the largest Muslim community population in the United States, an estimated 3.4 percent of the population, mostly residing in Southern California. According to figures, approximately 100,000 Muslims reside in San Diego.[26]

...

Washington:

The religious affiliations of Washington's population are:[13]

Christian – 63%
Protestant – 29%
Lutheran – 6%
Baptist – 6%
Methodist – 4%
Presbyterian – 3%
Other Protestant or general Protestant – 10%
Catholic – 20%
Other Christian – 11%
Latter-day Saint – 3%
Other Religions – 5%
Refused – 6%
No religion – 25%
The largest denominations by number of adherents in 2000 were the Roman Catholic Church with 716,133; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 178,000; and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America with 127,854.[14]

As with many other Western states, the percentage of Washington's population identifying themselves as "non-religious" is higher than the national average. The percentage of non-religious people in Washington is the highest of any state.[15]

...

Oregon:

The largest denominations by number of adherents in 2000 were the Roman Catholic Church with 348,239; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 104,312; and the Assemblies of God with 49,357.[60]

Of the U.S. states, Oregon has the fourth largest percentage of people identifying themselves as "non-religious", at 21 percent, after Colorado, Washington, and Vermont.[61] However, 75–79% of Oregonians identify themselves as being Christian [1], and some hold deeply conservative convictions. During much of the 1990s a group of conservative Christians formed the Oregon Citizens Alliance, and unsuccessfully tried to pass legislation to prevent "gay sensitivity training" in public schools and legal benefits for homosexual couples.[62]

Oregon also contains the largest community of Russian Old Believers to be found in the United States.[63] Additionally, Oregon, particularly the Portland metropolitan area, has become known as a center of non-mainstream spirituality.[citation needed] The Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association, reported to be the largest such institution of its kind,[citation needed] is headquartered in Portland, and the popular New Age film What the Bleep Do We Know? was filmed and had its premiere in Portland. There are an estimated 6 to 10 thousand Muslims of various ethnic backgrounds in Oregon.[64]

practicing Episcopalians are dying out faster than homophobes

I remember going to Midnight Mass at Grace Cathedral here in SF as teenager (not out of faith but because I liked the spectacle) and being shocked in the early mid-eighties to hear a sermon spoken with sorrow and pity about the nascent AIDS epidemic. When I was a kid in the Sierras, all the Xtians were decidedly anti-gay.

What does that 63% Christian in Wahsington mean? 63% are Xtian and they break down like this?

I go away for 15-minutes... anyway Dan largely OTM. I totally agree about the distinguishing civil rights from religious rites angle

You can't change the minds of people you don't talk to, especially when you're not treating them as ordinary people but as racial stereotypes.

So fucking OTM btw; one thing that pisses me off about every group of people, regardless of whether it is an ethnic group, a political group, a sexual orientation group, or whetever, is the instinctual desire to identify everyone outside of the group as lesser. Every single group out there does it and it really disgusts me. People would be much better off if they realized this.

(btw I am a group of one)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 529,575

Jewish congregations had 994,000 adherents.

see, this pisses me off. we could have taken those fuckers by their funny underwear.

Those WA numbers are whack and in conflict amongst themselves.

I just think that pointing fingers at poor (and religious) black neighborhoods or Latino neighborhoods is counter-productive. A lot of San Franciscans who voted for 8 did so because the yes on 8 campaign told them that no would mean that homosexuality would have to be taught in schools and other such nonsense and if no on 8 had had the outreach to realize how their opponents message (for lack of calling it outright bullshit) was penetrating those neighborhoods, they might of countered it.

'have countered', Jesus wept.

but... homosexuality is already "taught" in schools! this was the funniest part of that yes on 8 campaign to me.

Well, that's certainly where I learned to be gay.

SB 777 yo

Those WA numbers are whack and in conflict amongst themselves.

The tab characters disappeared in the text paste. :(. Sorry. Most of that list goes under the breakdown of "Christian". I think if you stop the subsection before "other religions" it makes more sense.

The statement that LDS was 2nd largest after Catholic doesn't jive with the 20%/3% numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington#Religion

There's a sub-subsection, too. Maybe that makes more sense?

What was interesting to me on Saturday was that there was less of the anti-Mormon, anti-anything feeling about it all and more of a positive vibe about making this a broad civil rights thing; not specifically pro-gay but anti-enshrining discrimination in the State Constitution.

That's way fucking cool and admirable! I wish I could be the same. As an ex-mormon right now, I am even more embarrassed than usual and really want to slap the fucking bitch Mormons all over America who rallied aagainst a thing that was none of their fucking goddamn business (since most do not even live in California).

Fuck those fucking shitpie assfuck dipshits.

Oh, I've felt that way, Abbott, I just don't want this to turn into THAT kind of fight.

If WA (or the country as a whole) ever ends up with some sort of civil-union thing that nobody dares call "marriage" even though it is, the wife and I want to get divorced and immediately get civil-unionized. If marriage is only for churches they can have it; just let us file taxes together, visit each other in the hospital, adopt kids, etc.

Fuck my parents, fuck the church leaders, fuck the people in my old Ward who have 'vote no on Prop 8' facebook campaigns, fuck anyone who paid tithing, fuck the bishops, fuck the stake presidents, fuck the corpse of Gordon B. Hinckley for writing 'A Proclomation on the Family' (a document of epic homophobia), fuck 'love the sinner hate the sin,' fuck hating the sinner, fuck Utah, fuck seagulls, fuck Joseph Smith, fuck prophets of all decades, fuck seminary teachers, fuck institute teachers, fuck fucking salty inland bodies of water, fuck the 2000 Olympics, fuck beehives, fuck Mormon hymns, fuck the Book of Mormon, fuck Moroni, fuck temples, fuck garments, fuck anointments, fuck baptisms for the dead, fuck it all.

Can anyone explain to me why Prop. 8 is such a huge national deal compared to the other 28 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? I don't remember anywhere near this level of outcry over any particular one of those. Is California more important because it's considered less socially conservative, or because it has a large population, or because of the out-of-state campaigning, or what?

Btw, I think you mean 'vote yes on Prop 8'...

xpost

yeah I do

Can anyone explain to me why Prop. 8 is such a huge national deal compared to the other 28 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? I don't remember anywhere near this level of outcry over any particular one of those. Is California more important because it's considered less socially conservative, or because it has a large population, or because of the out-of-state campaigning, or what?

For most people, it spoiled the liberal triumph of the Obama election -- oh, and in the case of one of my closest friends, he faces the very real dissolution of an arrangement he gambled on and lost.

Maria, maybe 'cause it's closer here than in other states and we have little gay oases like SF and West Hollywood. The out-of-state-funding I'm a little ambiguous about since I don't want to feel bad about donating money to campaigns in other states but I do wonder about LDS tax exempt status. Maybe it's just the zeitgeist.

(Thanks Mackro, I get it now.)

Is California more important because it's considered less socially conservative, or because it has a large population, or because of the out-of-state campaigning, or what?

All of these, but I think it was chosen not because it was "more important" as much as it was the least expected -- which ties into the less socially conservative thing.

Also "8" works a lot better into signs that want to spell hate "H8".

Results 1 - 10 of about 226 for rally "measure 9" oregon 2004. (0.13 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 700,000 for rally "prop 8" california 2008. (0.24 seconds)

Can anyone explain to me why Prop. 8 is such a huge national deal compared to the other 28 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage?

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

Oh, oops, I am misremembering my numbers.

Results 1 - 10 of about 588 for 2004 "measure 36" oregon rally. (0.25 seconds)

I won't compromise my Christianity
'cause my momma taught me better than that!

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

We are, in some ways, compared to even 2000, but the eastern half of the state is pretty 'red'.

It is funny to divide so tall a state by east & west. Funny meaning amusing to look at. Like it's a red & blue harlequin hot dog bun.

I do wonder about LDS tax exempt status.

I thought donating to propositions was protected as "free speech", no matter who's doing the donating...?

Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books. I think that plays a big part in people's outrage over Prop 8.

I have to admit they do like nothing otherwise that wld make them tax-exempt questionable. I mean like no church positions are paid & they don't spend their tithes on anything really but building more churches & assimilating/destroying to a broader mass.

they = Mormon Church

I totally understand why it's more important if you're actually IN California, it's just that I'm hearing huge levels of anger from people halfway, or all the way, across the country, including in states that have already passed these amendments. Perhaps it seems different than 2004 because people were also so angry about Bush's reelection then?

xpost - I think churches are not allowed to donate to candidates for office because they risk losing their tax-exempt status...don't know what the rule is for propositions, though.

xpost again - yeah, that does make a big difference. Hadn't thought of that.

fwiw, Mark Leno is OTM: the vv narrow margin of asshole victory and expensive and misleading campaign required to achieve it = writing on the wall. The battle may have been lost but in important ways the war is already OVER. Millenials will tip it.

I don't know what the polls were saying about Arizona, but I seem to recall Alfred telling us it was somewhat close in Florida. I think perhaps people thought it stood a real chance in California and also some of the gall may be in proportion to the joy over Obama's victory.

It's true. We killed the witch and those fuckers went and poked us in the eye.

the writing is totally on the wall. the fact that legal barriers have had to be erected (where before there were none) is a sign in and of itself. And only 40 years after Stonewall signalled it being (kinda sorta) okay to be out and gay in the country (in certain parts, at least)

I am in the Stonewall Queer-Straight Alliance! Man can those peeps bro down. (Magpie-like tangent.)

Even the Prop 8 folks were very careful to state that they were all about, like, civil union type rights and stuff.

bullshit

Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books.

This is not true.

Bullshit that they said it or bullshit that they meant it?

Because yes it's some horseshit, but the fact that they made it a talking point tells ya which way the wind's blowing.

Yeah, if they'd meant it, they would have written civil unions into the prop

Bullshit that they meant it, and 77% bullshit that they said it.

And civil unions are some Jim Crow shit anyway.

^^^disagree

Basically, when Oregon passed the measure, it was to prevent lawsuits from being tried. The Att'y General had said, as I recall, that he didn't think the argument (that not allowing gay marriage was a form of sex discrimination, which was prohibited in the state constitution) would be valid; but it's kinda hard to imagine that it wouldn't be, which is one reason why there was the push to put language specifically outlawing it in the state constitution.

fair

xp

we went over this on the election thread - basically the end-goal should be to separate the religious institution of marriage from the civil rights accorded married people by the government so that EVERYONE gets the same recognition under the law (same visitation rights, same healthcare benefits, etc.)

x-post

Yeah, I'm more inclined to go the other way and say the gvmt should keep their nose out of marriage altogether. xxxp

I have even managed to get some Republicans I know to admit that marriage is a religious ceremony and the State should recognize nothing other than civil unions, though they still, sometimes quite sincerely I believe, keep bringing up the polygamy canard.

Yeah, I'm more inclined to go the other way and say the gvmt should keep their nose out of marriage altogether. xxxp

all well and good except that our government has specific legal mechanisms in place for recognizing marriage - and they ain't about to re-write the entire tax code knowhutimsayin

Then why aren't Mormons pro-gay marriage, if it'll lead to legalized polygamy?

But if a civil union is the same as marriage but with a different name, that sounds pretty "equal but separate"

As I've said elsewhere, why would a devout Catholic want his/her state to call and recognize as a marriage, a union, even between a man and a woman, where one of them is divorced and therefor, according to the Church, an adulterer?

Shakey, couldn't the Feds just define all civil unions as marriages wrt the tax code?

all well and good except that our government has specific legal mechanisms in place for recognizing marriage - and they ain't about to re-write the entire tax code knowhutimsayin

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, November 17, 2008 3:32 PM Bookmark

civil unions 4 everyone

Bcz polygamy is a commandment we are not godly enough to follow as it currently stands, and will happen again after Armaggedon. Duh.

But if a civil union is the same as marriage but with a different name, that sounds pretty "equal but separate"

its not the same because the law only deals with the former and would basically be disregarding the latter entirely

civil unions 4 everyone

exactly

but it doesn't
xp

If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing, which it does, then civil unions are still second class.

that sounds pretty "equal but separate

Weddings I have been to have been widely different but the underlying law remains the same.

We have to destroy marriage in order to save it.

The right wing no marriage but civil unions are okay position is just about keeping language as a placeholder.

look the LAW is the central thing here, what anybody calls it (marriage, civil union, whatever) doesn't fucking matter. The end-goal is the guarantee of equal legal treatment of everyone who's made a formal commitment to a legally recognized relationship.

Not exactly. Leave marriage to religion and civil unions to a secular state that treats people as equal under the law.

xxpost

If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing,

you cannot legislate "public connotations". It is outside the bounds of civil jurisdiction.

I see I hold a minority opinion.

you guys know how laws work, right?

what about recognition across state lines?

I would like to pass an amendment that states that if a marriage is defined by law as a sacred union between a man and a woman, they must then all occur in churches.

Basically, in their zeal to "protect" marriage, these people are destroying it, and I want to help them reach their logical conclusion so that everyone is fucked (ie, equality in the other direction).

haha!

The deal is that EVERY marriage has a civil component. SOME marriages get the special gloss of a religious component, but that is not required for a marriage to be a marriage.

well put

It's not as if Xtians have not at times been exhorted to render unto Caesar what is his and just do their own shit. They had no huge problem with saying mass in a person's home when Xtianity was illegal under the Romans. If their faith tells them that they are, indeed, married via a sacrament tot heir spouse, what difference does it make whether a majority calls them married or not? In that case, let us have equality for all under the common law and if it requires an amendment that says that religious institutions cannot be forced to wed people who they disapprove of, so be it.

(One could argue that traditional marriage was destroyed once it become just as easy to divorce, but that's for another thread.)

(Oh no, I think that is an excellent point and one I would also like to hammer home; divorce is now illegal and punishable by fines and/or jail time. Possibly stoning.)

It's absolutely the truth, though, mackro.

to go back to the civil rights analogy - it is possible to legislate against racially discriminatory practices, but it is not possible to outlaw racism. Similarly it is possible to legislate equality before the law for gay couples, but it is not possible to outlaw homophobia.

x-post

is that how it would stand legally or is there a definition between the two, because here in europe most countries have Civil Unions but only Spain, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands do they have Marriage.

It is ludicrous to define as protecting marriage an amendment which limits the number of people who can consider it as an option , epecially since they're not 'in the market' for any of the people whose marriage is being protected, or at least only the people in the closet.

is that how it would stand legally or is there a definition between the two, because here in europe most countries have Civil Unions but only Spain, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands do they have Marriage.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that... what M. White and myself and Dan (in a more humorous way) are arguing is that equal treatment is the key thing and that since the government's domain is a CIVIL one, then everyone should have civil unions. "Marriage" would be rendered an essentially ceremonial term.

(btw what's the difference between the Euro countries with civil unions and those with marriages? Is there no "Equal Protection" clause in the EU?)

Or, if it's too much work to search and replace all the laws and stuff, everyone gets plain old marriage under the law and religious folks get covenant marriage or sacramental marriage or ultraviolet sunbeams of the divine light marriage.

they don't offer full rights, although in the UK and Sweden they just have a different name, which I find almost more sinister.

xp

Is it equal protection we're talking about or some equivalent to 'full faith and credit'?

I'd say both the 14th Amendment and the full faith and credit clause are relevant. But I ain't a lawyer, I'm just a backwoods hyperchicken

How they compare to the EU founding docs and whatnot is hard to figure out, especially since they generally have Roman/Napoleonic law and have only one Common Law state.

Well, whatever the case, the whole Boycott Utah thing is really dumb, especially given that California has roughly as many Mormons as Utah does in numbers.

It hasn't been a meme here hardly (thankfully) but it's growing all over the blogosphere. :/

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

― Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, November 17, 2008 5:05 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

isnt the more obvious answer 'because gay people could actually get married in california'? i dont remember the mayor of ft lauderdale telling str8s to get over it cuz gay marriage was here to stay

Dan, get back to me when California has roughly as many Mormon universities as Utah does.

'Til then, I'm coming around on the Utah boycott. It's silly at worst, has the potential to make a valuable symbolic point for years to come, and maybe most importantly it lets people feel as though they're getting a little of their own back from outside interlopers who reached across the border to mess with California.

Rogermexico, looks like you may not have to worry about Utah getting damaged in the near future.

There's one person who looks like he's going to fuck up Utah permanently.

George W. Bush

Uproar over federal drilling leases next to parks

SALT LAKE CITY – The view of Delicate Arch natural bridge — an unspoiled landmark so iconic it's on Utah's license plates — could one day include a drilling platform under a proposal that environmentalists call a Bush administration "fire sale" for the oil and gas industry.

Late on Election Day, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced a Dec. 19 auction of more than 50,000 acres of oil and gas parcels alongside or within view of Arches National Park and two other redrock national parks in Utah: Dinosaur and Canyonlands.

The National Park Service's top official in the state calls it "shocking and disturbing" and says his agency wasn't properly notified. Environmentalists call it a "fire sale" for the oil and gas industry by a departing administration.

Officials of the BLM, which oversees millions of acres of public land in the West, say the sale is nothing unusual, and one is "puzzled" that the Park Service is upset.

"We find it shocking and disturbing," said Cordell Roy, the chief Park Service administrator in Utah. "They added 51,000 acres of tracts near Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands without telling us about it. That's 40 tracts within four miles of these parks."

Top aides to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne stepped into the fray, ordering the sister agencies to make amends. His press secretary, Shane Wolfe, told The Associated Press that deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett "resolved the dispute within 24 hours" last week.

A compromise ordered by the Interior Department requires the BLM to "take quite seriously" the Park Service's objections, said Wolfe.

However, the BLM didn't promise to pull any parcels from the sale, and in an interview after the supposed truce, BLM state director Selma Sierra was defiant, saying she saw nothing wrong with drilling near national parks.

"I'm puzzled the Park Service has been as upset as they are," said Sierra.

"There are already many parcels leased around the parks. It's not like they've never been leased," she said. "I don't see it as something we are doing to undermine the Park Service."

Roy and conservation groups dispute that, saying never before has the bureau bunched drilling parcels on the fence lines of national parks.

"This is the fire sale, the Bush administration's last great gift to the oil and gas industry," said Stephen Bloch, a staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

"The tracts of land offered here, next to Arches National Park or above Desolation Canyon, these are the crown jewels of America's lands that the BLM is offering to the highest bidder," he said.

An examination of the parcels, superimposing low-resolution government graphics onto Google Earth maps, shows that in one case drilling parcels bordering Arches National Park are just 1.3 miles from Delicate Arch.

"If you're standing at Delicate Arch, like thousands of people do every year, and you're looking through the arch, you could see drill pads on the hillside behind it. That's how ridiculous this proposed lease sale is," said Franklin Seal, a spokesman for the environmental group Wildland CPR.

In all, the BLM is moving to open 359,000 more acres in Utah to drilling.

Other Utah leases that are certain to draw objections from conservation groups include high cliffs along whitewater sections of Desolation Canyon, which is little changed since explorer John Wesley Powell remarked in 1896 on "a region of wildest desolation" while boating down the Green River to the Grand Canyon.

Others extend to plateaus populated by big game atop Nine Mile Canyon, site of thousands of ancient rock art panels, Moab's famous Slick Rock Trail and a campground popular with thousands of mountain bikers.

Sierra, the BLM's director for Utah, said the Park Service was consulted on the broad management plans that made the sale of parcels next to national parks permissible, even if it was not given notice on which specific leases were being offered. She apologized for that omission but said notice wasn't legally required.

She said national parks want to keep oil and gas wells five to 10 miles away "but that policy doesn't exist."

Roy said the standard for an eyesore visible from a national park turns on what a "casual" observer might see.

The hostility carried over into an e-mail exchange between Sierra and Mike Snyder, the Denver-based regional Park Service director, who noted his agency's demand that BLM pull 40 to 45 drill parcels from the auction list. "You stated that you were not willing to do this," Snyder wrote Nov. 6.

Within hours, Sierra responded "These decisions and the lands available for leasing should come to no one's surprise," according to copies of the e-mails obtained from her office.

Sierra said she instructed her district and field managers to educate the park superintendents on why drilling is OK "adjacent to and near the park boundaries."

In the e-mail, Sierra boasted of having "a very good working relationship" with Roy, the federal coordinator in Utah for the Park Service, but in an interview he said he had "no idea this sale was coming down the pike."

Roy said that when he asked Sierra what was going on, she replied: "We added some tracts, sorry we didn't notify you. We can take up these concerns when we issue" drilling permits. He said his response was: "Holy cow."

Sierra didn't dispute this account, but said "I don't think I was in a mood that dismissed his concerns lightly." She said she had promised only to review the objections, parcel by parcel, before the auction is held Dec. 19.

this is 2008, not 1958 right? sucks people are still so fucking stupid

I'd snicker that W is God's judgment on Utah for gays and abortion but jesus christ...

And speaking of God's judgment: lol

http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/after-pumping-money-into-prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs

UPDATE: Focus on the Family announced this afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — more than 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Merry Christmas!

hahahaha I am never changing my screen name because of the delicious confusion

i think at this point worrying about tactics (protests, boycotts, prank phone calls to random mormon households in the middle of the night) is sort of beside the point. making a whole lot of collective noise is the best strategy, and however people do that is going to add to the collective commotion and momentum, even if some individual efforts seem counterproductive or whatever. when you're within a few percentage points of swinging the vote, that's not the time for nuance or finesse. to resort to the inevitable sports metaphor, when it's 3rd and inches, you just bunch everybody together and piledrive on through. the vote sucked, but people being pissed off about is good, and everybody should just stay pissed off and keep banging pots and pans. this will change. everybody knows it'll change. even (the saner) people on the right basically admitted it was a lost fight years ago. so it's just a matter of keeping up the push.

the Cali court is already considering overturning this, if the headline I read the other day is to be believed

I mean....this thing should not have even been on the ballot. However it got on there, the entire legality of it is in question. 18,000 marriages have already been performed - they can't just be voided now based on a misguided ballot measure

The court in May ruled that preventing what was done in 2004 was unconstitutional; no ban is legal. People just need to take a deep breath and let this play out...

...protesting seems to be the best, and dare I say it (the peaceful ones as most have been) the most productive way to keep this fresh in the face of the courts and the public; it's reat.

Boycotts otoh are stupid and counterproductive, potentially alienating straight supporters. Especially the El Coyote one, which from the Curbed LA chronicles is turning out to be a hilarious/epic folly

my fave sign from the rally saturday: "SPANDEX IS A PRIVILEGE, MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT"

>it's reat

i forgot where this was going :)

I also campaigned on behalf of HRC over the summer and Andrew Sullivan needs to pull the dildo out of his orifice and relax. It faces many disadvantages from a fundraising angle, particularly that many of its contributors want to stay anonymous - maybe if he tried calling them, instead of just blogging and taking potshots, he'd realize what a fucking challenge it is..

I'm not saying they're beyond reproach, but they've done a lot over the past few decades when NO ONE dared to do ANYTHING. They were campaigning nationwide against all the states' ballot measures that were anti-gay, including in Tennessee where the legislature was considering passing a law that'd make it illegal to even *talk* about homosexuality prior to 9th grade in public schools (in response to the 8th grader gay Californian getting killed earlier this year).

Does he know any of this, or did he just think vociferously attacking the standard gay rights group in the nation is a productive way to write something attention-worthy today?

just more evidence that most "professional bloggers" easily belong to the segment of society-punditry that contributes the least

is there a "Prince hates gay marriage" thread?

Covered here: Favorite poster from NR's "The Corner"

it's probably a few posts on the general purpose "Prince is batshit insane" thread on ILM, otherwise known as that Prince thread. You know, THAT one.

Prince claiming he was misquoted, apparently

Yeah I read that on HuffPo, and the main argument from Prince's management was like "*shock horror* the interview wasn't even using a MIC!"

Like Prince would allow anyone to record him in an interview anyway?

I was more shocked that Prince wore sandals with socks

*tut tut*

and platform sandals at that!

come on, no one is shocked about Prince wearing platform sandals

Stephen Baldwin speaks:

"If they legalize gay marriage in all 50 states in my lifetime, I'll get a Billy Ray Cyrus tattoo on my butt to go with the Hannah Montana one."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11192008/photos/p6i.jpg

someone kick this guy in the nuts plz