Gay Patriot Header Image

CA Senate vote for gay marriage likely to backfire

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:01 pm - September 1, 2005.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

Today, the first state legislative body in U.S. history passed a bill recognizing gay marriage and while gay rights’ groups & their allies are singing hosannas, I fear this will set back the movement for gay marriage.

If this bill had passed in a state whose citizens had not already voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, I would be singing an entirely different tune. I believe that elected state legislatures, rather than courts, should set the criteria for marriage in their jurisdictions. But, certain states, like California, where the state Senate approved today a bill recognizing gay marriage, allow for initiative and/or referenda to amend the state’s constitution or otherwise make law.

In 2000, more than 60% of California voters approved Proposition 22 which “added a section to the state Family Code stating that ‘only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’” Because the legislature has acted against the will of the people, the Senate’s vote today will embolden those forces opposed to gay marriage and state recognition of domestic partnerships. (If legislators believe the people have changed their minds on gay marriage, as some have suggested, then they should seek to repeal Prop. 22 with another initiative, a repeal I would support.) As I have expressed previously, “I fear that the end result of this legislation will be an amendment to the state’s constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Today’s vote does a disservice to those who truly seek state recognition of gay marriage in the Golden State–indeed in any state. Instead of trying to lobby the most out-of-touch state legislature in America, advocates of gay marriage should be making their pitch to the American people. Because if we can change their minds, then we could better create a climate in this nation where state legislatures — and the citizens who elect them — would support state recognition of our unions.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

PS I am on vacation now and will have more to say on this anon.

Share

33 Comments

  1. I dunno, Dan. I think this is a step in the right direction. At least this time, it was a representative group, out of touch with the voters, that made it happen.
    Californians at least this time can do something about it if they don’t like it.

    Comment by njz — September 1, 2005 @ 7:10 pm - September 1, 2005

  2. njz, please note the post where I say I would be singing a different tune had Golden State voters not already expressed their views on this issue.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 1, 2005 @ 7:14 pm - September 1, 2005

  3. […] Today the Gay Lobby of America had a huge success to add to the crushing defeats of the 2004 election. The GayPatriot Reports: If this bill had passed in a state whose citizens had not already voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, I would be singing an entirely different tune. I believe that elected state legislatures, rather than courts, should set the criteria for marriage in their jurisdictions. But, certain states, like California, where the state Senate approved today a bill recognizing gay marriage, allow for initiative and/or referenda to amend the state’s constitution or otherwise make law. Read on here. When a Proposition is placed before the voters, you can be sure that conservative activists such as myself will be there to be sure it is soundly defeated. This matter is already already been put to a vote and it has been determined that Californians do not want “Garriage” to mean the same thing as Marriage. […]

    Pingback by SoCalPundit » Gay Marriage Rammed Through The Legislature In California — September 1, 2005 @ 7:29 pm - September 1, 2005

  4. What are the prospects for getting this passed the other house of the legislature? Or the Gubernator?

    If it’s just a show of support, it probably is more harm than good. If it really could get passed, it might end well.

    Comment by Clint — September 1, 2005 @ 7:34 pm - September 1, 2005

  5. While I am cheering this event as a step towards equality, I understand the issue with the legislature passing a bill which by all measurable indications is not inline with the majority of the people. I know and believe that the CA State Leg. does many, many things which the people don’t want (what elected body doesn’t?). However, in CA of all places, this bill (and a law if it makes it that far) will have a chance to change perception once it is law. People will see (as they are beginning to see in Mass.) that no sky fell, no society crumbled once these rules were put in place. It’s going to be hard going, but it’s going to take mavericks like this, in some ways, to move things forward.

    Comment by Daniel Montiel — September 1, 2005 @ 7:56 pm - September 1, 2005

  6. Big Gay-Marriage News in CA (California, Not Canada)

    Marriage equality is one step closer to reality in California. How wonderful it would be to add a state where I could legally intend to reside without jeopardizing my own marriage. And a warm state, at that. OIther bloggers: BlogCabinCA hopes the bill …

    Trackback by The Malcontent — September 1, 2005 @ 8:43 pm - September 1, 2005

  7. Yes, but Daniel, sometimes, it’s “mavericks” like this who think they are moving the ball forward but are really let it roll backwards.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 2, 2005 @ 12:47 am - September 2, 2005

  8. I’m a straight, Libertarian-Republican, supporter of gay marriage who was aghast at the Mass court decision as being counter-productive. My attitude was and is that only legislatures (or initiatives) ought to break this ground, as the sorry history of Roe shows the danger of court-led changes of this sort.

    Yet I don’t see the danger you see, assuming that Schwarzenegger signs it. The Legislature has the power to overturn any law, even if it was passed by initiative. This is a democratic process and even a follow-up referrendum will be democratic. Since at least some of the impetus for prior action was to forestall the courts, it does not at all follow that such a referrendum would be sucessful.

    The thing to be truly feared is for the CA Supremes to interject themselves. Should that happen the backlash will be unfortunate and fairly permanent. The legislative solution, one way or the other, may be the only means of preventing that.

    Let it play out.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — September 2, 2005 @ 1:46 am - September 2, 2005

  9. Kevin–my fear is that this gives impetus to those who want a more sweeping ban than is already in place.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 2, 2005 @ 2:17 am - September 2, 2005

  10. No it’s you never being satisfied when anything positive comes for gays. That’s all it is. Every Californian could vote for gay marriage and you’d still bitch about how it is turning those in other states against the gays. The common theme on this issue on this blog is that we shouldn’t be allowed marriage until we’ve “earned” it and everyone in America is okay with it. Well some of us won’t be alive to see that day. And the waiting is tiresome.

    Comment by Britton — September 2, 2005 @ 10:32 am - September 2, 2005

  11. Amen Britton.

    Dan, you say you “fear this gives impetus to those who want a more sweeping ban than is already in place.” Name any civil rights movement in America that was successful because its proponents waited, delayed, refused to push ahead out of fear of something worse. What an amazing rationale for non-action on a civil rights issue.

    You’re a gay man, for chrissakes, and as such, you OUGHT to be keenly interested in as rapid a movement toward marriage equality as possible. The fact that you offered that particular excuse for inaction (and in the process, set the bar higher at public initiative) tells me there’s more going on here than just a concern about public-acceptance-before-change. I think it’s your partisanship bleeding through: you know your dear GOP is firmly against marriage equality and that all of the legislative support FOR marriage equality to this point has been driven by Democrats. I think that’s your problem. Just look at the vote-by-party in ALL of the state legislative votes on civil unions or gay marriage (Vermont ‘00, Connecticut ’05, Oregon ‘05, and now California ’05). In each one, it has been the Democrats who’ve been bringing home the bacon for gay people and, being a consummate partisan, you don’t like it. Here are the legislative votes:

    In Vermont, April 2000:
    Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 11 (GOP all)
    House – FOR = 79 (59 DEMS, 15 Gop, 4 Prog, 1 Ind)
    House – AGAINST = 68 (51 GOP, 16 Dems, 1 Ind)
    Signed by DEM Governor

    In Connecticut, April 2005:
    Senate – FOR = 27 (21 DEMS, 6 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 9 (6 GOP, 3 Dems)
    House – FOR = 85 (71 DEMS, 14 Gop)
    House – AGAINST = 63 (37 GOP, 26 Dems)
    Signed by GOP Governor (a liberal you like)

    In Oregon, July ‘05
    Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 10 (9 GOP, 1 Dem)
    The GOP-controlled House refused to allow a vote there.

    And now in California:
    Senate – FOR = 21 (ALL 21 DEMS)
    Senate – AGAINST = 15 (14 GOP, 1 Dem)

    The vast majority of the Republican Party has been trying, over and over again, to tell you how much it despises you and doesn’t care about your rights. When will you, and our other gay brothers and sisters here, get the message?

    Comment by Reader — September 2, 2005 @ 11:33 am - September 2, 2005

  12. Dan, we agree. Many of us who are Mark Leno’s constituents can’t believe he’s decided to push this bill at this time. I think, no I know, his ego is larger than our collective interests.

    The people of CA have already decided once that marriage is between one male and one female — by 60%, as you noted. While I think there’s been a favorable shift toward gay-inclusive marriage, I don’t think it’s close to 50%.

    Now will come the religious zealots to fight back. They’ve already begun a campaign to eliminate the domestic partners’ act that the state passed earlier. They will easily get on the ballot. There’s a less than 50% chance that they’ll succeed, but now they’ll have an even better argument: Domestic partnerships were a Trojan Horse to get gay-inclusive marriage. To fight the homosexual agenda, we must vote against domestic partners. Ergo, GLBT lose, the RR wins.

    Mark Leno couldn’t have provided the religious reich any better fodder upon which to use against GLBTs in the fight to keep domestic partners. If you know Leno, you’d know his ego is bigger than his brains. Unfortunately, it is a strategic howler for THEM vs. us. Sadly, we can our own worse enemies.

    Comment by Stephen — September 2, 2005 @ 12:55 pm - September 2, 2005

  13. You’re a gay man, for chrissakes, and as such, you OUGHT to be keenly interested in as rapid a movement toward marriage equality as possible. The fact that you offered that particular excuse for inaction (and in the process, set the bar higher at public initiative) tells me there’s more going on here than just a concern about public-acceptance-before-change. I think it’s your partisanship bleeding through: you know your dear GOP is firmly against marriage equality and that all of the legislative support FOR marriage equality to this point has been driven by Democrats.

    LOL….of course, the amusement comes when you confront these strident gay Democrats with this:

    Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.
    The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

    In a separate interview with Kansas City’s NBC affiliate, Kerry reiterated that he and Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, although they favor civil unions.

    “We’ve always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves,” Kerry said. “… We didn’t need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what’s right.”

    Need more?

    U.S. Sen. John Kerry, visiting Louisiana for a forum on children’s health care, criticized the Massachusetts Democratic Party for its expected approval of a statement in the party platform in support of same-sex marriage.

    “I think it’s a mistake” Kerry said. “I think it’s the wrong thing, and I’m not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state.”

    This is of course, virtually identical to what Kerry and his fellow Democrats were saying all last year, as I pointed out — and that Reader and his fellow liberal gays were last year calling those “pro-gay”, “gay-supportive”, and in line with the promise of “full inclusion” and “equality”. Heck, they, with Mike Rogers as an example, were protecting Democrats who voted for the FMA and MPA; indeed, Joe Solmonese, who along with Emily Malcom was criticized for giving FMA supporter Inez Tenenbaum $300k because she was pro-choice, said those who criticized FMA-supporting Democrats and the gays who supported them were missing the “big picture”.

    Again, as I pointed out elsewhere, Reader, if your concern was truly marriage equality, you’d be incensed at gay people like Mike Rogers and Joe Solmonese protecting bigoted Democrats and bragging about the fact. You’d be blasting the major gay organizations for not only calling Kerry and his stances “pro-gay”, but giving him millions of dollars in time and support to push his message of banning gay marriage. Heck, you’d even be able to CALL Kerry’s and other amendment-supporting Democrats’ stances antigay, instead of trying to equivocate that gays don’t really need or deserve full equality in order to explain why your massas show on a regular basis that their definition of “equality” means “permanent second-class citizen”.

    However, as my post about irony showed, you only care about marriage equality or gay equality when it can be used to advance the Democrats; when not, you’ll support voting against it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 2, 2005 @ 12:58 pm - September 2, 2005

  14. Stephen, you are absolutely correct.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 2, 2005 @ 12:59 pm - September 2, 2005

  15. While one of my critics (Britton) tells me how I think, another (Reader) tells me how I “OUGHT” to think. Amazing. And both get my positions wrong.

    First of all, Britton, you should know better given how much time you spend commenting to the blog. Or maybe you just comment and don’t bother to read but a few lines of my posts. I never said we shouldn’t be allowed marriage. Moreover, you say I’m “never being satisfied when anything positive comes for gays.” Guess you didn’t bother to read this post where I heralded Connecticut’s vote on civil unions. Indeed, I posted two pieces (within twenty-four hours) praising Connecticut for its legislation (here as well).

    You claim I’d bitch, yet had you bothered to read this post (the one to which you commented) you would note that I said I would not be criticizing the Senate vote had Golden State citizens not already voted on the issue. I made very clear that I favor repealing Prop. 22 the same way it was enacted by citizen initiative. Maybe I should have made it clearer that I am criticizing the arrogance of the state legislature.

    And Reader, your very post shows that certain gay people expect us all to think the same way on political issues. Telling me what I OUGHT to be interested in. And then you ramble on to attack the GOP, claiming it’s my partisanship bleeding through while offering some meaningless pablum about delaying civil rights’ movement. I am not offering an excuse for inaction. I merely said that I thought the California Senate was not taking the appropriate action given the situation.

    Excuse for inaction? In this post, I favor a referendum to repeal Prop. 22 while in this post, I offer a strategy for defeating a proposed CA state constitutional amendment barring state recognition of same-sex marriage as well as civil unions.

    I’m merely pointing out the facts and articulating a view that I have expressed since I first started blogging on gay marriage–that those who favor gay marriage need to address their concerns to the citizens of the various states and express their concerns in terms that most people use to discuss marriage. And to start it off, I’d junk the expression “marriage equality.” In short, I believe they have the wrong strategy; the success of every state initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman helps prove my point.

    Don’t tell me how I think or attempt to ascribe my motives to my partisanship. Indeed, I regret that many in my party oppose even civil unions. Once again, you both get my ideas (& indeed my motivations) wrong.

    Like so many on the left who criticize President Bush, it seems you guys are more interested in attacking me than in addressing the issues I raise.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 2, 2005 @ 1:03 pm - September 2, 2005

  16. Stephen and ND 30, thanks for you words of support. Stephen, thanks for “getting” my point and for agreeing with me. 🙂

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 2, 2005 @ 1:08 pm - September 2, 2005

  17. I “get” your point. I just think you are an apologist for those who think we’re asking for something we shouldn’t be asking for. And anytime something even remotely positive happens, you have to find the negative aspects and rather than herald the bravery to make people question whether gays should be denied, you think we should shut up before we piss off to many people. And if that isn’t what you think, then it is certainly how it comes off in this blog. And there are plenty of commenters here who echo that sentiment. I’m sure deep down you and everyone here thinks we should have marriage equality. I just think your notion that we shouldn’t rock the boat to get is absurd. So sorry if I was seemingly reading your thoughts incorrectly, but it comes from this and plenty of other posts and comments from your devoted readers. All NDT can ever do is bring up John Kerry. Who gives a rat’s ass about him anymore. Yes, we know. John Kerry, Bill CLinton, big anti gay assholes. Or rather, politicians. I don’t really see what either of them had to do with this post regarding California. And if your sad attempt to use two or three Democrats who aren’t as gay friendly as we might have hoped should equate to the idea the Democratic Party is no better on gay rights and equality than the Republican party, you’re simply delusions. The votes that occur show time and time again which party represents gay equality when that issue is the only one on the ballot. I agree with your sentiments on John Kerry. I do not however think that means Republicans get a pass.

    Comment by Britton — September 2, 2005 @ 2:15 pm - September 2, 2005

  18. No, Britton, you don’t get my point.

    In my previous comment, I helpfully linked my posts on Connecticut civil unions where I heralded the good news of something positive happening. Yet, despite that evidence, you repeat your false accusation that I only find the negative.

    Nor have I ever said that we should shut up lest “we piss off to (sic) many people.” Indeed, the very strategy I have advocated requires people to speak out. And indeed, should people so speak out, they would indeed piss a number of people off, social conservatives as well as some radical gay activists.

    Where did I say we shouldn’t rock the boat? As a gay Republican, I “rock” some kind of boat every time I speak out.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 2, 2005 @ 2:30 pm - September 2, 2005

  19. And if your sad attempt to use two or three Democrats who aren’t as gay friendly as we might have hoped should equate to the idea the Democratic Party is no better on gay rights and equality than the Republican party, you’re simply delusions.

    And there you have it, folks……while Britton turns all purple and screams “antigay hatemongering superstitious idiotic bigot” when Republicans vote for the FMA and MPA, Democrats who do it just “aren’t as gay-friendly as we hoped”. Moreover, apparently “only two or three” of them voted for the FMA and/or MPA, which is not exactly supported by the vote counts, but hey — they’re Dems, so it must be true, right?

    So in other words, even if you vote for the FMA and MPA, you’re still gay-friendly. That jibes, I guess, with their belief that state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” — or at least they are when the right party candidates are pushing them.

    Of course, they also ignore that, when it comes down to the actual Democratic VOTERS in blue states like Oregon and Michigan, Democrats are more than willing to support stripping gays of rights.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 2, 2005 @ 3:19 pm - September 2, 2005

  20. NDT – what are you talking about? FMA/MPA isn’t a topic here nor were we discussing it. You are the one who tries to prove some point that because some Democrats do not appear to support gay marriage equality that anyone who is a Democrat is as much of a hypocrite as a gay person who is a republican. Which is just absurd. The Republican party has said officially as part of their platform that they do not support marriage equality. Their leader does not support it. Whenever votes occur, the percentage of Democrats compared to Republicans who vote for equality on any level is far higher. And it predominately BLUE states is where there is even a chance that marriage for gays is a reality. But somehow the reason why it isn’t possible in red states is because of liberals or Democrats pushing for it in blue states? It isn’t possible because the people in red states who push bans are bigots. Lay the blame where it belongs. I wont’ deny that there are democrats who do not support and who vote against marriage equality. But I can’t think of many, if any, Republicans who have voted FOR it.

    Comment by Britton — September 2, 2005 @ 5:39 pm - September 2, 2005

  21. You are the one who tries to prove some point that because some Democrats do not appear to support gay marriage equality that anyone who is a Democrat is as much of a hypocrite as a gay person who is a republican.

    “Some Democrats”, my ass. Howard Dean doesn’t support marriage equality. John Kerry doesn’t support marriage equality. Bill Clinton doesn’t support marriage equality.

    The Democratic Party platform says that they support “full inclusion” and “equality”, but the Party chairman, the Party Presidential candidate, and the Party spiritual leader (Bill Clinton) oppose gay equality. Indeed, when gays actually GOT marriage equality in Massachusetts, John Kerry opposed it.

    Of course, Britton, you just spin that fact to make second-class citizenship “equality” and claim that banning gay marriage is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 2, 2005 @ 6:10 pm - September 2, 2005

  22. Dan, you say you support certain types of marriage-equality legislation without a partisan motive and link to two of your own posts to prove it. Let’s take a closer look at those two posts…(reading Dan’s links in #15 above)…Well, my my, turns out your links are even misleading. In both, we find that you used the CT. news as a vehicle to hump the legislation as a “Republican” triumph, putting the word “Republican” in bold-face font IN BOTH POSTS to underscore why you took joy in the CT. bill as a “Republican” led victory, while ignoring (i.e., never once mentioning) the fact that IT WAS DEMOCRATIC VOTES THAT brought us that triumph. Can you not freaking read the vote tallies?

    Well, neither can NDT, who will, in his final breaths, be gasping about John Kerry and all his Democrat villains in a last attempt to lay a smokescreen for the anti-gay bigotry (and anti-gay legislative votes) of the party he adores against all logic. NDT, re-read Britton in #20. He just lays you flat on your back with your lame excuses for the GOP.

    But we’ll give you one more chance, NDT. Here again are the legislative votes you always ignore. Want to try to explain how these votes DO NOT put the lie to all your weak attempts to ascribe a moral equivalence to the two parties when it comes to gay issues? You won’t. You can’t. Like Dan, you’re a hopelessly partisan Republican. Once again, here are the numbers you have to live with, with a summary header for the scrollers:

    DEMOCRATS ARE BRINGING YOU
    MARRIAGE EQUALITY
    DESPITE GOP RESISTANCE

    In Vermont, April 2000:
    Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 11 (GOP all)
    House – FOR = 79 (59 DEMS, 15 Gop, 4 Prog, 1 Ind)
    House – AGAINST = 68 (51 GOP, 16 Dems, 1 Ind)
    Signed by DEM Governor

    In Connecticut, April 2005:
    Senate – FOR = 27 (21 DEMS, 6 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 9 (6 GOP, 3 Dems)
    House – FOR = 85 (71 DEMS, 14 Gop)
    House – AGAINST = 63 (37 GOP, 26 Dems)
    Signed by GOP Governor (a liberal you like)

    In Oregon, July ‘05
    Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 10 (9 GOP, 1 Dem)
    The GOP-controlled House refused to allow a vote there.

    And now in California:
    Senate – FOR = 21 (ALL 21 DEMS)
    Senate – AGAINST = 15 (14 GOP, 1 Dem)

    Comment by Reader — September 3, 2005 @ 9:32 am - September 3, 2005

  23. Want to try to explain how these votes DO NOT put the lie to all your weak attempts to ascribe a moral equivalence to the two parties when it comes to gay issues?

    Easy. None of them explains why your party chairman, party Presidential candidate, and party spiritual leader supports antigay bigotry and depriving gays of true marriage equality.

    You can toss empty “civil unions” votes around all you want, Reader. But as has been shown, even the vaunted solution of “civil unions” doesn’t count as “full equality”, and you will praise and protect people who deny you full marriage equality on a Federal level and on a state constitutional level because they’re Democrats.

    As someone experienced in local politics, I can tell you that there are a lot of gay-friendly Republicans; Dallas and Fort Worth wouldn’t have some of the most progressive nondiscrimination ordinances in the country, as well as gay elected and appointed officials, if there weren’t. However, whenever I point that out, you and yours continually say that local doesn’t count, it’s the actions of national leadership that do.

    Then when I point out the actions of YOUR national leadership…….

    As I’ve said before, Reader, the challenge to equality doesn’t come from Republican opposition. It comes from people like yourself and Britton who will stand idly by and let candidates promote blatantly anti-equality positions because of the “D” after their names. Your party’s platform promises “full inclusion” and “equality”; make them live up to it or admit that you’re happy with the second-class citizenship that Dean, Kerry, and Clinton think you deserve.

    I can understand why civil unions carry seductive promise to you, given the length of your relationship. However, they’re not marriage equality, nor will they ever be; furthermore, their enaction makes it more and more difficult to ultimately reach marriage equality.

    Votes of support for gay rights are always appreciated, regardless of party. But votes done for the purpose of pandering and that do not reflect voters’ wills (such as the disconnect between Californians’ support of Proposition 22 and the Assembly’s vote on gay marriage) are more of a danger than they are a help and should be avoided.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 3, 2005 @ 11:21 am - September 3, 2005

  24. I think we all need perspective. For gawd’s sake, less than 40 years ago gays and lesbians couldn’t congregate in bars without harassment. Stonewall reversed that. Over the intervening years, gays have made significant gains on a number of fronts, slowly I admit, but gains nonetheless.

    Now gay-inclusive marriage is the right thing, but obviously non-gays still have some problems with it. Let’s let each miracle (e.g., Mass.) show non-gays that gay-inclusive marriage is not as horrific as the religious reich portrays it. Give it some time to germinate in the public’s opinion.

    We all want revolutionary change, but politics is more than expedience. It requires timing. I don’t think THIS is the time, so soon after Prop. 22, to demand gay-inclusive marriage. Let’s let domestic partnerships also show that marriage-light is not the boogeyman that others claim it is.

    The United States is a cerebrally-slow country. It take more time here than anywhere else for equality, fairness, and uniform rights to become apparent. Just look at how many Americans are still anxious about the theory and facts of evolution, for gawd’s sake. And that’s science!

    If scientists and reason don’t work with a significant number of Americans, it’s going to take time to help them see that gays don’t cause catastrophes, or molest children, or harm the planet. Accept the fact that in America, everything is “process,” and things take time to germinate.

    Yes, like most, I want gay-inclusive marriage NOW. But my political instincts tell me most Americans, and even most Californians, are not quite ready for it. Give it a few more years. After all, California just legislated domestic partners. Give that time to work itself out, just as the Massachusetts’ marriage laws are allowed to work, too.

    We ARE making progress. But in a backward country like the U.S., things just take longer than more enlightened habitats. We are not Holland, Spain, Canada, etc. Too many people are still bothered by a single verse in Leviticus, for heaven’s sake. It’s both stupid and tragic, but let’s work through the process of enlightenment, forcefully, but with patience.

    Comment by Stephen — September 3, 2005 @ 12:19 pm - September 3, 2005

  25. Let’s put it this way, Stephen…..while your message is spot-on, the denigrating way in which you present it needs work. Namecalling and disrespectful behavior towards the beliefs of others ain’t going to do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 3, 2005 @ 12:30 pm - September 3, 2005

  26. NDT: you’re not one who should be chiding Stephen for “namecalling” and “disrespectful behavior”. Revisit some of your own posts when you were in dark-side mode.

    And, one more thing: after seeing all the evidence of party votes on civil unions and marriage equality, is the best you can do this — calling them “empty ‘civil unions’ votes”? You can’t be serious. Sounds like a line one would use when no other line is available.

    The funny thing is: I KNOW you know it’s the Democrats who are leading the way for us; you just can’t bring yourself to admit that. And a what a sad condition for an otherwise bright man.

    Comment by Reader — September 3, 2005 @ 5:30 pm - September 3, 2005

  27. Revisit some of your own posts when you were in dark-side mode.

    Feel free to point them out.

    And, one more thing: after seeing all the evidence of party votes on civil unions and marriage equality, is the best you can do this — calling them “empty ‘civil unions’ votes”? You can’t be serious.

    They are empty. Civil unions are not full inclusion or equality. Why should I settle for anything else? Moreover, why should the activities of local Democrats in any way excuse the antigay bigotry of their leadership, especially when the activities of local Republicans do not?

    The funny thing is: I KNOW you know it’s the Democrats who are leading the way for us; you just can’t bring yourself to admit that.

    I will again refer you to my previous point:

    Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.
    The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

    In a separate interview with Kansas City’s NBC affiliate, Kerry reiterated that he and Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, although they favor civil unions.

    “We’ve always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves,” Kerry said. “… We didn’t need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what’s right.”

    Need more?

    U.S. Sen. John Kerry, visiting Louisiana for a forum on children’s health care, criticized the Massachusetts Democratic Party for its expected approval of a statement in the party platform in support of same-sex marriage.

    “I think it’s a mistake” Kerry said. “I think it’s the wrong thing, and I’m not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state.”

    Now, you’re welcome to call that “leading the way”, just as Bush Rulez called it “promoting gay rights”; but don’t be surprised when the rest of us disagree with you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 3, 2005 @ 9:14 pm - September 3, 2005

  28. Kerry is NOT the issue NDT. He’s now only one Senator among 100.

    The issue here is the votes NDT. Read the legislative votes that I’ve posted twice above. What do those votes tell you? Come on. You can say it (and without thinking “Kerry” even one).

    Those votes are the clearest possible expression of the FACT that the bad old Dems are really the good old Dems when it comes to marriage equality.

    Look, I’m only trying to prepare you for your life in SF. You will thank me someday for providing a factual basis for your shift to liberalism.

    BTW, just as you maintain your storehouse of goodies for that quick cut and paste argument, I’m starting one too. The legislative votes, as they mount, will reside there. Whenever you go into your “Kerry” reflex (which someone here once cleverly described as tourette-like, to the feigned [?] dismay of others), I will trot out those votes for you — something I’m sure you’ve already figured out.

    Comment by Reader — September 4, 2005 @ 8:16 am - September 4, 2005

  29. Kerry is NOT the issue NDT. He’s now only one Senator among 100.

    And he held exactly the same views in 2004 — when you and your fellow liberals called them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Moreover, his views are shared by, as I pointed out, the party chair and the party spiritual leader, as well as the Senate Minority Leader, the House Minority Leader, rising star Barack Obama, Democratic Senate candidate Inez Tenenbaum, New York Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, and others.

    You will thank me someday for providing a factual basis for your shift to liberalism.

    I’m sorry, but there is no “factual basis” for reclassifying support of antigay laws and amendments as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. There is no factual basis for saying that people who oppose gay marriage support marriage equality. There is no factual basis for using votes that specifically exclude gays from enjoying the benefits of heterosexual marriage in exchange for some sort of token legal recognition as proof of supporting “full inclusion” and “equality”, as the Dem platform promises.

    I give you credit for trying to blunt my message, Reader. But I’ve dealt with obscurantists and apologists before, and I’m very good at it. The key is to figure out the one thing they absolutely won’t do and press them against it.

    In your case, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, you absolutely cannot and will not admit that John Kerry’s actions are antigay. By continually pressing that issue, I’ve gotten you to spin such inanities as claiming that the public position of your party’s Presidential candidate and your party’s national leaders doesn’t matter. That becomes particularly piquant and ironic when one considers that your primary argument that all Republicans are antigay is the public positions of their national leaders. As I blogged elsewhere, it leads you to support behaviors that are not helpful to gay rights and, in fact, are rather COUNTERproductive, simply because the person is of the correct party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 4, 2005 @ 12:35 pm - September 4, 2005

  30. #29: “But I’ve dealt with obscurantists and apologists before, and I’m very good at it. The key is to figure out the one thing they absolutely won’t do and press them against it.”

    And you think I haven’t? Which is why we now have a growing compendium of legislative votes to show you on a regular basis.

    Comment by Reader — September 4, 2005 @ 1:50 pm - September 4, 2005

  31. And I’ll be more than happy to reprint my post of above. 🙂

    “Pay no attention to those people on national television! These empty legislative votes granting us permanent second-class citizen status are what’s important!”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 4, 2005 @ 2:49 pm - September 4, 2005

  32. …the public positions of their national leaders
    Tell us about their private positions. This is interesting.

    Comment by anon — September 4, 2005 @ 10:13 pm - September 4, 2005

  33. That’s a switch! Republican governor wants social policy decided by activist judges, not by elected representatives.

    Comment by W.C. Varones — September 7, 2005 @ 9:53 am - September 7, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.