I’ve largely refrained from commenting on the recent decisions by the High Courts of Georgia and New York, both of which are a setback to same-sex marriage. About all I have said in reaction on my own blog is the following:
I was going to comment on this yesterday, but I really didn’t have anything to say then and I don’t really have anything to say now. While I do prefer this being handled by the legislatures and not the courts, all I can say about these rulings is that I’m a little disappointed and not surprised at all. Our generation will have to lay the groundwork for the next.
I agree with Dan that liberal gay groups have overreached and instead of settling for something like civil unions for now and building upon this, we have seen a backlash which is taking even this option away and leaving us nothing in return. Thus far about 40 states have some kind of legal prohibition against same-sex marriage. As of this moment 20 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriages, with many extending this to civil unions as well, and the numbers of states doing this is only growing. The strategy and tactics employed by these groups have proven to be a spectacular failure. Having said this, the reaction of many to these most recent court rulings leaves me somewhat puzzled at the fuzzy reasoning being used. I have seen this around the blogosphere and one finds them throughout the comments to Dan’s posting. Yesterday I posted an ‘update’ to my original remarks on this and would like to put them here as well:
Ok, I can’t resist this one. I’ve seen this reasoning on a number of blogs that marriage isn’t a “right”, which I actually agree with to an extent, along with the admonition that legislatures should not be bypassed by “activist judges”, something that generally annoys me as well. Yet I have to wonder sometimes if the epithet “activist judges” is mainly employed when one’s own ox is being gored. Typical of what can be found on many blogs is this from The Bullwinkle:
I don’t care one way or the other if gays marry but I do care about people trying to demand rights and trying to bypass the legal system using activist judges. Claiming to have rights nobody has won’t help your case one bit and the backlash from it probably hurts it.
One question for this blogger and the others whom have taken this approach: Do you believe the Lovings were wrong “to demand rights” and “bypass the legal system using activist judges”?
I’m not asking about the prudence, or lack thereof, of seeking redress through the courts, but just what the difference here is? At the present time I see very little. Any thoughts?
“settling for something like civil unions for now and building upon this”
There are a couple of problems with this appoach today. First, it’s borderline dishonest if your intent is ultimately SSM and if you’re completely upfront about your intent, then the opposition – which also opposes civil unions – will still seek to ban SSM and also ensure that a by-product is a ban on any recognition of our relationships. Another problem is that unlike a decade or two ago, SSM IS a reality in a number of other countries and it’s not clear to me and many others why American gays should accept an inferior status even if it is “temporary.” Finally, we have accomplished so much, wouldn’t it now represent a “cut and run” approach to abandon SSM and switch to pushing for civil unions?
I”ve read the Boston Globe is giving its gay/lesbian employees the option of getting married or having their domestic partner benefits removed. Gays will have to marry to keep benefits for their partners.
What is the actual marriage rate in Mass for gays now?
First, it’s borderline dishonest if your intent is ultimately SSM and if you’re completely upfront about your intent, then the opposition – which also opposes civil unions – will still seek to ban SSM and also ensure that a by-product is a ban on any recognition of our relationships.
I don’t know how it could be considered “dishonest” when the ultimate goal of SSM is hardly a secret. It’s a step in the right direction and give us far more than what we have now, which if you’ll recall for most gay American couples is nothing. Many of the groups who oppose SSM will undoubtedly do likewise with civil unions yet if polls are to be given any creedence most Americans are more comfortable in supporting them rather than full SSM.
Another problem is that unlike a decade or two ago, SSM IS a reality in a number of other countries and it’s not clear to me and many others why American gays should accept an inferior status even if it is “temporary.”
Besides the fact that the USA is not like these other countries, and indeed delights in being contrarian to many of them, cold hard reality should be one clue. Have you been asleep while a growing number of states have added SSM bans to their constitutions and ZERO have freely allowed them?
Finally, we have accomplished so much, wouldn’t it now represent a “cut and run” approach to abandon SSM and switch to pushing for civil unions?
No, it’s a recognition that this country needs more time and a change in strategies will give those of us who have to wait something at least in the meantime.
I”ve read the Boston Globe is giving its gay/lesbian employees the option of getting married or having their domestic partner benefits removed. Gays will have to marry to keep benefits for their partners.
Assuming the rules are the same for straights, I have absolutely no problem with this.
-I agree with Dan that liberal gay groups have overreached and instead of settling for something like civil unions for now and building upon this, we have seen a backlash which is taking even this option away and leaving us nothing in return.-
The problem is assuming that this would not have happened even without a gay marriage ruling. This was done primarily for political purposes. In 2003, I remember major Republicans saying if gay marriage was not legalized, they would run against civil unions, because they felt those were the same as gay marriage. Many of the legislatures which have passed these amendments are hostile to gay people and were before the MA ruling. Other states which have passed these have passed them via the petition process, and you are going to be able to find enough anti-gay signatures in most states with little problem, with or without the MA ruling.
It’s easy to say that this type of legislation only passes because gays push too far, and that certainly is a factor, but often, the money and the political motivation of those behind this legislation is going to win out regardless of what gays do. Remember things like Amendment 2, which were spurred on because of a few cities in Colorado that passed anti-discrimination ordinances. It isn’t fair to say that gays deserved a backlash because the democrcatically elected city council members in some cities passed ordinances.
This gay ‘marriage’ issue is so yesterday’s news that I can’t believe its still getting attention on this or any other blog. Face it, people: gays are NOT going to be able to legally get “married” – in the USA – ever. Not after those boneheads on the Mass Supreme Court and that idiot San Francisco mayor tried to pull an end run on the nation but got stiff-armed at the goal line by an overwhelming majority of American citizens. That’s right…THESE are the assclowns who blew it for those of you out there who think this new-found “right” was even ours to begin with, which of course it is not.
Hopefully, threads on this no-longer-relevant topic will become fewer as the days and months pass and discussions will return to the more urgent and timely matters that face ALL Americans, like, ummm, how to kill the Islamofascist terrorists before they kill us, perhaps? You remember those guys…the ones who trip over themselves in their own countries to summarily execute gay people just for being gay? I can’t imagine you’ve forgotten about them; they’re on TV all the time telling you to your face how they’re going to chop your infidel heads off.
And on that point, this is specifically to those of you out there who are constantly beating the drum for gay “marriage”: Despite what you may wish to believe, gay people are NOT victims in the United States so stop pretending that you/I/we are. If you somehow feel disadvantaged or unequal or whatever just because you don’t get to march down the aisle with Fred, that’s your cross to bear. And its one which you can lay down at any time if you wanted to, by the way.
Like mine, I daresay your lives are probably pretty good as gay persons in the America of 2006, espcially when compared to the many gays elsewhere in this world who actually are real-life, honest-to-God victims. Of course, their unfortunate status isn’t self-imposed because they can’t get “married” or some similar selfish want. That’s only something that spoiled 21st century gay Americans have the luxury to demand. And on their own terms, no less.
So for those of you who are still out there beating this dead horse, do us all a favor and move on to something else that actually matters, will ya? Gay “marriage” isn’t going to happen here and there’s no use strategizing on how to creatively revive it. The moment has passed and the window is closed and your efforts to keep the subject afloat only make the rest of us look petty. End of discussion. Seriously.
This was done primarily for political purposes. In 2003, I remember major Republicans saying if gay marriage was not legalized, they would run against civil unions, because they felt those were the same as gay marriage.
Yes they did, but enough of the public did not agree to have made this a dicey path to trod.
Many of the legislatures which have passed these amendments are hostile to gay people and were before the MA ruling.
Some indeed would have, others which passed these would not. Many people who oppose SSM are hung-up on the word “marriage”, that’s too much of a big step for them. I believe many of them would be okay with civil unions as long as it didn’t encompass this bug-a-boo, which if polls are to be believed bear this out (or at least did before the hornet’s nest was stirred up).
Other states which have passed these have passed them via the petition process, and you are going to be able to find enough anti-gay signatures in most states with little problem, with or without the MA ruling.
Of course. A step they were not willing to take was thrust upon them and their way of life was threatened in their eyes. If a move had been made for civil unions instead, or something akin to this, it would have made inroads towards the ultimate goal and eased many of these people into the idea.
It’s easy to say that this type of legislation only passes because gays push too far, and that certainly is a factor, but often, the money and the political motivation of those behind this legislation is going to win out regardless of what gays do.
Yes, in some places this is true no matter what. Yet in others I have to wonder how much was a reaction to what was seen as being forced upon them and a backlash which had built momentum and continues to do so on this.
This gay ‘marriage’ issue is so yesterday’s news that I can’t believe its still getting attention on this or any other blog.
And yet you took the time to make a lengthy reply… 😉
It was in the news and was a topic of discussion, so why not?
Face it, people: gays are NOT going to be able to legally get “married” – in the USA – ever.
I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but never say “never”. The same used to be said about interracial marriages here in the United States.
Not after those boneheads on the Mass Supreme Court and that idiot San Francisco mayor tried to pull an end run on the nation but got stiff-armed at the goal line by an overwhelming majority of American citizens.
That’s certainly part of my thinking in this. They blew their wad, so to speak, and it misfired badly.
That’s right…THESE are the assclowns who blew it for those of you out there who think this new-found “right” was even ours to begin with, which of course it is not.
No, it is not our “right” nor anyone else’s to get legally married. However, it is our right and that of everyone else to not face undue discrimination when seeking such. The argument is whether this involves such or not. Some say yes, while a majority at present says no.
Hopefully, threads on this no-longer-relevant topic will become fewer as the days and months pass and discussions will return to the more urgent and timely matters that face ALL Americans, like, ummm, how to kill the Islamofascist terrorists before they kill us, perhaps? You remember those guys…the ones who trip over themselves in their own countries to summarily execute gay people just for being gay? I can’t imagine you’ve forgotten about them; they’re on TV all the time telling you to your face how they’re going to chop your infidel heads off.
I seem to vageuly recall the subject which occupies the bulk of postings on my weblog…
Despite what you may wish to believe, gay people are NOT victims in the United States so stop pretending that you/I/we are.
Never said we were.
If you somehow feel disadvantaged or unequal or whatever just because you don’t get to march down the aisle with Fred, that’s your cross to bear. And its one which you can lay down at any time if you wanted to, by the way.
An attitude the Lovings fortunately did not have in addressing their situation.
Like mine, I daresay your lives are probably pretty good as gay persons in the America of 2006, espcially when compared to the many gays elsewhere in this world who actually are real-life, honest-to-God victims.
Yep. Of course most people’s lives in the USA are better when compared to those living in say the Middle East. A good reminder to bear in mind to avoid the shrillness of idiots like the Kossacks, but not exactly a fair comparison.
So for those of you who are still out there beating this dead horse, do us all a favor and move on to something else that actually matters, will ya?
No can do. When the subject hits the news and strikes my fancy, which actually doesn’t occur that often, I like to exercise my First Amendment rights when I can.
Gay “marriage” isn’t going to happen here and there’s no use strategizing on how to creatively revive it. The moment has passed and the window is closed and your efforts to keep the subject afloat only make the rest of us look petty.
In this generation you may be right, we’ll have to wait and see. Yet to completely drop the issue is unwise as that would mean change will never come which I do not believe is the case.
-Yes they did, but enough of the public did not agree to have made this a dicey path to trod.-
But majority public opinion doesn’t really matter. The legislatures are gerrymanded so that the most extreme lawmakers of both parties are elected. And a majority of people don’t vote. Many of those who do vote are those who are highly partisan or highly inflamed on issues. Most people don’t care about gay marriage.
If it hadn’t been gay marriage it would have been something else. There was a big outcry, fueled by churches, fueled by the press, fueled by politicians, over gays in the military, over sodomy laws being thrown out by courts, over civil unions in Vermont. Ultimately, these things are going to be seen as a horrible sin by a lot of people and pushed into law regardless of what gays do.
This is part of the problem with the idea that if gays are just more cautious and worried, then everything will be fine. We somehow assume that the politicans who exploit us or the hate groups who stigmatize us for money will just move on. We should focus on their tactics instead of just always blaming ourselves.
#2 VinceTN — July 8, 2006 @ 2:15 pm – July 8, 2006
I”ve read the Boston Globe is giving its gay/lesbian employees the option of getting married or having their domestic partner benefits removed. Gays will have to marry to keep benefits for their partners.
I don’t know what you read, but it is likely that it originated from the Globe’s arch-rival Boston Herald here. The Globe’s change in policy is not unexpected–other companies have done or at least threatened the same. What is surprising is that it took so long–over two years–for them to change the policy.
What is the actual marriage rate in Mass for gays now?
The relevance of this to anything being–what?
Regarding civil unions vs. marriage, it strikes me that settling for CUs as a “first step” is a bit naive. Some of us were actually watching what was going on in Vermont during their CU debate and its aftermath in 2000. The anti-gay contingent will attack any state recognition of gay relationships, whatever it’s called, and whatever benefit that it provides. They even try to roll back any anti-discrimination laws and ordinances to the extent that they that include “sexual orientation,” and don’t even want the government to gather statistics that prove anti-gay discrimination, even in public schools. The anti-gay contingent want to pretend that gay people don’t exist, and more than a few gay conservatives are giving them what they want.
Those who are naive will point to Connecticut’s CUs as a victory for the legislative process, but it is a fact that is acknowledged by gay marriage proponents–and even opponents–that in Connecticut there wouldn’t have been a snowball’s chance in hell that the CT legislature would have passe minimal CU protections for gay people in the absence of the “judicial activists” in Vermont and Massachusetts. It really would be nice if gay Republico/conservatives would stop lying about “CUs as an intermediate step,” but, being Republico/conservatives, of course they won’t.
There wasn’t any “meaning” to the question. I just wonder if the numbers of married gays is anything near the number of gays with domestic partner benefits. Will there be mass marriage now or will there be challenges to the new policy?
I think the challenges to America to accept gay marriage was still good overall since it has forced many a bigot to at least offer up civil unions in conversation. We don’t have that many good choices and for Americans its best to go ahead and speak up for ourselves on issues that are important to us.
just a comment on “activist” judges….note that it’s the conservative judges who are the biggest activists…most recently it was roberts, thomas and scalia that tried to overturn oregon’s assisted suicide law..a law that was twice approved by voters.
make no mistake, it’s the conservative jurists who are the biggest activists.
I am one of those who claim that the use of activist judges to accomplish civil change is the core of the problem, and the author of the web site asks if I see any difference between these recent cases and the Loving vs Virginia case.
I would ask him, what is the essential difference between the Loving vs Virginia case, and the Plessy vs Ferguson case? This is my third post here, and I am sticking to my beliefs: You CAN NOT use the courts to gain a right that the ENTIRE COUNTRY is against. You must cause a dramatic effect across the majority of the country – my estimate is a ruling majority in 3/4th of the states – before using the courts to go after the others, can be effective.
In recent gay marriage cases, it’s us against ALL FIFTY STATES. A recipe for disaster, if you try to use the courts. People rightly see the iron boot of tyranny descending. When such a reaction is confined to smaller portions of the states, it can work, though with reverberations. When it is the entire country, it simply CANNOT WORK.
So, back to the Loving vs Virgina case. Your link takes us to Wikipedia’s page, which though slight, has the following: “Despite this ruling, such laws rested unenforced in several states until 2000 when Alabama became the last state to remove its law against mixed-race marriage.”
And there you have it. Laws against miscegenation existed in only a handful of states. Indeed, the Lovings got into trouble when they went BACK to Virginia, and were able to leave the state for friendlier confines while they appealed.
We simply have decaded ahead of us, convincing hearts and minds, and we must be patient. To short-circuit the avenues that actually work, by being greedy and lazy, by attempting to do something that won’t work, by accepting the fascist argument that ends justify the means – the leaders in the gay elite committed themselves to a flawed strategy with terrible repercussions.
Speaking as someone who is not a supporter of SSM, I can honestly say that no one has ever answered my concerns about it. The only response I ever read is, “You’re a stupid bigot.” And, frankly, I find that unpersuasive.
#16 V the K — July 9, 2006 @ 11:02 pm – July 9, 2006
Speaking as someone who is not a supporter of SSM, I can honestly say that no one has ever answered my concerns about it. The only response I ever read is, “You’re a stupid bigot.”
If you post succinct statements of your concerns about SSM (bullet points, if you will), I will examine them. Should I respond, I promise not to call you a “stupid bigot.”
I might read between the lines of your concerns–as we did on the old IndeGayForum message board a few years ago when Justin Raimondo posted his objections to SSM–it turned out that his concerns they had nothing to do with SSM, but instead with the obvious fact that he feared that SSM would elevate SSS (same sex sex) from the demimonde that he preferred for gay sex. But I won’t call you a “stupid bigot.”
“liberal gay groups”
What other kind of gay groups are there, according to this blog?
Framing gay group as “liberal” will really attract sympathy and tolerance and pity (but never ask for equality!) from conservatives. You do the xtnist right’s work for them! They should tip you well–and leave it on the bedside table.
Gawd what a bunch of simpletons at this site.
The fact is that children need a mommy AND a daddy! That’s why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry!! It’s so obvious, you gays can’t seen straight… that’s really the problem.
Michael
#21 Michael — July 10, 2006 @ 3:13 pm – July 10, 2006
Gawd what a bunch of simpletons at this site.
Pot, kettle, black.
The fact is that children need a mommy AND a daddy!
Oh, so what are you going to do when a mother or father dies? Take the children away from the widower or widow?
It’s amusing the number of looney people out there.
I think one can certainly make an argument that a mother and father is better for a child than two fathers or two mothers. I’m not saying I agree; just that I don’t think it’s an argument that can be flippantly dismissed. Sometimes I think that if I were a child again and could choose for myself, I’d choose to have both. But I think maybe the reason is that I would prefer to have conservative parents, and a conservative gay couple just seems like such a rare bird that it’s hard to picture. It would be cool if we could somehow discourage liberals from adopting and having kids, but I have no idea how to accomplish that.
On the other hand, I think it’s quite a reach to argue that two fathers or two mothers is worse than, say, one parent. I would also consider it a reach to argue that bumping a child around through various foster homes is better for a child than having a stable homelife with loving parents of any gender combination.
Sadly, I think the adoption debate has wandered away from the true needs of children. In short, I think it’s bad policy to immediately dismiss someone because they’re a gay couple or a single parent (gay or str8) or because they are a different race than the child; all reasons used by various agencies in various states. I think each case should be decided based on what’s the best possible scenario that can be provided for each child.
Having children is not a stipulation to marriage. It is not a requirement or expectation of marriage. People can marry with the full intent of never having children. So why does that even enter this debate over whether gays should legally be allowed to marry. When you sign a marriage license, reproduction is never mentioned. The two issues are unrelated. To enter it into the debate is ridiculous. As for the previous comments about the Massachusetts folks blowing their was too early…how long do I or any gay person in this country need to wait to be given equal observance under the law as a heterosexual person? If I feel that I should be treated equally under the law, I could be long dead and buried before the time is ever “right.” As many states as have passed bans on gay marriage, the issue has made people have the discussion. And not everyone in this country is running from the idea like you may think. As much as I’ve noticed the bans, I’ve also noticed where the bans are happening. All it will take is one or two more states like NY or CA, both unlikely to ever pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, before I think this will snowball. People are becoming more comfortable with it everyday. Why? Because there is zero reason not to be and they know it. I am not 100% sure I’ll ever see gay marriage in my lifetime. But to think I should wait until the “right” time before I try my best to be treated how I should be treated in this world is horse shit.
I think this buzz word “activist judges” created by Republic spin doctors is nothing more than sound bite politics. Of course Judges need to be active. Every time a person goes in front of them they need to activate the law and make judgements. Thats what they are paid for. Every Judge is an activist Judge – what ever way they rule – if they are not then they are not doing their job.
What a ignorant manipultaive term manufactured with the aim of intimidating and controlling the court. The sadest part is so many Americans have fallen for it.