We are somewhat different in our political outlooks, so gay marriage has been something that has come up in conversation.

I appalud this post and much of the commentary, as I think that it gives a much needed and seldom discussed perspective on this complex issue.

One thing that did occur to me, is that gay marriage advocates have an opportunity to puruse their objectives by making common cause with men’s rights advocates. The idea being that in a gay marriage there is no axiomatically aggrieved gender, and it makes a strong compelling case for an equitable split of assets in the case of divorce. Through engagement with men’s rights groups, it could be that it would give gays a way to argue that they understand the profound societal implications of marriage and that, in fact, they seek to bolster and support the institution, such that it is an equitable arrangement in both marriage and divorce for all people, regardless of the particular dangly bits possesed by one, both, or neither of the participants.

Going with the idea that there is no zealot like a convert, perhaps the gay community can take a role as a outspoken advocate of the institution of marriage by focusing on its profound implications, and thereby sidestep a lot of criticism arising from the idea that the gay community has no fundamental respect for the institution of marriage.

In any case, I appreciate your post and the imminently reasonable arguments made here.

Regards,
Peter H.

Totally agree. I believe the fight for “gay equality” is a combination of gay elites who refuse to fully inform and educate their “constituencies” about the mechanics of the law that are at the heart of their crusade, and their followers, who are easily seduced by the divisive hatred the gay left is preaching (and hence, are blind to the nuances between “gay marriage” and civil unions). The elites have no interest in educating their followers about the details because they know that the message of “us” versus “them” is more likely to sustain and finance their mission.

Of course, not all of the followers of the gay elite are blind or ignorant about the nuances–they completely understand the legal difference between “gay marriage” and civil unions, but they prefer to take the unreasonable position that anything short of federal legislation equating gay marriage and heterosexual marriage as indistinguishable is unacceptable. For those types, their obsession with how the rights are LABELED is what exposes their true agenda–and it’s NOT about equal rights. They self-righteously argue that, e.g., a homosexual couple enjoying the protections of community property under a state law label of “civil unions” instead of a state law label of “marriage” is a component of “second-class citizenship,” even though in practice, the community property divisions in the dissolution of a civil union and the divisions of property in a heterosexual divorce would be decided by exactly the same judges, applying identical legal principles. To them, being given the exact same privilege under a different label is “separate but equal,” as if they are being told they have to drink at a different water fountain than straight people. It is, of course, absurd, totally irrational and an insult to minorities who actually suffered under the “separate but equal” charade of the Jim Crow laws.

Hatred, division and victimization pay the salaries of the Lambda lawyers. So, why on Earth would they want their supporters to find out the real truth about the rights they already have and the rights that they don’t have, but are certainly within their grasp if they would stop pursuing the “heterosexual laws are unconstitutional” angle in the courts and focus on getting new laws passes in the state legislatures (laws which reasonable evangelicals would have absolutely no problem with).

The gay community has its own Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons, and like the black elites, the gay elites prefer their constituencies to be ignorant, angry, bitter, outraged and victimized. As usual, it is all about preserving POLITICAL POWER.

If gays really wanted equality they would be pursuing civil unions in the state legislatures (in the states where they don’t already exist), and change would occur even faster than it has been already. The jig is up. It’s not about rights. It’s not about equality.

Then… it’s about revenge on religious conservatives, and/or the concept of having values?

I have mixed reactions to that train of thought. I fear you’re right. I say it myself, sometimes. On the other hand – Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence. It may just be that many gay people are serious about equality, and are just *too stupid* (or too blind, etc.) to know what the reasonable and effective strategies for getting it, would be.

What a load. Religious and social conservatives don’t oppose gay marriage because they are ignorant of the special, heart-warming, cuddly, precious love that two men share or are blind to the “humanity” and “pain” of devoted gay couples who feel alienated and left out of the laws governing marriage. Homosexual culture is EVERYWHERE–not cloistered in the gentrified ghettos of major cities. They know that two men and two women can authentically love each other and (occasionally) commit to a monogamous, life-long relationship (and by “monogamous” I mean the traditional, Webster’s definition; not the gay left’s definition of monogamy which is basically “we fu*k everyone but each other.”)

They oppose “marriage equality” because they see it as an eradication of a sacred covenant that existed 1000s of years before American state legislatures codified it. The religious dimension they ascribe to the institution (between a man and a woman) is completely legitimate and this bullsh*t about “re-tailoring the message” to “change” hearts and minds on the issue is just the same tired approach the gay left employs with every issue–they have ZERO respect for values based on religious principles and label every conservative’s refusal to just “give in” and abandon their pesky and annoying religious beliefs as hate and bigotry. Accordingly, this “fresh,” “new” strategy of making cheesy docu-dramas about gay people in love will end up exactly in the same place these campaigns always end up–with accusations of bigotry and hatred against religious people who in the end, have the integrity to refuse to compromise their beliefs. This crap about religious conservatives coming around on the “marriage equality” issue if they are just “educated” about how sweet and adorable gay couples in love are proves how fundamentally obtuse the gay left is when dealing with religious opposition to their reckless and pointless desire to feel loved and accepted by the entire world.

If gays really wanted equality they would be pursuing civil unions in the state legislatures (in the states where they don’t already exist), and change would occur even faster than it has been already. The jig is up. It’s not about rights. It’s not about equality. If it were, gays would be focused on getting legislation passed so that civil unions are available in all states AND perfectly fine with leaving traditional marriage intact. Most reasonable conservatives have no opposition to gays having their relationships recognized by the government with all the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy, provided that traditional marriage is not eradicated by re-definition (my evangelical, right-wing, hard-core, conservative parents are a perfect example).

Here in California, registered DPs have had the same rights and responsibilities as “spouses” under state law for years. But how has the gay left responded? They’re headed to the California Supreme Court to challenge the state’s definition that marriage is between a man and a woman. To them, all of the rights they can enjoy as DPs under state law are meaningless because they didn’t come at the expense of religious conservatives.

As long as the gay left believes there is a court in the land that is willing to slap religious Americans in the face at the behest of a fraction of the population just because their feelings are hurt, then this fight will NEVER be over.

It never fails; a gay leftist comes along and tears down marriage right while screaming how much they want it.

If they want to defend marriage so much, then why haven’t they changed laws to make divorce more difficult and have people work harder at their marriages?

They have tried their darndest to do so, only to be publicly castigated by leftists and gays like yourself for being “misogynist” and “trying to protect spousal abusers”.

Make up your mind.

And who, inexplicably, rarely have wills, financial proxies, healthcare proxies, domestic partnerships (depending on the state) or anything of the sort that gays and lesbians already can access that would have greatly mitigated or avoided those problems.

Arguing for greater protections and responsibility makes much more sense when you are responsibly accessing the protections you already have.

And before anyone starts arguing that marriage ends all your potential legal problems, two words: Terri Schiavo.

But overall, GPW, this is where I think the issue lies.

They would thus show how marriage changed them, perhaps from carefree individuals to committed spouses.

Marriage does nothing of the sort.

There are millions of heterosexual women and men out there who will tell you that marrying a person in the hopes that marriage will settle them down is a fantasy. As one of them who happens to be a friend of mine once aptly put it, “If you’re not committed before, you won’t be after”; one would think that a culture that worships Liz Taylor would realize that.

ILC has it exactly right. No one is going to believe that gays have any interest in monogamy and commitment when the celebrations of gay culture, i.e. Pride, involve nudity, simulated sex, and other salutes to promiscuity –or gay parents dressing their children in sex slave wear and taking them to sex fairs as part of their “education”. Heck, gay men can’t even bring themselves to state without hedging that leaving cum all over a public steam room is a health hazard and shouldn’t be done.

Everyone knows you don’t give a person more responsibility until they demonstrate that they can be responsible. As ILC suggested, “How about replacing the gay-male-promiscuity culture with a gay-male-monogamy culture – and THEN asking the rest of society for gay marriage?”

Are you speaking of the same institution that results in over 50% divorces within the first 5 years in the US alone? c’mon, you’re using this as an excuse to pander to your straight conservative pals. If they want to defend marriage so much, then why haven’t they changed laws to make divorce more difficult and have people work harder at their marriages? It’s probably because the same leaders who blather on about marriage, morals, etc are the same ones who are committing these same atrocities (ala’ Newt Gingrich banging his soon-to-be 3rd wife while he was still married to his 2nd wife – and condemning Clinton for his marital infidelity at the same time). Like Julia Roberts said in Steel Magnolias – “an ounce of pretension is worth a pound of horse manure”.

Let California Ring is a public education campaign to open hearts and minds about the freedom to marry and the respect, support, protections, and responsibilities that come with marriage.

It seems the organizers are still stuck, pathetically, on the stereotype that anti-gay-marriage individuals (I won’t call them “conservatives”, because many of them are actually *Democrats) are anti-gay-marriage because of “closed hearts and minds”.

Yup. That’ll work, as a message. Insult the very people whose “hearts and minds” you allegedly want to “open”. That’ll work.

How about if, instead of insulting those people who are skeptical of gay marriage, the gay side inquired into the real and valid reasons for such skepticism? And then answered it by showing how gay marriage will benefit, NOT gays, but *society*?

Take all those gay male epidemics – AIDS, super gonorrhea, super staph, etc. Wouldn’t it benefit the average soccer mom (i.e., society) if masses of gay men weren’t always out there out literally f*cking themselves to death? But the proposed change has to be credible. How about replacing the gay-male-promiscuity culture with a gay-male-monogamy culture – and THEN asking the rest of society for gay marriage?

Nah. All that would require too much self-examination, and too much commitment. Anyone who tried it would face the gathered wrath of the innumerable Gay Left apparatchiks.

We all know that getting to know someone personally can do a lot more to change minds than sound bites. If the person making the movie goes through a transformation, it will have a much larger impact on the audience.
If this doesn’t happen, and the film maker comes out against gay marriage. Then we’d have a clear indication that there is a very long road ahead on this issue.

That said in your third comment, you offer the best one-line critique of the flick — a lot of sound bytes, but I don’t see that human connection which is so essential. Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.

oh, and, it’s pretty interesting to note that two of our most frequent critics pretty much agree with me on this one.

I believe that above all Americans are fair and just. But I agree that arguing for marriage on the basis of “rights” is not a winning argument. Too many people believe the likes of Ann Coulter (who claimed, wrongly, that no gay partner was ever denied hospital visitation rights). People need to see committed couples and hear their stories. And in order to do that we have to get beyond sound bites and slogans. Slogans are how we lose. Going beyond that is how we win.

I think part of the problem is that too many in the leadership of gay rights organizations spend too much time in urban liberal communities (not that there’s anything wrong with those) and don’t confront people who are not overtly homophobic but have a problem with gay marriage. A lot of people don’t actually know any gay couples and probably very often the gay couples living outside the gay ghettos don’t feel comfortable openly discussing their relationship with straight people.

[Well said, very well said. --Dan]

We need to open up the dialogue. And again this is another example of how a top-down approach to politics has hurt gay people (and progressives for that matter). Focus on the Family and similar groups are organized all over the country to make sure we don’t get to marry. We are mostly organized in the large cities where people are already sympathetic to our issues. That has to change or we will continue to lose these ballot initiatives in the heartland.

They need to work on that.

And… i’m done.

If you’re making a video for an issue like this, it’s foolish to try to make a piece that is going to change someone’s mind instantaneously, because that’s not how the mind works on issues like this. When presented with new, compelling information, one is unlikely to change his or her mind that quickly. A change in minddset will only come later, maybe days and weeks after the information has had a time to “settle” and the individual has had a chance to rationalize it with their existing viewpoint.

So, what should be the filmmakers goal? You want the viewer to go away thinking just one thought:

They looked like good people.

If you can make the viewer think that, and make it stick, there’s a good chance you’ve got ‘em.