Gay Leaders Need Resign in Wake of Prop 8’s Passage
Given how often I have criticized the leadership of the various gay groups, perhaps I am not the one to write this post, but it needs be said. And I’m not the only one saying it. Others who do not share my conservative politics also agree that a number of heads of these organizations need step down in the wake of the victory this week of Proposition 8.
At absolute minimum, Geoff Kors needs step down as executive director of Equality California and Evan Wolfson from the same position at Freedom to Marry.
Wolfson need step down because he has long been the architect the “litigation-based mindset that,” Jonathan Rauch believes, “has become counterproductive.” It has led to a backlash at the ballot box with citizens in thirty states voting to codify the traditional definition of marriage.
Kors need resign because of his role in the “No on 8″ campaign.  This was disastrous campaign with strange slogans, first “Equality for All,” later “Unfair and Wrong.” The latter worked wonders with socially tolerant people skeptical of gay marriage, those individuals who see gender as a defining aspect of this ancient institution.
To tell them they’re wrong to have concerns about changing its definition shows an amazing amount of disrespect for their views. After all, the “No” forces are the ones pushing social change. They, like Dr. King, need to learn to appeal to the best in us. Those who spearheaded the opposition to Prop 8 certainly didn’t do that. They spent more time demonizing the opposition than defending gay marriage.
Not just that, Kors was AWOL for part of the campaign. According to Michael Petrelis, he went AWOL in late July, taking a trip to Spain rather than remaining in California to focus on defeating the ballot initiative. You’d think someone concerned about a campaign would delay his vacation until after the election.
Despite the success of ballot initiatives to enshrine a definition of marriage into state constitutions and legal codes that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, gay leaders never take responsibility for their defeats. They always blame someone else. As Patrick Range McDonald, less critical of the leadership of gay organizations than I, opines:
The gay rights movement needs to take a serious look at itself. Gay activists, who I mostly admire, can’t keep blaming evangelical Christians for every loss. It’s like the Boston Red Sox blaming the New York Yankees for being too good all of those years and not doing anything about it. Someone in the front office needs to get fired, the line up needs to be shuffled, new players need to be brought in, and we need to start winning a few championships.
That pretty much sums it up.
56 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You’re going to blame gay leaders when it’s clear that it was religious people and ethnic minorities who caused Prop 8 to pass?
What’s *really* going on here is that you can’t get your head out of your ass/wallet in order to fight the good fight.
Did any of you join HRC and EQCA? Did any of you donate? Did any of you do ANYTHING to help the groups already in place to collect and aim the resources?
You keep on fighting the good fight and sticking with the party who thinks of you as less than human. Keep on fighting.
You have NO right to call for anyone’s resignation.
Comment by God of Biscuits — November 6, 2008 @ 8:20 pm - November 6, 2008
Thanks GoB for making my point and that of Patrick Range McDonald, no conservative he.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 6, 2008 @ 8:43 pm - November 6, 2008
This is a great opportunity to use Barack Obama’s own words (from his “redistributive change” quote)
“
Comment by DaveO — November 6, 2008 @ 8:45 pm - November 6, 2008
(in my previous post, I meant to strikethrough “redistributive change” and add in the bolded text. Sigh. Hopefully you know what I mean.)
Comment by DaveO — November 6, 2008 @ 8:46 pm - November 6, 2008
“can’t keep blaming evangelical Christians for every loss”
Very true, but it’s equally as damaging to ignore their part in it. And who is celebrating today despite Obama’s victory - evangelical Christians, because they “won”, they stomped the evil faggots one more time and saved the world for Beav’ and Wally. And they’re ready to force the GOP to bend to their will or they’ll take their toys and play in another field. Your or them, you both can’t stay.
Comment by Dave — November 6, 2008 @ 8:57 pm - November 6, 2008
No wonder he’s God of Biscuits. He has about as much brains as the Pillsbury Dough Boy.
That, or the only thing between his ears is “poppin’ fresh.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 6, 2008 @ 9:01 pm - November 6, 2008
This sucks. Instead of banning gay marriage, homosexuality ought to be encouraged because it shortens life span by 20-30 years:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9923159
But it’s not enough. To really control population effectively I suggest we bring back smoking by propagandizing it in schools and colleges as yet another cool and chic lifestyle. But not regular smoking, that only takes 5-7 years out of a kid’s average lifespan. What we need is 4-pack a day heavy smoking. That would take out 20-30 years and be on par with homosexuality.
Ideally we should promote heavy smoking and homosexuality together thereby yielding a combined 40-60 year life span reduction. Now that’s real population control efficiency.
Please remember that unless stopped mankind will continue devastating the environment and destroying species after species. It therefore follows that anyone against homosexuality or heavy smoking is anti-earth.
Robert
Comment by Robert — November 6, 2008 @ 9:03 pm - November 6, 2008
Why couldn’t the Yes on 8 people use the legislature? All this moaning about the gay judicial strategy but nothing to say about the referendum strategy for the anti-gay folks? And do you not have to take into consideration, like a good Burke conservative would, empirical reality? Anti-gay folks largely outnumber gay folks. The referendum strategy relies on a majority stripping a minority of their rights. Minorities often have no other way to protect themselves but to go the judicial route. And Constitutions are there to protect minorities from majority rule.
When you say things like:
After all, the “No†forces are the ones pushing social change. They, like Dr. King, need to learn to appeal to the best in us.
I have to wonder where you actually stand. “They” and “us”: where are you? Are you or are you not for equal rights for gay people? You don’t seem to be…
In fact, you seem more concerned with the feelings of anti-gay folks. And make no mistake about it. Try treating the claims of the anti-gay folks the same way you would if it was Obama speaking. Try it, for a minute. Do you actually buy their arguments? Yes on 8 people are planning to go to Massachusetts and Connecticut now. Do you think they are operating in good faith and without animus for gay people? How is it that you can spend so much time with a critical eye on gay strategy, arguments, slogans, etc., but take the anti-gay people at face value?
“Despite the success of ballot initiatives to enshrine a definition of marriage into state constitutions and legal codes that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, gay leaders never take responsibility for their defeats. They always blame someone else.” Like you blaming gay leaders constantly while conservative and Republican organizations bankroll and run these ballot initiatives. Your party, your people, your ideological kin…and you blame gay organizations and the Court that has no other choice but to rule on cases brought before them, and to uphold equality.
I really wonder: do you think Lawrence v Texas was incorrectly decided? In your mind, should some gay people still be considered criminals?
Comment by jimmy — November 6, 2008 @ 9:20 pm - November 6, 2008
We have gay leaders? Where?
We need a Martin Luther King and his march on Washington.
What we get (read that as what people see and remember)
is Gay Pride Parades full of men dressed like Dorthy, guys
in assless chaps and twinks in their underwear.
As much as this election should have taught the GOP that
it needs a drastic revamping, the Prop 8/Arkansas and
Florida votes should teach gay America that we need
to reconsider our own public image and who is speaking
out for us.
I’m not going to blame conservative American, the Mormons
nor anyone else for loss after loss in our movement. We are
our own worst enemies.
Comment by David — November 6, 2008 @ 9:22 pm - November 6, 2008
Yes indeedy, GOB. And I donated throughout the 1990s and early 00s to the Hawaii and Vermont marriage projects. And, as an “out” employee-activist I had helped bring about Domestic Partner benefits at a major trend-setting corporation before it was cool (actually, this helped make it cool). Did you do any of that? Eat sh*t, jerk.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2008 @ 9:26 pm - November 6, 2008
So you’re actually saying in unvarnished terms that it’s the fault of the Gay Liberals and NOT the narrowminded conservative voters who, ummm, VOTED to pass Prop 8?
Our own worst enemies, David? No gay leaders, David? Step up, then.
“ILoveCapitalism”, congratulations on your work.
Author, who writes:
“Despite the success of ballot initiatives to enshrine a definition of marriage into state constitutions and legal codes that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, gay leaders never take responsibility for their defeats. They always blame someone else.”
Always. Blame. Someone. Else.
Riiiiiiight.
Comment by God of Biscuits — November 6, 2008 @ 9:35 pm - November 6, 2008
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Didn’t answer my question, GOB. What have you done for gay rights?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2008 @ 9:44 pm - November 6, 2008
#7: I think they are both to blame. The religious wrong and the Mormons (who only gave up polygamy in exchange for Utah’s statehood and probably would have kept it if they could) for pushing the issue in the first place, and the gay activists who ran a campaign like a legless man would try to run the Boston Marathon. We saw the ads. They may have been cathartic for some of us to watch Mormon missionaries forcibly taking away a lesbian couple’s marriage, but did they actually work?
There are no gay leaders today. No one who has a long-term vision of how to achieve support for our side. When I think of the forty years we could have spent marching on government buildings demanding our rights instead of putting on garish make-up and poofy wigs like a 6-year-old girl rummaging through her mother’s closet. These are the things the 700 Club sends its cameramen out to find. This is not the image we need to project. This is not who we are. This is not what we want young men and women questioning their sexuality to think they must be like to be accepted.
If marriage is a privilege, why don’t gays deserve it? Because they can’t breed with each other? Is marriage just a question of putting tab A into slot B? I always assumed that there is more than that. Is a gay marriage inherently incapable of providing a stable environment for the spouses? We are different, but that does not make us inferior.
How would heterosexuals feel if they were in the shoes of gays? How would they like it if West Hollywood or San Francisco voters decided to invalidate their marriages?
Let it be said right now that I condemn the “Beyond Marriage” types and do not approve in any way of open relationships. Gay marriage should be held to the same standards as heterosexual marriage in terms of fidelity and responsibility. While I have been critical of (and, looking back, needlessly nasty to) heterosexuality, the idea of marriage is a good one. However, they are in no position to judge us when they themselves have problems of their own: 50% divorce rates, infidelity, illegitimacy, and more. That isn’t to say that some gays wouldn’t have those problems, but those are not inherent to sexual orientation, but to the flawed nature of humanity.
We want to live our lives in peace, but if you come at us, we will defend ourselves. You have no right to judge our worthiness. We had marriage in California, and it was robbed from us by the tyranny of the voters. This cannot stand. The results of this election must be overturned.
Comment by Attmay — November 6, 2008 @ 10:18 pm - November 6, 2008
GP, there are problems with your spam filter.
Comment by Attmay — November 6, 2008 @ 10:20 pm - November 6, 2008
Why not include the HRC, who have enabled and channed millions to the Democratic Party and an Obama campaign that didn’t lift a finger to help…and even gave tacit approval to vote against it?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 6, 2008 @ 10:54 pm - November 6, 2008
I still say that we should cut to the chase and go directly to the US Supreme Court for all benefits appurtenant to being married. They can call us what they will (they do anyway, don’t they?), but just give my partner my Social Security.
This litigating every stinking community is absurd.
By the way, biscuit, why do you blame religious people? HATEFUL religious people is whom you should specifically blame, especially since you quote the New Testament when you say “fight the good fight”.
Time is running out.
Comment by Leonidas — November 6, 2008 @ 11:02 pm - November 6, 2008
I dislike evangelical theology quite a bit (and I am qualified to say that), but think about it, you really can’t blame evangelicals for this. I guarantee NO evangelical would have voted for Obama/Biden with their horrid non-stances on abortion and full support of planned parenthood. And, with no support from them, Obama/Biden still won. So, I’d have to say that trying to blame this on the evangelicals, is only prejudicial and scape-goating. There are other things going on there.
Comment by Timothy — November 6, 2008 @ 11:04 pm - November 6, 2008
I feel that the conservatives should go out there and protest the election of BHO on the the grounds of the Democrat majority trampling on the rights of the Republican minority by winning the Presidential election. The Democrats are discriminating against the Republicans for promoting fear, hate and inequality. Why should the winning side get what they want? That is UNFAIR! You will never hear the end of this! You Bigot!
Comment by vic Ferra — November 6, 2008 @ 11:14 pm - November 6, 2008
Dan, this is sort of idiotic. Didn’t you write just a few days ago that you almost voted for 8 on principle?
Admittedly, I am a Democrat (albeit now a increasingly liberal one; call it my counter-reaction to the last few decades, which I started as a conservative NYS Conservative (and a party official at that; not even a Republican) but I have a hard time thinking through how someone could watch the courts support their liberties… watch the legislature support their liberties… and still decide that mob rule was the preferable path, just because they apparently didn’t like some gay leaders or… whatever you’re trying to say.
Maybe the leadership should or shoud not get gone. As a New Jerseyite, (Jerseyan? I haven’t lived here long enough to know the nomenclature) that’s not my vote. But it’s pretty nervy of a weak voice like yours to make that demand.
Are you willing to step in to boldly fill the void? Or will you wait until there’s a support level of… 53? 57% 59% 98%…
Someone has to do it, Dan. Will you? Or will you do the usual thing that happens here and toss Nerf darts at the people who do do it. I don’t know if we’re ever going to agree on much, but I’d respect the Ambiguously Gay Patriots if they blogged less and did more besides belllyache.
After years of lurking and trying to get a read on you and Bruce, I still have no idea what you will support beyond patronization. If that’s what you’re into, it’s fine. I know a lot of people who like to get their head rubbed and told everything is all right.
Comment by Famous Author Rob Byrnes — November 6, 2008 @ 11:50 pm - November 6, 2008
I’m not sure I want effective leadership in liberal groups just because they’re gay.
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2008 @ 12:47 am - November 7, 2008
Jimmy,
Allow me to give you a remedial civics lesson: Referenda are part of the democratic process, judicial activism is not.
MARRIAGE ISN’T A RIGHT! Pleeeease get that through your empty head.
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2008 @ 12:51 am - November 7, 2008
No, Rob, I didn’t say I almost voted for 8 on principle. I did say I almost voted for 8 because I was flustered at all the hate e-mail I was receiving from friends telling me how vile the supporters of 8 were.
I have talked to some, even communicate regularly with another, have listened to their objections and understand they do not hate us, just accept the traditional definition of marriage because they believe sexual difference is essential to the institution.
You make a fair criticism. Perhaps, I should have offered my suggestions on how to combat the initiative in person on this blog, but take a stroll through our archives. Here I’ll make it easy. I provide the links where I offer suggestions on how to best oppose the initiative.
Here, here and here
So, don’t tell me I haven’t done anything. I’ve provided suggestions on how to fight such initiatives and have done so for over three years. Suggestions consistent with the theme of this post.
I would have offered the same sort of suggestions could I meet with the leaders of the gay groups.
But, do you think they’d include me in their councils as they debated strategy? Did they include any Republicans? Perhaps I should have tried so as not to make this question just rhetorical.
Whom do I patronize, Rob? Whom? I’m not the only one calling on gay leaders to resign.
I’m just tired of a gay leadership which bashes social conservatives instead of trying to convince them. And that’s what I do, have done. I have a blog which some social conservatives read. I meet these people when I interact with other conservative bloggers. I take issue with those who would reduce marriage to a relationship between loving individuals and make clear it’s far more than that, letting them know that some gay people see monogamy as integral to marriage.
It’s not activism, but it is something.
If gay groups would welcome me in their councils, I would gladly participate and offer the same sort of suggestions I have on this blog.
But, would they listen?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 7, 2008 @ 1:09 am - November 7, 2008
I’ve always found it easier to talk to people one on one instead of groups. They are more likely to listen and give honest answers. Groups invite peer pressure and makes any real breakthroughs very difficult.
Blogs are possibly a good medium for this since people generally read it in solitary and are allowed to think.
Comment by Timothy — November 7, 2008 @ 1:19 am - November 7, 2008
You are losing the argument, so you resort to personal attacks. Stay classy.
Comment by Attmay — November 7, 2008 @ 1:20 am - November 7, 2008
And as for the other “privileges” to which marriage has been likened, you need to pass a test to get a driver’s license, yet two heterosexuals can basically get married just by virtue of being of the opposite sex, unrelated, and of the right age. Nothing about whether or not they can support each other financially, or what kind of relationship they would have.
Marriage is a right for heterosexuals. I am suggesting that it should be expanded to homosexual couples who meet the other requirements of marriage and NO ONE ELSE. No church, synagogue, or other house of worship would be forced to perform any ceremony that was against their religious beliefs if gay marriage was legal, yet banning gay marriages would forbid religious organizations that wished to perform these marriages to do so.
Marriage has been considered at many times to be a mere business contract and a way of separating the races, which is why there were anti-miscegenation laws on the books for years, until overturned by Loving v. Virginia (which overturned the 1883 ruling of Pace v. Alabama). And there were attempts to introduce anti-miscegenation amendments to the U.S. constitution in 1871, 1912, and 1928. Mercifully, they failed.
Do you really believe the only purpose of marriage is to put tab A into slot B and produce a child? That can be done without marriage.
You say that “gays are allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex.” Well, if they wanted to do that, they wouldn’t be gay. It’s also taken for granted that people who get married to so because they want to be together.
There are benefits to gays of being allowed marriage, emotional, health-related, and financial. Don’t bring up the false analogy of subprime mortgages.
Comment by Attmay — November 7, 2008 @ 1:37 am - November 7, 2008
No, I get tired of arguing with doorknobs who don’t process facts no matter how many times you repeat them.
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2008 @ 1:45 am - November 7, 2008
Yes, BOTH of those are tests. You just noted the test one must pass to get married.
And you only need to look at the black community where 70% of children are born outside of wedlock to see how successful that is! Thats exactly why marriage exists!
Children do FAR better when their mommy and daddy are tied to eachother legally. Ir has a very substantial impact on society.
Do YOU honestly think anyone else in the world, when it comes right down to it, gives a flying fuck if you’re in love or not?
They don’t. Your feelings have ZERO impact on society.
Marriage is about the
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2008 @ 1:53 am - November 7, 2008
Call me crazy, but I don’t see how throwing cocktail parties and taking home a $300K/yr. paycheck could be construed as “fighting”.
Liberals, especially gay ones, have no concept of taking responsibility for their actions. They routinely blame everybody else when they don’t get their way. Look at the 2000 & 2004 elections. They just KNEW that everyone wanted higher taxes, surrender in Iraq, a pussified foreign policy etc. When they lost, they blamed Bush and the ignorant hicks in the South and Midwest.
Gay liberals just can’t seem to grasp that pissing on people’s shoes isn’t going to win friends and influence people. Not to mention the fact that gays believe their “community” is comprised only of people they think they can get in the sack, in bed by 10 and home by midnight.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 7, 2008 @ 1:57 am - November 7, 2008
#23/24:
It may shock you to know that I also disapprove of out-of-wedlock births.
I would process facts, if you had any to repeat.
Comment by Attmay — November 7, 2008 @ 2:13 am - November 7, 2008
#26: “No, I get tired of arguing with doorknobs who don’t process facts no matter how many times you repeat them.”
AE, at least a doorknob serves some sort of purpose. Attmay? Not so much. And don’t be fooled by his comment in #29 that he “disapproves of out-of-wedlock births.” He actually disapproves of ALL births because in comment #24 under “The Sore Losers of ‘No on 8′” he refers to “heterosexual supremacy” as an “agenda” that is “being shoved down his throat at every turn.”
Seriously. Attmay thinks heterosexuality is an “agenda” that is dedicated to taking away his “rights.” Without a trace of irony or rationality, Attmay is characterizing heterosexuals as some freakish, fringe group that is imperiling mainstream society with their depraved, opposite-sex-lovin’ ways. Of course, it should be noted that I suppose all of our parents are card-carrying members of the sinister and dangerous group Attmay is demonizing.
It’s time for someone to call animal control and tell them to bring the tranquilizer gun. The BIG one.
Comment by Sean A — November 7, 2008 @ 2:42 am - November 7, 2008
I did not say I disapproved of all births. I am opposed to the idea that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals and that their couplings deserve privileges that should be denied to homosexual couples, an idea which seems to have many supporters on this blog.
I am not against having babies or continuing the species.
You are a truly disingenuous, mean-spirited individual.
Comment by Attmay — November 7, 2008 @ 3:07 am - November 7, 2008
My mother and father both know how I feel about heterosexuality. Just because it resulted in my birth doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Comment by Attmay — November 7, 2008 @ 3:12 am - November 7, 2008
#32: Oh, I believe you, Attmay. Your children of the corn upbringing that I have been picturing certainly includes frank discussions between you and your parents regarding your feelings about heterosexuality (and I’m sure a multitude of other creepy topics).
So, how did that discussion go down? I’m picturing you at the age of 11 and a half, sitting your parents down and telling them pretty much what you wrote in comment #29 under the “Sore Losers” post:
“My dislike of heterosexuality is limited to the sexual act itself. It grosses me out. But I would not use that disgust as a basis for public policy. However, I begrudgingly concede the fact that this is currently the best way to continue the species.”
Ummmm, eeew. It’s like a Norman Rockwell, re-interpreted by Salvador Dali. Mixed with one of those slo-mo videos depicting train cars going off the rails and cartwheeling over each other.
Comment by Sean A — November 7, 2008 @ 4:13 am - November 7, 2008
“You are a truly disingenuous, mean-spirited individual.”
You can’t imagine how relieved I am that you think so. If you considered me a like-minded comrade I would probably have to go lie down on the freeway. Fast lane.
Comment by Sean A — November 7, 2008 @ 4:16 am - November 7, 2008
#33: Don’t you ever, EVER, make assumptions about my relationship with my parents. I love them. They did not turn me away for being gay, and I did not turn my back on them because they’re heterosexual.
Do you even like gay people, Sean?
Comment by Attmay — November 7, 2008 @ 4:33 am - November 7, 2008
Gays need to accept that a majority of people want equal rights for homosexuals but that marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions can provide the same rights to gays.
Comment by Now It Matters — November 7, 2008 @ 4:38 am - November 7, 2008
Ok, I’ll step on the landmine.
Lawrence v Texas was incorrectly decided.
Was it a bad law? Yes. Should it have been repealed? Yes.
Was it unconsitutional? Not so much. Just becasue a law is bad doesn’t make it automatically unconstitutional.
Louisanna’s law allowing the death penalty for child rapists was wrongly decided for the same reason. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
Comment by The Livewire — November 7, 2008 @ 7:06 am - November 7, 2008
If someone is truly in support of gay marriage and doesn’t want the state constitution amended to ban it, why waver at all? People support or oppose initiatives, referenda, candidates, ideas, etc. often for what we think are the wrong reasons and/or express themselves in ways we find objectionable. If someone’s vote is not based upon principle but rather is subject to the whims of the worst representatives of any side of any issue, then his problems are far, far deeper than some misgivings re. the public expression of a few hateful protesters.
I’m against gay marriage. Just because I assume many of those who voted for Prop. 8 did so out of moral repugnance doesn’t mean that their reasons (or lack of reason) reflects on why I would have done the same. Some here seem to be very much in favor of gay marriage. That’s fine, but the idea that a gay conservative is constantly conflicted and stands in this middle ground between a radical change in our social code and a reverence for that code appears insincere.
Comment by Ignatius — November 7, 2008 @ 7:40 am - November 7, 2008
Those of you calling for gay leaders to resign are idiots. These people worked like hell to try to stop the impossible: the force of the Mormon, Catholic, and Right Wing Mega churches.
It easy to criticize from the side lines. In your effort to have them all resign, you might want to take into consideration there aren’t a lot of people lining up to do this kind of work. Just take a look around the country at how many jobs are available in our equality organizations. Then again, who would want to work in an environment where our own community is worse to us than the right wing?
Anyone who has a problem with how these campaigns were run should simply join the movement and do what you think is best. Then you can get beat up by your own people like the rest of our leaders.
I happen to know many of the leaders involved in these campaigns around the country and they worked their asses off to try to bring equality to the masses. They deserve a thank you instead of a kick in the ass by you people.
If you have a better plan and are willing to step forward to implement it, then more power to you. That would be awesome. But if you are just going to criticize those who are making the sacrifice, then Shut UP!
Comment by Kathy — November 7, 2008 @ 10:50 am - November 7, 2008
Translation: You have to pass a test to get a marriage license, as well. True, you have to study more for your driver’s test but, in some states, you have to “study” for your marriage test as well, for example, by getting your syphilis infection taken care of first.
… who are unrelated, of the right age, of sound mind, healthy (in some states), etc. In other words: It isn’t a right for all heterosexuals. They have to meet certain qualifications.
Same here. We agree on something. Probably a lot, actually. I have long been a loud supporter of gay marriage. I just don’t kid myself. A State marriage license is a privilege, not a right. Rights should never be voted on. Privileges should always be voted on. We need to engage our adversaries with respect (while still pointing out they are wrong) and win at the ballot box. Trying to gain privileges through the court system is morally wrong and makes our just cause into an unjust cause.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2008 @ 11:45 am - November 7, 2008
All this moaning about the gay judicial strategy but nothing to say about the referendum strategy for the anti-gay folks?
People have voted on this question three times in California — once through the Legislature when it passed the original Family Code, once through the voter proposition process for Prop 22 when the Family Code was threatened by moonbat legislators, and now through the constitutional amendment process when Prop 22 was overturned by judges who were more interested in sucking up than they were in following the law.
In short, they have followed the legislative and democratic process to a tee and jumped increasingly higher hurdles to get what they want passed legally and with the consent of the governed. When do you intend to do the same?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2008 @ 11:58 am - November 7, 2008
God of Biscuits, EQCA and HRC lost any right to whine about gay marriage when they and theirs endorsed and supported FMA supporters.
Why don’t you and your fellow leftists explain to us why, if you hate people who oppose gay marriage so much, why you’re supporting and endorsing them?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2008 @ 12:01 pm - November 7, 2008
I think GOB ran, NDT. He/she/it didn’t expect his/her/its bluff to be called.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2008 @ 1:55 pm - November 7, 2008
I second this motion.
Our strategy SUCKED. Seriously, how do you blow a double digit lead? I don’t wanna hear that the religious groups caused it to pass. Give me a frickin’ break.
We lost because they had better strategy. This was a margin of error race, when it should have been a blow out for us.
There were about 15-20% in the middle who were movable on this issue and the Yes folks moved them to their side.
Comment by Erik — November 7, 2008 @ 5:38 pm - November 7, 2008
Kathy says:
Oh really?
Why were there no ads attacking the Mormon Church aimed directly at the black community? It’s a church that until the 80’s wouldn’t even allow blacks to be members.
Why was virtually everyone in the No on 8 ads white, when everyone knew going in knew our challenge would be with the black and Latino vote?
Why, when a majority of the money for the Yes on 8 folks was coming from out of state, (specifically Utah) did u not run ads attacking it as a conservative coup of traditional California values, run by out of staters?
Why didn’t you stir up broad anti-Mormon sentiment by attaching the Yes folks to the Mormon Church’s history of misogynist polygamy?
The bottom line is - the No on 8 folks ran a campaign aimed at winning ACCEPTANCE, not winning THE ELECTION.
And that’s why we lost.
Comment by Erik — November 7, 2008 @ 5:53 pm - November 7, 2008
But so Kathy, my point is this.
The Yes on 8 side ran a negative campaign, entirely on offense. The No on 8 side ran a positive campaign, entirely on defense.
The No on 8 side needed to run a negative campaign too. It’s not about being the nice guys! In politics, it’s about WINNING.
I would have much rather seen us run a slimy, sleazy, negative campaign that won, than the feel good positive campaign we ran and lost.
Comment by Erik — November 7, 2008 @ 6:02 pm - November 7, 2008
Ahhhh, but Livewire, that is precisely how libs view the Constitution. Thats why it must be a “living, breathing” document — so they can make it mean whatever they want it to (trashing everything it stands for by doing so).
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2008 @ 8:01 pm - November 7, 2008
Heterosexuals arent superior to homosexuals, but heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. If you dont believe me, put 100 men and women on one desert island, and 100 men on another, and come back in 100 years and see which island is still populated.
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2008 @ 8:04 pm - November 7, 2008
Howso? Left-handers are killed from using right-handed tools, so should we be banning left-handedness?
That’s biology, not sexuality. Get that through your empty head.
Comment by qqq — November 7, 2008 @ 8:51 pm - November 7, 2008
And supposedly I’m a psycho bigot for attacking heterosexual supremacy?
Comment by Attmay — November 7, 2008 @ 9:12 pm - November 7, 2008
sex IS biology, get that though yours.
Yes! If you think sex that serves no purpose but the physical and emotional needs of those involved is morally equivalent to bringing new life into the world, you are indeed pyscho.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2008 @ 8:56 am - November 8, 2008
That’s biology, not sexuality.
And here we thought the gay left had found conclusively that biology determines sexuality.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2008 @ 3:48 pm - November 8, 2008
“And here we thought the gay left had found conclusively that biology determines sexuality.”
It does, the sperm meets the egg and with any luck 9 months later a person is born.
Comment by a different Dave — November 8, 2008 @ 4:49 pm - November 8, 2008
Re: Comment #22.
My apologies, Dan. In a reading rush — or maybe one of my many daily moments of senility — I misunderstood your position. Or attributed to you something that Bruce wrote.
Ugh. I made a smiley. Shame on me! Anyway…
So you’re a writer. An activist. Unafraid to express your opinion. But… you have to be asked?
Then again I sat out Prop 8 — with the exception of a few checks — so I’ll make a deal with you, even though we might end up on differing sides (although I hope not; I am all about the ecumenical redemption.) The next time something similar — in California or wherever — comes along, we’ll both offer up our respective talents. No ‘asking,’ or second-guessing, or worrying about the particular demographics of whichever state or municipality. We’ll jump right into the fray.
They might not like your ideas, my ideas, or either of our ideas, but we can say we offered them. Then the gloves can come off. And, at least in my case, pro bono is only about 5 cents an hours less than my writing usually commands, so it’s an easy lift.
Next year in Paducah! [Okay... unlikely. But somewhere.]
Comment by Famous Author Rob Byrnes — November 8, 2008 @ 10:52 pm - November 8, 2008
[...] think that any protest would be counterproductive. Instead, we should see a housecleaning at gay organizations and the selection of new leaders who refuse to demonize social conservatives, [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » To Make the Case of Gay Marriage, Protests are Counterproductive, Persuasion is What’s Necessary — November 9, 2008 @ 5:03 am - November 9, 2008
So somehow the sperm of a homosexual man that meets the egg of a homosexual woman is unable to produce offspring? Good work there.
Please, do learn to think. Educating you people about “Breeding 101″ gets tiresome.
Comment by qqq — November 10, 2008 @ 1:29 am - November 10, 2008