Like the barebacking controversy of the 1990’s with Sullivan waving the banner of sexual responsibility while seeking partners to be irresponsible with (never mind for now the pathology of needing unprotected anal sex so badly that one would risk life for it), Andrew’s marriage cause will backfire when it is revealed that the most primary commitment of Marriage is not something serious in his own relationship (Ditto for Dan Savage, the other ticking time bomb).

In fact, those who know Andrew and his relationship know it is “all about Andrew” and his School Boy need to be accepted by conventional institutions (“Where else would I go?”)…and hardly about love and commitment at all.

In the not to distant future, we fully expect Sullivan to be expounding the virtues of Divorce.

Do you support, then, a uniform flat tax regardless of income, since it is “equal”?

Sad to see how you are perverting that great line with a line which reeks of socialism.

Now the feds will need to repeal DOMA and DADT, grant us FULL equal rights (including marriage), and begin to start viewing our families – OUR FAMILIES – as the tax-paying contributing members of society we are…..well…..we USED to be!

Because if our HOMES, our FAMILIES, our very BELOVED are not acknowledged and valued as other families are legally, whatever we do outside of that home will never be acknowledged and valued legally, such as adopting children, working without discrimination, or serving openly in the military.

FAMILY FIRST. What is more important than FAMILY?

We owe the IRS absolutely NOTHING until equal. NOTHING. Get it?

This is NOT a test.
This is NOT a debate.
This is NOT a vote.
This is definitely NOT a popularity contest.

This IS justice – GAY TAX PROTEST.

I agree, but gays should show they can get serious about marriage BEFORE asking to change the institution, not after.

A reasonable request.

I agree, but gays should show they can get serious about marriage BEFORE asking to change the institution, not after.

I was confused in reading your response. Specifically, “If, on the other hand, the success of your commitment is contingent upon its being called “marriage”…well, keep on fighting.”

And like a lightning bolt it struck me; it occured to me why I was confused, and I had a good laugh.

I’m not gay and I am married.

To me, my marriage means much more than legal benefits, much more than a document issued by the state recognizing it as such. Tax benefits — who cares?

My point is I went into the election thinking it was a matter of semantics. I’ve since caught wise that there are legal advantages to the status of “married” versus the status of “domestic partner” or “civil union”. There may even be social advantages, if the Log Cabin Reps are to be believed.

There is reason enough for gay couples to demand equal protection, and I believe the pitch can be made to the electorate to effect the desired change. I’m astonished that hasn’t happened.

The gays and lesbians I know who are going to these protests are reasonable, intelligent people. The hatred — and singling out of Mormons — is bizarre.

Yes, before. Gays have been improving their public rep almost daily – especially among those under 30. In CA, the under-30’s opposed Prop 8 almost 3:1, and it’s a lot easier for a gay guy in his twenties to have straight friends than it was 10 years ago. That’s the groundswell of public support that will eventually win this thing – because they see us as real people who’re just attracted to the same gender, not some damned freak show. The danger is we upset that trend and cause real problems down the pike.

See, here’s what I’m talking about right here.

Even when they are paying their very best lip service to it, most gays simply aren’t serious about upholding the institution.

Baby steps, man – baby steps. Right now, a sizable chunk of the gay community does not view a relationship as anything more than sex on tap. Our relationship skills are retarded – we get started figuring them out later, and many of us are still making idiot mistakes into our late 20’s, 30’s and 40’s. By the time many gay guys figure out they would be quite happy in a long-term relationship, they’re no longer young, no longer pretty and have next to no idea how to go about making any kind of connection with somebody other than through sex, let alone how to keep a relationship going once the sex fades. And it will.

Now, again, that is changing as young gay guys are increasingly holding “straight” relationship values from the beginning, but you’re right – far too many of us have absolutely no idea how to make something less permanent than marriage work, and certainly as a community little idea in how to help other men and women keep their relationships going. That is something we’ve got to get better at – and the only way to get better at keeping a relationship going is to try one.

Marriage, under law, is a bundle of a whole bunch of stuff that has accumulated over centuries — and nobody knows exactly what’s in the bundle anymore. Deathbed visitations? Intestate disposition of property? Freedom from testifying against the spouse? Liability for spouse’s debts? Liability for spouse’s torts? Child support obligations, regardless of actual parentage? Joint tax returns? “Married filing single” tax returns?

Government recognition of the marital bond is so complex that unsnarling its ramifications takes up a substantial part of our judicial system. And the California Supreme Court was going to add a whole extra dollop of confusion on top.

How about we start with the basics? What does the law say about marriage? Should this be a matter of law (as opposed to contract or custom)? Is it appropriate for all people, or just those of a certain status (e.g. children, non-working spouses, monogamous, gay)? Should the law be changed (I would think, myself, that “single” and “married filing separate” should have the same tax rates)?

I would suspect that favoring a serious, deliberate approach to revamping marriage law might gain more support than most people suspect, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find that the more conservative side of the aisle was even more compassionate than the left — Sarah Palin’s first act as governor was to support gay rights, and even the much vilified Dick Cheney has a gay daughter who he loves dearly.

Consensus building, and working toward common ground, might take longer than judicial fiat — but what has Roe v. Wade settled? What has Brown v. Board of Education done to fix the real problems of segregation? By moving ahead of the culture, the judiciary created a backlash, then a reaction against the backlash, then a movement against the reaction against the backlash…..until the posturing overcomes the facts.

The facts are that there really aren’t that many homophobes, and there are reasons to oppose a “gay marriage mandate” beyond homophobia. And there are a lot of people who voted for Prop 8 who are sympathetic to their neighbors’ wanting a better life — no matter how those neighbors are paired up. But there’s a lot of people unwilling to buy a pig in a poke from government, and even fewer who will passively take it if told that they have no choice.

So reach out to your neighbors, define the issues, narrow the differences, build the consensus.

before we do irreparable damage to our public good name

Before?

Find that guy/gal whom you love and want to spend a large chunk of your life with

See, here’s what I’m talking about right here.

Straights talk about spending the rest of their lives with someone. Gays talk about spending a large chunk of their life with someone (what does that mean? 5 years is a large chunk.)

Even when they are paying their very best lip service to it, most gays simply aren’t serious about upholding the institution.

I love Mormons! I’d much rather hang out with Mormons than gay-leftists any day. They’re far better people for the most part.

I’ll drink a non-alcoholic, non-caffeinated beverage to that!

As to the pathetic gay claim that heterosexuals have already f-ed up marriage, why make such a fuss about not having access to it? Except, as AE pointed out, if it’s not really about marriage at all.

Demonizing the Mormons (or Catholics, or whatever) and playing on “stereotypes” is immoral and counter-productive.

Undermining your nation at war for political gain is immoral. Vote fraud is illegal. Al Franken stealing the election from Norm Coleman is immoral.

When have liberals ever let morality come between them and what they want? They are Alinskycrats. The end justifies ANY means.

If, on the other hand, the success of your commitment is contingent upon its being called “marriage”…well, keep on fighting.

I understand the differences between the two, and I dont actually believe it was about semantics in that sense. I don’t think 99% of the protesters give a rats ass about marriage to tell you the truth. I think to them it was and is about validation. And their antics this week, like they have the entire campaign, only convince me of that even more.

#11: Erik, you need to get out more. Demonizing the Mormons (or Catholics, or whatever) and playing on “stereotypes” is immoral and counter-productive. The current protests at churches is doing little more than confirming biases many people hold.

If we wind up in a stereotype war, some pictures of a gay pride parade or the Folsom Street Orgy Fair will lose the war.

So why didn’t he campaign against it when he could have made a difference?

Instead of protesting – let’s shack up. Find that guy/gal whom you love and want to spend a large chunk of your life with, settle down, and start tackling the headaches married life brings. They’re saying we can’t marry, so let’s show them we can by being some of the best couples out there. Challenge people’s preconceptions by showing gays (and especially gay men) in serious, solid, responsible relationships. Sure, some of us will make bad choices, some of us will fail despite putting our backs into it, but people admire perseverance and fighting the good fight. The more straight guys and gals who want us to find a good guy or gal, the more straight guys and gals who’ll back us when we seek to legally codify those relationships.

Who I do blame are the folks who ran our campaign. It was ineffectual. It was defensive. It was passive. It was weak. They ran a failed campaign. It’s as simple as that.

It’s time to hire new talent to get the job done.

They did.

And, quite apparently, it backfired.

No. I’m talking about a sophisticated ad campaign. Something subtle, but devestating. A good example would be the DSCC’s ad this cycle that had two old men debating whether Liddy Dole was 91 or 93. It hit her on the main focus, which was her ties to President Bush, but was also a wink and nod at her age too.

It was a very effective negative ad. That’s the type of attack ad we needed. “No on 8″ ran no attack ads.

How is it that Obamas 43% victory is a “blowout” and “not even close” but the 42% victory for proposition 8 is a close election that only needed a few points to win?

Because we had a double digit lead during the summer. We lost it when “Yes” went on offense and “No” reverted to defense. If Obama had similarly blown his (national) lead, there would be equally harsh recriminations.

You don’t want to be a defensive campaign. You win when you’re on offense. When our opponents spread lies that we seek to teach kindergartens about sex and will send preachers off to prison, what are we supposed to do? Beg them not to?!

No. If you’re gonna wrestle a pig, you have to get down in the mud.

Who here can show me an example of where the “No on 8″ campaign actually threw an offensive punch? Cause I didn’t see any example of that. It was a completely passive campaign.