Gay Patriot Header Image

Stop the Protests. Begin the Introspection.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  If this topic interests you, check out some other posts I penned, er, pixeled on the protests here (wondering what they accomplish), here (favoring persuasion not protest), here (faulting protesters) and here (calling protesters sore losers).

There are many things I would rather blog about than these persistent protests against Proposition 8, but it seems to have become the topic du jour in the gay world and, well, I’m a gay blogger for a gay political blog.  And I happen to live in Los Angeles which has been ground zero for these outbursts.

This reaction shows the worst of the gay community.  And because the protests are making the news, people across the nation are seeing this behavior.  Many of them may come to define gay people by the antics of a few.*  Not the best way to convince persuadable citizens that states should recognize same-sex unions, calling them marriage.

Instead of throwing public temper tantrums, those who are serious about gay marriage should be holding private (or semi-public) meetings to figure out why why Proposition 8 passed and what can be done to defeat similar initiatives in the future.

In short, we should be best considering how to promote gay marriage.  Protest is not the solution.  Intelligent advocacy is.

It would help if more gay marriage advocates actually understood (as Jonathan Rauch does) the purpose of marriage and could explain why we need preserve this ancient institution and extend its definition–and protection–to include same-sex couples.

But, they’d rather focus on the language of rights, when we need discuss responsibilities.

We might then be better served if the gay movement stop styling itself a civil rights movement and redefine itself as a social movement.  Perhaps then they’ll secure what they call their “rights.”  Once we make clear the need for social change and start making known many of us are already living those changes, people will come to respect our relationships and soon state legislatures will start recognizing them as a matter of course.

The key is simply to show that we “get” marriage.  And the leadership of the various gay organizations, particularly those devoted to promoting same-sex marriage haven’t done that.  Instead of venting their spleens in the public square about the failure of citizens to understand that, they need figure out why they’ve failed in the past, so they can better understand what they need do in the future to change minds.

——–
*It would be nice if a gay organization criticized these demonstrations.

UPDATE:  Back to blogging at the Malcontent, the ever adorable Robbie agrees:

When defeated at the polls, there are several potential courses of action. One can engage in endless recriminations and purify the movement (or as I like to call it, shallowing the political gene pool). On the other hand, if you’re a particularly reflective person, you could engage in a bit of self-criticism, use the data at hand to understand where you might have gone wrong, and vow to do better in the future

.Read the whole thing!

Share

67 Comments

  1. THE GAY COMMUNITY is a tacit understanding that ALL GAYS ARE ALIKE. Please, please, please promise to rinse with rancid vinegar every time you write the phrase: “The gay community.”

    (You may, by my permission, use the phrase as a disparaging example of lumping individuals together because on one shared trait.)

    There! I have said my piece.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 12, 2008 @ 11:24 am - November 12, 2008

  2. Well, the problems with redefining this as a gay social movement is it 1.) leaves lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people out of the discussion, and 2.) doesn’t recall that the history of the gay liberation movement/LGBT civil rights movement can be traced back to a riot at a New York City bar where drag queens and police clashed.

    Frankly, I’m done with the backroom, focus group, and marketing approaches to issues like same sex marriage and ENDA. “Leadership” has not been doing a particularly good job with selling these issues to the general public. I know I’m not going to trust the same groups that have in the past organized these kind of meetings with how to approach these issues in the future. Change the leadership, and I’ll think about it.

    Comment by Autumn Sandeen — November 12, 2008 @ 11:49 am - November 12, 2008

  3. Most conservatives thought the 2006 May Day protests by the Hispanic community would backfire badly, too.

    How’d that turn out?

    Comment by Erik — November 12, 2008 @ 11:54 am - November 12, 2008

  4. To be honest, at this point I think the best thing would be to let the issue die down. After the temper tantrums, the last thing the Yes people want is to have this issue still in their face.

    Let the commotion die down. Then town hall meetings, frank open discussion would be a good thing.

    As much as I think the best spokespoeple would be the long term couples and those with children. I’d be the last person to ask them to put themselves in the limelight. Especially those with children. I hate using kids as a political ploy.

    In a quiet way – these will be the spokespeople for gay marriage. They are changing hearts and minds in their own surroundings.

    Comment by Leah — November 12, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - November 12, 2008

  5. Another thing, maybe it’s time to move the fight to Connecticut, since they are so performing Gay marriage there. Leave CA alone, let things calm down here. Let someone else take up the fight now.

    Comment by Leah — November 12, 2008 @ 12:06 pm - November 12, 2008

  6. Erik,

    The last scamnasty bill died in congress. I’d say Mayday went pretty well, thank you.

    Comment by The Livewire — November 12, 2008 @ 12:08 pm - November 12, 2008

  7. Gay marriage in Connecticut is court imposed, no? Has it won by popular vote anywhere?

    Just curious and figured y’all would know…

    Comment by kevin — November 12, 2008 @ 12:34 pm - November 12, 2008

  8. Connecticut had the opportunity to vote for a Constitutional Convention which would then allow for a measure to ban gay marriage. The voters turned down the option by a large majority. Basically, gay marriage is pretty much permanent now in Connecticut.

    Comment by OutliciousTV — November 12, 2008 @ 12:39 pm - November 12, 2008

  9. The last scamnasty bill died in congress. I’d say Mayday went pretty well, thank you.

    That’s not what they were protesting. They were protesting this. And that episode did not go well for it’s ideological supporters. Supporters of HR 4437 lost not only that fight, but have since seen their ability to effect immigration policy weakened to the point of near eradication.

    Comment by Erik — November 12, 2008 @ 12:48 pm - November 12, 2008

  10. “Instead of throwing public temper tantrums, those who are serious about gay marriage should be holding private (or semi-public) meetings to figure out why why Proposition 8 passed and what can be done to defeat similar initiatives in the future.”

    Isn’t this sort of part of the problem? Why aren’t SSM supporters holding meetings to figure out how to *win* an amendment-in-favor-of-SSM campaign, rather than thinking only about how not to *lose* an amendment-against-SSM campaign? Is it because they fear that their issue *cannot* win via legitimate means, without the use of judicial diktat? In my opinion, they’d be far better served by dropping the judicial route and making the affirmative case, as you’ve argued in your post. A win via legitimate means will gain them respect. A ramming-it-down-our-throats via judicial coup will gain them precisely the opposite.

    Comment by Matteo — November 12, 2008 @ 12:56 pm - November 12, 2008

  11. When you say public tempertantrum, would you be referring to episodes like this: http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369 ? Just thought I’d point out the epitome of stupidity.

    Comment by anonnemo — November 12, 2008 @ 1:25 pm - November 12, 2008

  12. Bravo! Well said. I remember reading a gay advice columnist tell his readers that “Don’t worry, with gay marriage, we don’t have to give up having multiple partners. We don’t have to be monogamous as it’s defined by heterosexuals.” This is an example of someone who doesn’t “get” marriage, and that example is powerful. It doesn’t surprise me that the straight community is reluctant to embrace same-sex marriage. They fear gays will make a mockery of the institution of marriage. The gay community has a lot of work to do to counter that impression.

    Comment by DebbieSym — November 12, 2008 @ 1:25 pm - November 12, 2008

  13. I think voters would have been more receptive if the gay rights movement had brought up a gay marriage proposal to the people.

    As such, a vote for Prop 8 was a vote to reflect reality, a vote for the Constitution and against activist judges. It makes me very angry that the anti-gay marriage movement had to use all of this energy to pass a iniatitve that is already clearly in the Constitution. Very, very angry. I don’t ever see the gay movement ever getting my vote unless they publicly declare their respect for the people and the Constiuton while at the same time strongly condemning the judges who perverted the Constitution.

    Comment by RM — November 12, 2008 @ 1:28 pm - November 12, 2008

  14. I agree that a change of attitude is required.

    I’d like to see gay leaders who pressed hard for the litigation that led judges in California to rewrite the California Constitution to step forward and acknowledge that they were wrong. I’d like to see them state that this effort to sidestep the need for a political movement seeking public support was in error. That, in pursuit of new rights, they’re going to launch a new proposition initiative for the next general election, in 2010, and spend the next two years trying to persuade the people to support the establishment of a new right through the democratic process.

    I would support such an initiative. However, I admit that I voted for Prop 8. I am sick and tired of judges creating rights out of whole cloth, because of the “need” to get out in front of the democratic process. The supportfor Prop 8 should not be seen exclusively through the prism of “anti-gay”. It was (I believe largely) anti-judicial activism.

    Although I’m not convinced the civil rights banner is the right one for gay marriage, I note that judicial fiat is not how we ended slavery, established national due process and equal rights under the law, secured women the right to vote, or ended Jim Crow. It was constitutional amendment and legislation.

    Comment by newpetrol — November 12, 2008 @ 1:28 pm - November 12, 2008

  15. Just curious: Why did the protests only occur at Mormon temples? Why not in front of Islamic mosques or the NAACP? After all, these groups were the actual leaders of the passing of Prop 8 along with the Mormons. Why single them out? The only logical explanation is that these groups do not fit the left’s template for protest. (find the white guys and act like idiots)

    Comment by VaConservative — November 12, 2008 @ 1:31 pm - November 12, 2008

  16. I love how Erik claims that protests that took place in 2006 affected legislation in 2005.

    Furthermore, what Erik ignores is that the amnesty bill that he and his fellow leftists supported that was kicked off by the May Day bigot rallies of racist groups like La Raza died an overwhelming death at the hands of voters who were incensed by the fact that Erik and his fellow racists were demanding that people who openly broke the law and stole the identities of Americans be given amnesty.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2008 @ 1:38 pm - November 12, 2008

  17. Oh, and GPW, it not only would be “nice” if a gay organization criticized these demonstrations in which black people have been called the N-word and in which religious people have been outright assaulted, it is imperative that they do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2008 @ 1:40 pm - November 12, 2008

  18. Matteo,

    BINGO!

    Much of the resisitance to SSM comes as the result of the judicial imposition of a new definition of marriage . . . the “discovery” of this “right” within long standing constitutional language when it is clear that no such “right” can be legitimately read into the document.

    Social change, change in the basic understandings of a society can only come and be accepted as legitimate in a democracy when it is determined by the will of the people.

    I would make the same case regarding abortion rights. A societal consensus on abortion would have developed long ago had it not been for the “all or nothing” approach that began with Roe. We turned that one issue into a poison that now infects almost all elections because the right was Court imposed rather than created through the democratic process. I submit that there would now be legal safe abortions in every state in the union with reasonable safeguards and restrictions had Roe never been decided. Both sides spend so much time fighting on the fringes of the issue in order to avoid the “slippery slope” when the core issues could have been decided decades ago.

    The anti-SSM groups see SSM as an attack on them and their institutions and values . . . an attempt to take the foundation of thier culture – the family and redefine it at its core level. The pro-SSM groups see it as a civil right and a remnant of bias and hatred.

    Acceptance comes from consensus not from “imposition”.

    Comment by RAM — November 12, 2008 @ 1:42 pm - November 12, 2008

  19. [...] View of Conservative Marketplace of Ideas in Action Jump to Comments This guy has the approach I prefer: In short, we should be best considering how to promote gay marriage.  Protest is not the [...]

    Pingback by My View of Conservative Marketplace of Ideas in Action « Chiefly Musing — November 12, 2008 @ 1:49 pm - November 12, 2008

  20. Pathetic: Theater official resigns over public anger at his freely expressed support for Prop 8.

    F*cking pathetic: “F*ck Mormons” banner on prominent SF home.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — November 12, 2008 @ 1:58 pm - November 12, 2008

  21. Here is my oppinion on this:
    First off, gay people should be able to be as happy/miserable as straight married people. Anythign short of that is truly a bad thing on all of us.

    But the gay movement needs to be honest about the fact that words have a meaning. Words do have meaning and they have deffinitions and history that goes with those definitions; and to act otherwise is delusional.

    Here is my advice: Lay of the definition and meaning of marriage and come up with your own word for a union. I propose gayriage. That’s marriage without the mar and a gay in front of it. Simple, effective, simmilar to the original word. It should come to have the same meaning as marriage, no matter what the word is. Once you have the word you have a something that everyone will support and it will not impinge on the definition or history of marriage. Then in 30-40 years the meanings will be so simmilar they will be merged and noone will care.

    Comment by Sigmund — November 12, 2008 @ 2:07 pm - November 12, 2008

  22. Maybe reframing the argument as ‘Getting the Government out of the Job of Defining Marriage’ would help.

    If the government would allow people to assign a civic partner, and civic rights flowed from that, it might allow the government to leave sacramental marriage alone.

    Then we could either prove or disprove the argument that the movement is about attacking the underpinnings of the culture rather than securing rights equivalent to what sacramental marriage partners enjoy.

    Comment by tk — November 12, 2008 @ 2:14 pm - November 12, 2008

  23. I think your spot on. If the no on 8 people ran positive ads about why they wanted it rather than ads saying people who disagreed were denying them ‘rights’ (re: they’re bad)… it might have gone differently.

    Comment by Thomass — November 12, 2008 @ 2:15 pm - November 12, 2008

  24. The other huge elephant in the room is the gay community supporting leftwing politicians who favor open borders here in California. They dug the grave for gay marriage by closing their eyes to the massive immigration of Mexicans and old world Catholics from South America who are decidedly anti-homosexual. Demographics is destiny.

    Unless and until gay people rethink their support of open borders and quit supporting open borders politicians it will be a long time before gay marriage gets passed here in California because the fastest growing segment of our population are Roman Catholic immigrants.

    Comment by SGT Ted — November 12, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - November 12, 2008

  25. Until the LBGT communities come to grips with the fact that there are a sizable number of people who disagree with their positions and, at the same time, do not hate LBTG persons, they will never pass their agendas.

    It is one thing to say that other peoples’ hatred is responsible for your condition, but it is not true. Only when the truth is recognized and a plan is developed and worked that will get you from where you are (the truth) to where you want to be, will gay marriage come to pass.

    Comment by Phil Snyder — November 12, 2008 @ 2:56 pm - November 12, 2008

  26. I rarely comment here, but since you have such a large audience I’ve got to voice my one concern with this piece.

    While I agree with most of what you’ve written, this sentence bothers me:
    But, they’d rather focus on the language of rights, when we need discuss responsibilities.

    We need to discuss both in tandem. They’re not separate issues, and the fact is that I already have the responsibilities of marriage, but not the rights that allow me to completely fulfiill those responsibilities. Well, I do, but only because I’ve taken extra legal measures to ensure that my partner of fifteen years is taken care of if something happens to me, and vice versa. The responsibilities are there–mortgage, life insurance, health care, property rights, hospital visitation . . .but it takes far more for me to fulfill those responsibilities than it does a straight couple who’ve just met and decide to elope.

    As for the “gay movement,” I think it’s more a phantom like the “gay community” than any real tangible thing. More progress is made by people like Norm and I, living our everyday, humdrum lives as part of our conservative yet accepting community than a slew of pride parades.

    Comment by Jamie — November 12, 2008 @ 3:07 pm - November 12, 2008

  27. If I may make a suggestion (from deep within the heart of Utah)…

    It would be extremely valuable to the gay movement to band together around a “don’t teach sexuality in schools” mantra. Most LDS members (aka Mormons) that I know send their kids to public schools and are scared out of their minds that the morality they teach their children at home will be underminded by the public schools if gay marriage becomes the law of the land. I’ve never seen that fear addressed with any level of sympathy for what it is like to raise a child within a religious context.

    If the gay community could make a good-faith effort to assuage this fear and communicate to religious conservatives that they don’t want to force their views on their children, I think progress on the issue would be made much quicker. I don’t know how to do that… perhaps a state constitutional amendment that allows gay marriage but forbids the teaching of sexual morality in schools?

    Comment by Matthias — November 12, 2008 @ 3:18 pm - November 12, 2008

  28. As a straight, white, Republican male — who has long supported gay marriage — living in a dark red part of Indiana, let me offer a couple pieces of encouragement and advice.

    First, I think that gay marriage is well on its way to becoming a widely accepted reality. It’ll take time. There have been fits and starts, victories and losses — there will be more of each to come. But eventually it will be ubiquitous.

    One thing on our side on this issue is time. Younger generations are far more accepting of homosexuality as socially normative than their parents and grandparents.

    But keep in mind that it is, to many people, quite a change to behold. And many, many people are just inherently resistant to change. It makes them uncomfortable. Some are so resistant that they’ll never be receptive to it…even if it’s something that doesn’t impact them directly.

    Second, a piece of advice from a friend: getting in peoples’ faces in a way that (intentionally or not) may come across as threatening does the cause no good. In fact, I think that is counter-productive.

    And I’m not just talking about street protests. There are lines that, when crossed, could lead to a backlash.

    There was a time when gay rights advocacy rested upon a sacred tradition of the privacy and sanctity of one’s own bedroom: let me be me, let you be you.

    But then the Boy Scouts were sued to require them to admit gay scoutmasters. And things like that are, pretty clearly, taking the debate outside the bedroom doors.

    Whether you like it or not, things like that can be threatening to people who might be inclined to think differently about issues like equal marriage rights.

    Patience and time, folks — that doesn’t have to mean passivity.

    Comment by Scott — November 12, 2008 @ 3:49 pm - November 12, 2008

  29. If you want gay marriage to be an unending source of controversy and rancor, go the judicial fiat route. Look what that did for abortion!

    Comment by Sean — November 12, 2008 @ 3:51 pm - November 12, 2008

  30. RAM, while I don’t necessarily disagree with you (about consensus being better than imposition), I do think there’s a fine argument to be made that the equal protection clause would prohibit any state laws banning SSM.

    The problem, though, is that — like it or not — public opinion does matter. And going that route in a ham-handed fashion may actually prove to backfire.

    Comment by Scott — November 12, 2008 @ 3:53 pm - November 12, 2008

  31. Scott (#29) — The equal protection clause can only apply to 2 things being equal.

    Partners in civil unions pledge their troth to each other. In a Hobbesian world, this is a wonderful thing that ought to be encouraged.

    Heterosexual couples in marriage pledge to each other and agree to invest their money and time to the exhausting and thankless job of bringing forth the next generation with mutually produced children.

    One of these is a superior choice to the society that grants the honor and recognition of marriage, in that the society has a chance (not guaranteed) of continuing. The other is a kind choice that touches only the lives of the present generation, but no matter how kind or pleasant, it will die with them.

    Until homosexual civil unions produce an equal benefit of investing in the raising of the next generation that heterosexual marriage can, they are not equal.

    Comment by Mariko — November 12, 2008 @ 4:53 pm - November 12, 2008

  32. Matthias said:

    “If the gay community could make a good-faith effort to assuage this fear and communicate to religious conservatives that they don’t want to force their views on their children, I think progress on the issue would be made much quicker.”

    True. If it could be guaranteed that SSM would not be used as a weapon for indoctrinating children and harassing churches, then more poeple would be for it. However, I have never heard SSM advocates call for such restrictions. Which can only make me suspect that they *do*, in fact want to use SSM as such a weapon. Based on recent observed behaviors (and as Scott mentioned, the past legal harassment of the Boy Scouts), I suspect that there is a radical and vocal minority driving SSM *precisely* in order to use it as such a weapon.

    If that is not their intention, then they need to try one *hell* of a lot harder to make it crystal clear. Their ongoing silence about these concerns is speaking rather loudly at this point.

    Comment by Matteo — November 12, 2008 @ 6:14 pm - November 12, 2008

  33. #31 Mariko

    “exhausting and thankless job of bringing forth the next generation with mutually produced children.”

    Oh please be real 1) no on is forced to produce children 2) it is hardly thankless 3) children who are not “mutually produced” still should be loved and nurtured, which leads to:

    “Until homosexual civil unions produce an equal benefit of investing in the raising of the next generation that heterosexual marriage can, they are not equal”

    Uh huh, because there are no gay couples raising children, no gay couples more than willing to take in foster children and no gay couples who would love to adopt children. Screw the non”mutually produced” children, they’re better off in the system than placed with unequal partners who are only concerned with their own happiness right?

    Comment by Dave — November 12, 2008 @ 7:40 pm - November 12, 2008

  34. First, I think that gay marriage is well on its way to becoming a widely accepted reality. It’ll take time. There have been fits and starts, victories and losses — there will be more of each to come. But eventually it will be ubiquitous.

    You’re probably right. Unfortunately that ubiquity will be as ill-considered as the anti-gay views of the past. The move from one CW to the next is seldom done thoughtfully.

    And FWIW, gays would garner much more sympathy from me (and the general public, I suspect) if they 1) stopped attacking the military on college campuses, 2) stopped attacking the freedom of assembly (e.g., the Boy Scouts, Catyhloic adoption sevrices)), 3) stopped their efforts to win via judicial fiat, and 4) stopped the witch hunts.

    So, as all good lefties like to say, “Good night and good luck.”

    Comment by Bubba — November 12, 2008 @ 7:41 pm - November 12, 2008

  35. “Once we make clear the need for social change and start making known many of us are already living those changes, people will come to respect our relationships and soon state legislatures will start recognizing them as a matter of course.”

    Sure. I fully expect that the Texas state legislature will come to recognize gay marriage as soon as very many citizens of Houston come to see Jim & Jim living down the street in their suburban neighborhoods.

    Or are you suggesting a marketing campaign where the gay organizations run ads showing “marquee couples” living the high life of gay matrimony? I am sure the same people who fear teaching children about gay marriage cannot wait to see those ads during prime-time TV!

    Perhaps we _can_ shift the balance in the political middle of the California electorate with more soft-toned, door-to-door, grass roots style campaigns that emphasize that gay marriage can be boring and awful just like normal marriage. It’s a reasonable longer term strategy. It’s also already in place; you may have noticed that this was a close election and it did have something to do with genuinely pro-equality straight people voting our way. Those people know us.

    But let’s not pretend that, in general, the motivations of the “other side” are due to anything but bigotry. Defeating bigotry requires a hammer. Sometimes it’s the courts. Sometimes it’s loud protests. That’s life.

    Even here in California you can look up a big, long list of normal people with normal jobs who gave in the four and five figures to the YES campaign in order to defeat equality. Those people didn’t do that because they didn’t think we respected marriage enough. Normal people don’t give four figure sums to political causes out of moderate fear.

    And so, as to the protests, being feared and hated does tend to create a backlash. You are ranting against the weather. It is cloudy; here is the rain. Fortunately for us in California many basically reasonable people are on our side or will be soon, and life will go on.

    Comment by JMW — November 12, 2008 @ 7:53 pm - November 12, 2008

  36. Domestic partnerships have been available to same-sex couples in California sine 1999. “California law specifically grants domestic partners “the same rights, protections, and benefits” and imposes “the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050809.html.

    Since gays in California already have “equal rights” with married couples via the domestic partnership law, it would appear that the desire expressed by the anti-prpo 8 crowd is not to have “equal rights” but rather to redefine marriage.

    Poster DebbieSym had it right when she said that the real issue is monogamy. Homosexuals desire is to redefine marriage in a way that does not require monogamy. Most heterosexuals find non-monogomous marriages abhorrent and do not want marriage redefined to include non-monogomous pseudo-marriages entered into solely for the purpose of financial gain.

    Comment by CVDenver — November 12, 2008 @ 8:08 pm - November 12, 2008

  37. I suspect that there is a radical and vocal minority driving SSM *precisely* in order to use it as such a weapon.

    But of course. Why do you think progressives call themselves progressives? Today they say they only want to go from Point A to Point B. Tomorrow they say they only want to go from B to C. Eventually you find yourself at Z having no idea how you got there but with the sneaking suspicion that the “progressives” planned it all along.

    What’s the first thing that happened in Massachusetts after gay marriage became law? They changed the marriage certs to read “Spouse A” and “Spouse B.” What’s the second thing that happened? They barred Catholic Charities from handling adoptions, since they wouldn’t adopt to gay couples.

    And “all they wanted to do” was “get married.”

    Comment by Bubba — November 12, 2008 @ 9:08 pm - November 12, 2008

  38. But let’s not pretend that, in general, the motivations of the “other side” are due to anything but bigotry. Defeating bigotry requires a hammer.

    Well, why not? Why not assume that your opponents have anything but the worst posible motives? Because that’s what democratic dialogue is all about, right?

    So if you’re going to use the hammer of witch hunts, the religious right can run ads next time around showing the Greatest Hits of Gay Pride Parades, right?

    Comment by Bubba — November 12, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - November 12, 2008

  39. I do think there’s a fine argument to be made that the equal protection clause would prohibit any state laws banning SSM.

    Given that there are (legally-recognized) religions which will conduct SSM, if you want to go the constitutional litigation route, you might be better served looking the Establishment and/or Free Exercise Clauses. It might also help with tk’s most excellent suggestion of reframing the argument as ‘Getting the Government out of the Job of Defining Marriage’ .

    Comment by Achillea — November 12, 2008 @ 9:49 pm - November 12, 2008

  40. And does anyone register the fact that Obama, while being against prop8, was also against gay marriage? Anyone protesting or raising hell with him?

    yeah, well rightbloggers should be doing everything possible to undermine and damage Obama. Demonize him. Disrespect him. Misquote him. Attribute slips of the lip or gaffes to stupidity and let’s get a “given” established that he’s dishonest, a cretin, traitorous, criminal and evil. Distort and invent quotes and urban legends to ridicule and discredit him. It worked for the Dems. To anyone who says “let’s give him a chance” I say fuck Obama.

    Comment by docweasel — November 12, 2008 @ 9:58 pm - November 12, 2008

  41. the problems with redefining this as a gay social movement is it 1.) leaves lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people out of the discussion

    Only to anally retentive lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. Gawd I cant tell you how much i LOATHE the LGBTQLKJKLJHGG politically correct crap. What was it he was talking about defining as a “gay social movement” again? Oh, THATS right GAY Marriage! Not LGBTQIUKHJGHGLH marriage, but GAY marriage. A risible acronym invented by man-hating wymmyn who have to have their own word for everything lest someone somewhere associate them with men. Seriously, grow up!

    doesn’t recall that the history of the gay liberation movement/LGBT civil rights movement can be traced back to a riot at a New York City bar where drag queens and police clashed.

    Another politically correct myth. Drag queens had very little to do with the stonewall riots. It was plain old run of the mill gay men, in mens clothes, who were at the center of the riots.

    And there is NO “LGBTQJUHJKGJHG civil rights movement” for crying out loud. there is a GAY rights movement, which is frankly past its usefulness. No normal people even know what the hell LGBTQIULTULG means! And they certainly never use the term, they call it a gay rights movement or the gay agenda. If that leaves someone feeling “left out”, tough titties.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 12, 2008 @ 10:02 pm - November 12, 2008

  42. Gay marriage in Connecticut is court imposed, no? Has it won by popular vote anywhere?

    No, it hasnt.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 12, 2008 @ 10:06 pm - November 12, 2008

  43. I felt introspective for a week. Now I want to fight.

    I’m not going to let 52% of California walk all over me. Give me liberty or give me death!

    Comment by chuck b. — November 12, 2008 @ 11:33 pm - November 12, 2008

  44. Going back to the boyscout thing, was’nt the fellow in question already a long-term scout/master- then he came out -& that’s when all heck broke loose?

    Comment by Gustav — November 12, 2008 @ 11:50 pm - November 12, 2008

  45. [...] http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/12/stop-the-protests-begin-the-introspection/   [...]

    Pingback by Time for Strategizing « SF NeoCon - Living Right of Left — November 13, 2008 @ 2:18 am - November 13, 2008

  46. Autumn Sandeen (comment #2):

    the problems with redefining this as a gay social movement is it 1.) leaves lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people out of the discussion, and 2.) doesn’t recall that the history of the gay liberation movement/LGBT civil rights movement can be traced back to a riot at a New York City bar where drag queens and police clashed.

    I just can’t let this comment go.

    The word gay is slang for homosexual. Using it hardly leaves lesbians out at all. (And why do gay women need their own word anyway — especially when politics are at issue?) Nor does it leave out bisexuals in these matters since it is their homosexual part that is of importance.

    The move to invariably and unalterably link the homosexual and the transexual is mystifying to me. Transexualism is a different social phenomenon from sexual orientation and lifestyle. Accordingly, gay issues and trans issues are quite different. However, I don’t see how going from a gay civil rights movement to a gay social movement effects this argument at all.

    The gay liberation movement started much earlier than the riot at the Stonewall. Nor was that bar especially a hang-out for drag queens. There were some cross-dressers involved in the riot, but they didn’t make up most of those fighting the police — they couldn’t have because they weren’t most of the patrons there.

    This business about Stonewall starting the gay movement and about it being led by drag queens is an urban legend.

    Comment by Dave — November 13, 2008 @ 2:24 am - November 13, 2008

  47. #39:

    No, it hasnt.

    A truth that is an indictment of the gay rights movement and its pathetic leaders — who are more interested in being lefties than in being gay leaders.

    Comment by Dave — November 13, 2008 @ 2:27 am - November 13, 2008

  48. yawn. i’ll bet you think Rosa Parks and MLK Jr. were also throwing temper tantrums, eh? Pathetic.

    Discrimination is wrong period. Thankfully we have courts in this country willing to take on discrimination. Had the courts not intervened with Loving -vs- VA, who knows if people like Barak Obama would have been born.

    If you’re against gay marriage, don’t marry someone from the same sex. If you’re against gay marriage, you’re a bigot, plain and simple. And now all those bigots will be called as such.

    CA had a chance to show its open-mindedness; unfortunately bigotry won out.

    Look for the CA Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8, as it should.

    Comment by buckeyenutlover — November 13, 2008 @ 11:16 am - November 13, 2008

  49. What the gay community needs to start doing:

    —Abandon reflexive leftism. Alliances with those who are anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration (I was already against it and seeing majority Latino support for Prop 8 has strengthened it), and anti-war have not helped us one bit.
    —Oppose the very existence of anti-gay regimes anywhere in the world, especially in the Muslim world, and support political refuge for gays who would otherwise be doomed to live in these places.

    I knew Obama was willing to step on gays to get elected as early as his South Carolina bus tour with homophobic “ex-gay” preacher Donnie McClurkin. Try this on for size, Obamunists:

    http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1387029.html

    Comment by Attmay — November 13, 2008 @ 12:16 pm - November 13, 2008

  50. And now all those bigots will be called as such.

    I intend to call them a lot worse.

    Obama was already six when Loving v. Virginia was ruled upon. Hawaii, which was only granted statehood in 1959, never enacted anti-miscegenation laws to begin with.

    #45: I agree that homosexuality never should have gotten conflated with gender identity. That is a separate issue.

    Comment by Attmay — November 13, 2008 @ 12:20 pm - November 13, 2008

  51. Look for the CA Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8, as it should.

    Why? Based on the law? Or based on what they think is the right thing to do? You people disgust me.

    Comment by RM — November 13, 2008 @ 1:33 pm - November 13, 2008

  52. The video history of these protests will RESURFACE if and when the referendum comes up in the future. In the future it won’t look good for the proponents of same sex marriage.

    This behavior is inexcusable now and always.

    As I see it most gay couples have not even taken advantage of civil unions. What will they do with marriage. Increase the divorce rate!!

    jeb

    Comment by Jeb — November 13, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - November 13, 2008

  53. “Or based on what they think is the right thing to do?”

    The California Supreme Court isn’t some rat pack of liberal activist judges; it’s generally considered to be conservative as most of the judges were Republican appointees (all but one in fact).

    So I’ll let you answer that question for yourself.

    “So if you’re going to use the hammer of witch hunts,”

    I never said anything about “witch hunts.” Don’t put words in my mouth.

    Comment by JMW — November 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm - November 13, 2008

  54. @Jeb

    My partner and I have made a deliberate decision to forego civil unions and wait for marriage, rather than dignify the mockery of our relationship that a civil union would be. I highly doubt we would effect the divorce rate.

    Comment by Jamie — November 13, 2008 @ 3:03 pm - November 13, 2008

  55. The California Supreme Court isn’t some rat pack of liberal activist judges; it’s generally considered to be conservative as most of the judges were Republican appointees (all but one in fact).

    I guess that’s why Stevens and Souter are considered the most conservative of the Justices, right? Unfortunately, unlimited power and zero accountability tend to turn judges into liberals.

    In any case, I would assume that the CA supreme court would be similiar in ideology to the 9th Circuit. Maybe they will suprise me and not overturn Prop 8. I won’t hold my breath.

    Comment by RM — November 13, 2008 @ 7:46 pm - November 13, 2008

  56. RM is having trouble reading. I’ll perhaps reiterate my statement that the court is considered to be conservative.

    In fact, let me provide a source for that. Libertarian reason.org’s study on Prop 8:

    http://www.reason.org/pb76_marriage.pdf

    “The Court’s decision came as a surprise since it has a
    reputation for being conservative and six of the seven judges are Republican appointees.”

    But it’s OK, RM, if you’d like, we can certainly continue this discussion without letting the facts get in our way.

    Comment by JMW — November 13, 2008 @ 8:40 pm - November 13, 2008

  57. #40 “yeah, well rightbloggers should be doing everything possible to undermine and damage Obama. Demonize him. Disrespect him. Misquote him. Attribute slips of the lip or gaffes to stupidity and let’s get a “given” established that he’s dishonest, a cretin, traitorous, criminal and evil. Distort and invent quotes and urban legends to ridicule and discredit him.”

    When did they stop?

    Comment by a different Dave — November 13, 2008 @ 10:13 pm - November 13, 2008

  58. The g/l anger regarding Prop 8 is certainly understandable and reasonable. What is not reasonable is their focus on the Mormon Church. The frustration should be focused on the State. This is a constitutional issue not a voting issue. The Church has the same rights as everyone else in this country. Note – I am not Mormon. I simply ask that individual rights be respected. I don’t concur with their beliefs but they are entitled to their beliefs just as the g/l communities are entitled to theirs. Please read my blog concerning this issue:

    http://hope4equality.blogspot.com/2008/11/californias-prop-8.html

    Warmest Regards, Hope4Equality

    Comment by Hope4Equality — November 13, 2008 @ 10:38 pm - November 13, 2008

  59. One particular aspect that I think the leaders of the Gay Community need to grasp is that the Black community voted almost unanimously in support of Prop 8. What does that say about that way in which the Gay Community have classified their struggle in the likeness of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s? Do you think that might send the message that the Black Community doesn’t like the Gay Community co-opting part of their heritage? Like you said, they need to transform this into a social movement, not a civil rights movement. Then they might actually be able to make some headway with the Black Community, rather than just offending them.

    Comment by Meg — November 15, 2008 @ 1:16 pm - November 15, 2008

  60. [...] Stop the protests. Begin the introspection. Posted in: Proposition 8 Send to a Friend Printer Friendly comments [...]

    Pingback by Michelle Malkin » Restaurant bullied by anti-Prop. 8 mob offers up payment — November 17, 2008 @ 10:08 am - November 17, 2008

  61. [...] Stop the protests. Begin the introspection. Posted in: Proposition 8 Send to a Friend Printer Friendly comments [...]

    Pingback by Michelle Malkin » Restaurant bullied by anti-Prop. 8 mob offers up payment — November 17, 2008 @ 10:08 am - November 17, 2008

  62. Just FYI – congrats to Dan for having Michelle Malkin link your wonderful piece to her blog. Well done!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — November 17, 2008 @ 10:18 am - November 17, 2008

  63. As has been mentioned upthread, I think the SSM supporters would have a lot more support if they could convince people that the push for it is more than an attack on religion. Two of the big reasons I voted for Prop 8 was anti-judicial activism and the very possible notion that this could lead to a lawsuit landslide against priests, pastors ect. if they would then refuse to perform same sex marriages. The fact that there are now assaults and other harassment happening to Mormons and other churches does little to ease those fears.
    I would welcome a dialogue on how we could appease both sides. I have no issues with a gay couple having the same rights afforded by the state or nation. Benefits, property law, taxes, whatever. Or let’s get the government out of the marriage business entirely and only have them issue civil union certs to any couple, gay or straight.
    It’s just that many of the people who I know voted yes did so because of the perception that this more about an attack on religion than the real desire for marriage unions (especially considering that some churches will perform same sex ceremonies already).

    Comment by Fran — November 17, 2008 @ 11:21 am - November 17, 2008

  64. We might then be better served if the gay movement stop styling itself a civil rights movement and redefine itself as a social movement.

    Hello….I’ve been saying this for years.

    Excellent post.

    Comment by The Ugly American — November 17, 2008 @ 3:12 pm - November 17, 2008

  65. [...] Spreading this link can result in severe harassment – I’ve already been insulted in a threatening manner by a person on a site for sharing it. In case you’re curious about this issue, which I think is entirely independent of one’s views on Proposition 8 at this point, there’s an even more right-wing article – if you can stomach it – documenting the anti-8 crowd’s behavior incident-by-incident. Obviously, I am interested in balance, the issue for me is the climate of violence: if you find anything that smacks of discrimination against gays (besides 8 itself), let me know. [...]

    Pingback by Links, 11/19/08 — November 19, 2008 @ 9:41 am - November 19, 2008

  66. [...] So, after paging through these books, taking the boxes upstairs either to the garbage or to be set aside for a thrift store (depending on their condition), I wondered if absence of introspection were a characteristic of gay men in general of just our literary “representatives.”  And the heads of our political organizations. [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Bad Gay Fiction & the Absence of Introspection — November 30, 2008 @ 4:23 pm - November 30, 2008

  67. [...] would be better served by shelving the impulsive lashing out so that energies can be focused on analyzing why the “No on 8″ campaign failed. Clearly it’s time for a new strategy, and here’s a hint: attacking Mormons? Not so [...]

    Pingback by Prop 8 Protests Still Ineffective When Set to Music : Jenn Q. Public — December 4, 2008 @ 4:22 pm - December 4, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.