Maine & Washington Results Indicate New Gay Leadership Needed
I will wait to write a more comprehensive post on gay issues and the 2009 elections when we get final returns from Washington State where a measure to uphold the state’s Domestic Partnership program currently clings to a narrow lead. If that margin holds, the Evergreen State will be the first state where voters ratified a state law recognizing same-sex unions. In Arizona in 2006, voters rejected a sweeping measure which would have banned recognition of same-sex marriages as well as domestic partnerships.
The margin, in this socially liberal state, is way too close for comfort.
With 31 states having voted on gay marriage, Maine became the 31st to vote against it.
These results make clear that new leadership is needed in the gay movement. If the heads of the various gay organizations, including and especially those devoted to “marriage equality,” didn’t get the message last year after the passage of Proposition 8 in California, they should get it today after the passage of Question 1 in Maine.
So, Joe, Evan, Geoff, Kate, the door is thattaway.
UPDATE: To accent my point about the need for new leadership, take note of this tidbit. Question 1 passed in Maine
despite a massive outpouring of resources by gay rights groups. Gay marriage advocates spent an estimated $4 milion defending the law, while opponents reportedly spent about $2.5 million.
22 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
[...] Maine & Washington Results Indicate New Gay Leadership Needed [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage — November 4, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - November 4, 2009
.
Since I am new to this site and wish to be clear on where you stand on this topic (clarity over agreement as Prager would say). Are you saying new leadership is needed because the current “gay zeitgeist” in leadership is pushing an agenda that doesn’t need to be pushed? In other words, I have two homosexual friends, both of whom disagree with making anything beyond civil unions an issue, are you saying the same as Tammy Bruce, Al Rantel, and Elton John?
Or, do you mean that the current leadership hasn’t done a good job on making same-sex-marriage an important enough issue in the public’s belief set to pass and therefore they need to be replaced with a leadership that can get a win in one state?
Thank you for any clarification on the matter, and, if you have written a position on this matter, please show the URL to it. Much Appreciated,
Papa Giorgio
Comment by Papa Giorgio — November 4, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - November 4, 2009
Papa, I’m saying, we need a leadership can that make its case to non-leftist Americans.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 4, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - November 4, 2009
.
Sorry, this is my post in which I refer to Tammy Bruce and others:
http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuals-against-gay-marriage-come.html
.
Comment by Papa Giorgio — November 4, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - November 4, 2009
.
Make its case how? In support of Same Sex Marriage? Or to be happy with and settle for civil-unions?
.
Comment by Papa Giorgio — November 4, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - November 4, 2009
Even sadder after reading this.
http://www.pinetreepolitics.com/2009/11/04/how-gay-marriage-lost-in-maine/
Comment by mattm — November 4, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - November 4, 2009
Why not choose gay religious leaders to make the case? Or long-term same-sex couples?
Why should I participate in a Pride parade or protest when I know it is just that sort of negative visibility which is causing voters to reject gay marriage?
Why don’t gays join a church? There is a denomination for every belief–but having a spiritual community working for you would be helpful. Is it better to throw rocks at church, or join them and help educate? I go to an extremely conservative Bible study every week–they know I’m gay, and I am helping change their minds. What are YOU doing?
Why not adopt a highway? Help out at a food shelter? Or get active in some issue which DOESN’T involve gay rights? Show that gays aren’t narcissistic by help out other people with THEIR problems.
Support other minorities. Work to help undocumented workers who, like gays, suffer at the hands of unjust, outdated laws. Let’s work to change the laws for them, and maybe they’ll help change the laws for us.
Or, we can continue to have our little parades and protests and the orgies which go along with them and hope that people don’t get hit too hard by the swinging dildoes.
Why can’t we have a leadership which STOPS the protests and parades? Why can’t we have leadership that isn’t forever in whiny-voiced victim mode (like the guy I just saw on MSNBC)?
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 4, 2009 @ 4:02 pm - November 4, 2009
Papa, if you’re really interested in my ideas, my archives are accessible and easily searchable.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 4, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - November 4, 2009
.
Please, post or email a URL of the position you stand on. (Using excluded-middle and applying the law of non-contradiction) It seem like a simple request. Do you, Mr. Blatt, want same-sex marriage, or civil-unions. Maybe going the route of Plato you could split the horns of the dilemma and offer a third option (say, “none of the above”), but you giving me a URL or two to your archives would be very helpful to allow me to see where you stand.
PapaG
.
Comment by Papa Giorgio — November 4, 2009 @ 4:31 pm - November 4, 2009
Ash…you make excellent points. Thanks for being articulate and stating some realistic proposals to the “Gay Leadership.” With the exception of “getting rights for undocumented workers” (code speak for individuals in the USA illegally) I agree with what you suggest.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — November 4, 2009 @ 4:55 pm - November 4, 2009
If you look on the more liberal gay blogs today, you will see the huge religious bashing that is taking place. When are the “gay leadership” and the gay mouthpieces going to realize that the vast majority of the country identifies as religious/spiritual? The more “we” are seen as attacking religion, the more “we” will be marginalized. Kiss-ins on Mormon property, hanging effigies of the Pope, etc…are NOT going to gain us favor with even the most moderate of moderates!
I 100% agree – the current “leadership” (term used loosely) needs to go.
Comment by BC — November 4, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - November 4, 2009
PapaG, if you scroll down the left side of the front page, you’ll see a bunch of different categories, in alphabetical order. Click on ‘Gay Marriage’ and you’ll see all the articles posted under that topic in reverse chronological order (most recent first).
As someone who completely lacks an organizational gene, I greatly admire the trait in others.
Comment by Jax Dancer — November 4, 2009 @ 6:49 pm - November 4, 2009
I’ll hope for change but expect we’ll get the same.
Comment by DRH — November 4, 2009 @ 7:06 pm - November 4, 2009
You know-I think you are right that at this point it seems like what is really needed are voices in leadership who can make the case for marriage to the voters who are persuadable but put off by the tenor of the debate. It is kind of hard to listen to somebody if they are calling you names.
Living NH I saw a lot of the commercials, and honestly I thought the ads in favor of marriage were much better. I thought the anti gay marriage side’s commercials were kind of “the sky is falling” in their nature-and most of them weren’t really about gay marriage so much as what would happen in education if gays were allowed to marry.
I think at this point it is all in the tone of the debate and the arguments made. I think gays need to make the case for why they want the institution and not just the benefits of the institution. Those who are currently voting against gay marriage are concerned for the institution-it is in that area the debate needs to move.
Comment by just me — November 4, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - November 4, 2009
nothing like stephen colbert
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/254666/november-03-2009/nailed–em—mormon-church-trespassing
Comment by rusty — November 4, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - November 4, 2009
Michael Petrelis has it right, get Gay Inc. out of the picture.
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2009/11/to-win-avoid-gay-inc-help-houstons.html
Comment by Leah — November 4, 2009 @ 9:35 pm - November 4, 2009
Isn’t it rather condescending to essentially say to the gay community “if only you weren’t so faggy you could make headway on the issue.” I don’t see how you could, in good conscience, make that same argument to any other minority group and get away with it. Last time I checked Dan, weren’t you as gay as the rest of us? How is it that you define yourself apart from every other gay man and woman in America that makes you a better judge of what’s needed to institute a position you can’t even outright support? Not to throw it in your face yet again, but I’m still unaware of you even being in a position, present or past, where marriage to a man was even a thought for you. It’s a bit like asking a nun for sex tips.
It’s quite ridiculous for anyone on this blog to be making judgment calls on the gay marriage issue when you can’t even forth-rightly declare your support for it. Does being a conservative in this day and age mean adhering to conservative values like the promotion of strong relationships and families that marriage supports, or the promotion of unbending “conservative” ideals which have never proven effective? I think there is a difference between progressive conservatism, which actively seeks to address modern concerns with conservative values, and regressive conservatism, whose only function seems to actively deny the reality of progress. One of those two is why we have a Democratic president and congress and why a conservative forced a Republican loss in NY-23. It’s also the reason that no one, despite your best intentions (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here) will take you seriously on this issue. You’re enforcing the notion of being the party of “no” instead of the party of “yes, but let’s do it this way.”
Comment by Countervail — November 4, 2009 @ 11:14 pm - November 4, 2009
Isn’t it rather condescending to essentially say to the gay community “if only you weren’t so faggy you could make headway on the issue.”
Not when one considers that, according to said gay community, being gay requires you to be a pedophile-supporting antireligious leftist idiot.
The biggest problem in the gay community is that every single gay leader, every single gay group, and the vast majority of gay people use the Al Sharpton method — blame everything that goes wrong on your minority status and insist that anyone who dares criticize or disagree with you is anti-minority.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2009 @ 1:55 am - November 5, 2009
More importantly, look at the commenters of this blog.
You have religious conservatives (albiet a heritic) like myself, sane liberals like Pat, um, shall we say, loud conservative gays on the right who I don’t need to name
.
We don’t agree on everything (thank the Divine) but we can talk rationally and see each other’s arguments. That’s the kind of movement that the ‘gay marriage’ crowd needs, not a storming of the gates, but a persuasion through trade.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 5, 2009 @ 6:07 am - November 5, 2009
Haha. Not everyone on this blog can. (Also naming no names.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - November 5, 2009
Livewire, I agree with everything you wrote. Except the part where you said I was sane.
Comment by Pat — November 5, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - November 5, 2009
Not everyone on this blog can talk rationally by any means.
Some sleazy, intellectually repugnant commentators on this blog are constantly trying to redefine the English language, even when every online dictionary disagrees with them, precisely to avoid seeing others arguments.
Not naming any names
Comment by American Elephant — November 6, 2009 @ 4:26 am - November 6, 2009