Why do Gay Leaders Have this Compulsion to Out their Adversaries?
It seems gay leaders exist to make my point about their incompetence to appeal to those whose minds they most need to change. Now, we learn that the leader of the No on 1 campaign in Maine, instead of learning from the campaign’s mistakes, intends to target those voters in the Pine Tree State:
No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.””
Yeah, that kind of rhetoric will really help you change minds. How about saying something like this
We came up short this time, but who’d have thought that five years ago, we could have got 47% of Maine citizens to vote for gay marriage. We need to look closely at our campaign, figure out where we went wrong and make a stronger case next time, telling voters why marriage is good and why it’s good for gay people.
Let me give Mr. Connolly a piece of advice, angry rhetoric is not going to change minds. You need to make the case for gay marriage not against those who voted against it. ’Cause if you want to win next time, you’re going to need some of their votes.
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The man is angry and it’s understandable. If his goal to bring our attention to business that supported the revoking of our rights (and marriage is a right; we know this from Loving v. Virginia) then I support that. I do not want to give money to any firm that would turn around and use that money to deprive me of my rights using lies and slander.
As for our loss at Maine … it doesn’t bother all that much. I know that once the older generations die out, there won’t even be any question about allowing gay couples access to marriage. People under 40 overwhelmingly support gay marriage and if you ask people under 30 about it, they don’t even know why you’re asking the question; it’s just a no brainer for them. It is quite morbid that we have to wait for our grandparents and their generations to die before we can have equality but that’s just the truth of it.
Comment by DavyG — November 5, 2009 @ 8:20 pm - November 5, 2009
Considering he needs to win some of the people who voted against it, I’m sure his strategy of attacking them is going to change their minds…
He should get a job in the White House communications department.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — November 5, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - November 5, 2009
(and marriage is a right; we know this from Loving v. Virginia)
Except for the fact that gay-sex marriage is not a “right”, and we know this from Baker v. Nelson.
Indeed, we know from the numerous times that laws against child marriage, polygamous marriage, and bestial marriage have been upheld in court that marriage to whatever sexual partners one wishes to have is not a right by any stretch of the imagination.
Marriage is a privilege. The fact that gays like DavyG openly hope for people to die so that they can force it onto society demonstrates why society does not see fit to extend it to them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - November 5, 2009
Some call it spite. Other, revenge. Etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - November 5, 2009
But his acting destructively, is not.
Feelings are one thing. Actions are another. Bad actions are never justified, no matter how justified the feeling.
No. That decision carefully spoke of the “freedom” to marry, not the right. It found that, because of the 14th amendment, the freedom to marry could not be restricted on racial grounds. It did not invalidate other restrictions/qualifications for marriage. I support gay marriage and as a supporter, I say, let’s get real about what we are asking of the rest of society and ask respectfully, i.e., via the legislative process.
Then you support spite and revenge. Please stop. As a real gay marriage supporter, I beg you: Please stop that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2009 @ 9:26 pm - November 5, 2009
Sorry, meant to say, “…ask via the legislative process, and if ‘no’ is the People’s answer, be willing to live with that and ask again sometime later.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2009 @ 9:29 pm - November 5, 2009
In re Loving v. Virginia, let us not forget that the newly-wed Mr. and Mrs. Loving were arrested and charged with a felony upon returning to their home state of Virginia, after having gotten married in D.C., where interracial marriage was legal. And they were each sentenced to a year in prison for the crime of marrying each other, though the state generously offered to suspend the sentence on condition that the couple agreed to leave Virginia territory and not come back for 25 years.
Comment by Throbert McGee — November 5, 2009 @ 10:41 pm - November 5, 2009
It’s always a little shocking to see the radical fringes putting gay relationships, those entered into my two consenting individuals, in the same category as bestiality, pedophilia and polygamy, but yet I’m somehow not surprised to see it all wrapped up into one thing here.
Again, you wonder why mainstream gay men and women have written off working with conservatives when this is the response?
Comment by countervail — November 6, 2009 @ 12:29 am - November 6, 2009
Thuggery, intimidation, force is what fascists do. And the American left in its current incarnation is a fascist movement.
Comment by American Elephant — November 6, 2009 @ 12:58 am - November 6, 2009
It’s always shocking, yet not surprising, to see douchebags come along and pop off about something they read half-assedly.
Try again, countervail.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 6, 2009 @ 12:59 am - November 6, 2009
As NDT said above, heterosexual marriage is a right regardless of skin color. THAT is what Loving established.
Gay activists immediately turned around and tried to use the language in Loving to sue for gay marriage in Baker v Nelson and they were rejected at the appellate level. They appealed to the Supreme Court and the case was rejected on the merits. Which means SCOTUS considered the merits of their arguments and rejected them, leaving in place the lower court decision that gay marriage IS NOT A RIGHT.
sorry. Thats the entirely constitutional law of the land.
Comment by American Elephant — November 6, 2009 @ 1:05 am - November 6, 2009
look, if marriage is a right, then we have it. When’s the last time you heard about gay people getting arrested after getting married.
Right means the freedom to do something. It doesn’t mean the privilege of getting state sanction for that something.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 6, 2009 @ 2:23 am - November 6, 2009
As long as no is being harmed in the process, then all should have the freedom to marry. Polygamous, incestuous and paedophilia-based relationships cause harm for various reasons. There is no evidence whatsoever that allowing gay couples access to marriage and so it should be obvious that when the eventual ruling to force those Southern states that will resist marriage equality even when most other states have legalised it in the future (just as they resisted interracial marriage, apartheid, and slavery – what a wonderful history with civil rights they have!), it will use the language of Loving v. Virginia. Just because a conservative appellate court refused to rule in favour of gay marriage in the early 70s does not mean it’s set in stone. How many times were attempts to dismantle the country’s ‘anti-miscegenation’ laws stopped at the court level?
Also, I really, really do understand that leader’s anger. The rights of 3% of the population and being voted upon by 97% of the population. It’s such an enormous uphill battle and his side really put their hearts into the Maine campaign and they done so for love and for protections for their families – the other side used lies and scare tactics and they still won. I’m heartbroken by the events in Maine and I completely understand the compulsion to revenge and I get the resentment too. Even our victory in Washington state is hardly a victory at all – we know that in 2 years time, fellow gays and lesbians in that state will have to step up and fight to defend themselves once more from the conservative social movement. It really isn’t fair and I understand why people are very angry and very upset about this situation.
Comment by DavyG — November 6, 2009 @ 6:36 am - November 6, 2009
And here’s the wonder of liberals.
When the court rules on something they like, it’s enshrined. When they don’t, they ignore it.
Or in DavyJG’s case, jsut get it wrong.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 6, 2009 @ 6:47 am - November 6, 2009
I accept the rulings of the Supreme Court but it is naive in the extreme to think that it’s judgements have nothing to do with the politics of the judges.
Comment by DavyG — November 6, 2009 @ 7:07 am - November 6, 2009
Words from another Mainer: Mike Heath
“In the interest of protecting and affirming all of Maine’s people, especially our children and grandchildren, we must repeal domestic partnership laws that provide benefits on the basis of homosexuality, we must defund the so-called “civil rights teams” and remove “sexual orientation and gender identity” from the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Civil Rights Act. It would also be prudent to reinstate Maine’s anti-sodomy law that was quietly removed from our criminal code in the late 1970s.” – Christian Civic League of Maine executive Mike Heath, saying that the repeal of same-sex marriage doesn’t go far enough, all LGBT civil rights must be revoked, and homosexuality must be recriminalized. Give him a call at 207-622-7634 if you feel differently.
Comment by rusty — November 6, 2009 @ 8:08 am - November 6, 2009
Really? Like what? Let’s hear you articulate it.
Of course I agree that polygamous, incestuous and adult-child relationships should be excluded from State-licensed marriage… because they are WRONG. And WORTH LESS. (Two terms you haven’t used.) And because a State license for marriage or anything else is NOT something “all should have”. But you have a different perspective. Let’s hear more of it, and see if you can sustain the exclusion of the above second-rate relationship categories with consistency.
I can’t make head nor tail of that. Or see what Southern-ness has to do with Maine and California voters’ rejection of gay marriage.
Fixed it for ya.
No, because a State license for marriage or anything is never a right. Also, what do those numbers refer to? Are gays and lesbians 3% of the population? I thought it was more like 5%. And were they somehow banned from the Maine vote? I didn’t read anything about that. Overall, wouldn’t it be more real to say that the PRIVILEGES of X% of the population were voted upon by 100% (including gays) of the population – as well they should be, in a democratic society?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2009 @ 9:02 am - November 6, 2009
Um, rusty, Mike Heath is no longer the head of the CCL. He left about a month ago. Besides, any move like what you just described will just trigger a backlash. They’re not that stupid (I hope). Most of the posters here support civil unions.
Comment by Jim Michaud — November 6, 2009 @ 9:23 am - November 6, 2009
Mike Heath opinion was posted on the Record of the Maine Family Policy Council.
http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/Opinion_5/Former_League_Director_Comments_on_Yes_on_One_Win.shtml
Sorry I didn’t know that Mr. Heath was booted from his position.
Comment by rusty — November 6, 2009 @ 9:38 am - November 6, 2009
Same ol’, same ol’ in the comments here on this issue. However, I will say in reply to this: and where has that attitude gotten us? True, you cannot work with everyone but alienate enough of folks you do not agree with and we see the results in even the bluest of states. SSM banned by popular vote in California, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, etc. SSM stuck in limbo in New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island. DPs barely winning in Washington.
Notice that I picked only blue states. See a pattern here yet? If you can’t even deign to woo enough conservatives in even blue states, how do you think you’re going to win in the red ones?
Comment by John — November 6, 2009 @ 10:16 am - November 6, 2009
So you agree that SSM is not a right, DaveyJG, as ruled by the supreme court?
Comment by The_Livewire — November 6, 2009 @ 11:10 am - November 6, 2009
Washington is passing Referendum 71 (the everything but marriage laws) by 52% to 48%.
Take the word marriage out of the law (let the straights have that word) and maybe it will pass.
Washington’s a bigger state and hopefully is making history.
Perhaps the LGBT community nationally should be celebrating that rather than boo hooing over Maine’s loss.
Comment by TrulyScrumptious — November 6, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - November 6, 2009
Davy,
It is a very good thing, then, that Democrats emphasized the importance of stare decisis so forcefully during the Roberts and Alito confirmations isn’t it! Especially with precedent that has stood so long!
I think it was Democrat Arlen Specter that called such long established cases as “super DOOPER precedent”!
(The other consideration being that the argument that gays have a right to have homosexuality treated as equal to heterosexuality is patently ridiculous on its face, but I digress.)
Comment by American Elephant — November 6, 2009 @ 7:06 pm - November 6, 2009
I still find it laughable that these folks who are supposedly protecting the “sanctity” of marriage between same sex partners don’t seem to do much else. They’re not intersted in creating any standards by which couples must abide before marriage – ie how long they’ve known each compatibility tests, etc. Additionally, I’ve yet to see any concerted to do anything about things like the lax divorce laws in this country, being that the divorce rate is well over 50% now.
Keep in mind that big money from organized religion passed prop in CA (Mormons) and overturned the law in Maine (Catholic). Also, the margins in these elections were quite narrow (which does give credence the more and more people will accept same sex marriage under the law in the near future). Had these religious organizations not funneled time, effort and money into these campaigns, I wonder what the outcome would have been.
I’m surprised of course that the Catholic Church even has the money any more, given all the payouts they’ve had to make for sexual abuse over the years.
Comment by Kevin — November 7, 2009 @ 12:36 am - November 7, 2009
#13 I’m sorry. Did you make a point here, Davy? I was so baffled by your ignorance of history and the longest sentence I’ve tried to read.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 7, 2009 @ 1:17 am - November 7, 2009
Kevin, I still find it laughable that gays bitch about how horrible the marriage situation is in America, but they still demand it along with adding more of the same.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 7, 2009 @ 1:19 am - November 7, 2009
Damn Maine mormons!
Comment by Sharp Right Turn — November 7, 2009 @ 6:18 am - November 7, 2009