GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/05/27/ca-supreme-courts-prop-8-decision-the-way-forward-on-gay-marriage/trackback/

  1. The best way to honor gay history is to recognize that gay relationships are different than straight relationships. Establishing a new kind of legal recognition should be exciting and creative for the gay community. We can make civil unions into our own thing which celebrates our own way of building lifelong, monogamous partnerships. I don’t want to mimic straight couples. I don’t know why the gay community would want to take their cue from a tradition which is oppressive and patriarchal and which leads to almost constant adultery. I’m ready to start something new, something which gives legal recognition to the fierce loyalty which has been the hallmark of gay relationships throughout history. I don’t want to build on the failed foundation of heterosexual marriage. I want to be separate but better.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 27, 2009 @ 12:47 pm - May 27, 2009

  2. I respect Ash’s opinons; however until the US confers the same benefits to civil unions as it does to “married” couples, inequality will remain.
    Ironic to read his comments about straight marriage. Who among us haven’t been touched in some way by gay “adultery”?
    But to your main point, I believe our best chance to convince our fellow countrymen is to avoid confrontation, to be a part of the greater community, and to engender respect. As others see us as no different from them except in the way we express our sexuality, I believe (hope?) gays will be accepted into the mainstream. In many cases, we’ve been doing that, with a certain amount of success.

    Comment by man — May 27, 2009 @ 1:26 pm - May 27, 2009

  3. I believe our best chance to convince our fellow countrymen is to avoid confrontation, to be a part of the greater community, and to engender respect.

    Indeed. I fail to see how pissing on people’s shoes will make them like you.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 27, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - May 27, 2009

  4. Indeed. I fail to see how pissing on people’s shoes will make them like you.

    True. But, on this and related issues, people have been p&ssing on each others’ shoes for quite a while. Perhaps it’s time to stop, and see what happens.

    Comment by Pat — May 27, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - May 27, 2009

  5. I wonder how this issue has affected attitudes re. immigration.

    Comment by Ignatius — May 27, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - May 27, 2009

  6. Perhaps it’s time to stop, and see what happens.

    Liberals claim to have the high ground on everything. ‘twould be interesting to see them put their money where their mouths are rather than cramming a foot in there.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 27, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - May 27, 2009

  7. I would suggest that everyone turn their TV dial to CNN and listen to Ted Olsen and David Bois, They are appearing on Larry King.

    Comment by Swampfox — May 27, 2009 @ 9:07 pm - May 27, 2009

  8. Sorry. I watched Mike Judge’s The Goode Family.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 27, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - May 27, 2009

  9. [...] GayPatriot » CA Supreme Court’s Prop 8 Decision & the Way Forward on Gay Marriage [...]

    Pingback by Thinking about California’s Supreme Court Decision and Prop 8 | Herd Watching — May 28, 2009 @ 12:10 am - May 28, 2009

  10. Oh crap, how was it? I forgot to watch! @TGC

    Comment by American Elephant — May 28, 2009 @ 6:42 am - May 28, 2009

  11. I see the same arguments here that were used in cases like Loving vs Virginia; the fact that people believed there was something historically wrong about interracial marriage. In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned this law because it didn’t afford certain individuals the same rights under the law. It didn’t take votes from electorate to tell the court that our laws need to affect all citizens equally.

    Comment by Kevin — May 28, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - May 28, 2009

  12. #2 writes “however until the US confers the same benefits to civil unions as it does to “married” couples, inequality will remain.” By this logic, inequality will magically disappear if only the two persons have a marriage certificate. Instead, enshrine in the constitution full legal and civil rights for any two adult persons who have a solemnized relationship (“civil union” or whatever it is called) such that all rights, privileges, and responsibilities are equal in every and all respects with those of a married (man/woman) couple. Gay relationships ARE different than straight; we but need absolutely equivalent rights.

    Comment by J — May 28, 2009 @ 6:53 pm - May 28, 2009

  13. This whole gay marriage thing isn’t about equality; it’s about destroying the Judeo-Christian foundation of our country’s values. I don’t mean any disrespect, but c’mon, if gays’ sexual couplings aren’t given a stamp of approval by the state gays are going to–what?–shrivel up and die? Hardly! They’ll continue living they way they are now, more freely and openly than ever in American history.

    And as for comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage, please stop! There’s NO comparison. Legalizing interracial marriage was NOT about redefining marriage. People who opposed and people who supported interracial unions understood that marriage was between a man and a woman. The issue was WHICH man could marry WHICH woman. So please stop pretending that homosexuality is an ethnicity or a race; it’s not.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 28, 2009 @ 8:48 pm - May 28, 2009

  14. 13: as Doctor Evil said to his son Scott when Scott suggested they just shoot Austin Powers: “You don’t get it, you just don’t get it do you Scott?”

    Your comment is right up there with separate but equal laws.

    Comment by Kevin — May 28, 2009 @ 11:05 pm - May 28, 2009

  15. just for fun or shits & giggles. . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

    Comment by rusty — May 28, 2009 @ 11:39 pm - May 28, 2009

  16. Actually Kevin, she gets it a lot better than you do.

    Although I would disagree with her that most gays are consciously attempting to destroy Judeo-Christian values.

    For most gays it is about playing the victim. They seriously couldn’t give a rats ass about marriage, or what change will do to the country.

    They LIKE playing the victim. No, they LOVE playing the victim.

    That, plus the fact that most of them have never come to terms with their own sexuality and have lied to themselves all their lives, telling themselves that homosexuality IS equal to heterosexuality. The fact that every child ever born in the history of the world has been the result of heterosexuality, and no child, in the history of the world has EVER been the result of homosexuality.

    They want us to pretend that THAT is but a trifling detail. We should ignore it.

    And therein lies the harm that gay marriage does to the institution. The only reason anyone is even considering same sex marriage is because so many in society have forgotten (or never knew) what the purpose of marriage is to society to begin with. The popular passage of gay marriage would mean that a majority of society no longer recognizes the purpose of marriage, and that spells horrible news for society.

    It is not that gay marriage is the cause, it is the symptom. Liberal attitudes towards marriage and child rearing are the cause. Just look at the state of marriage, and children, in the black community (Obama 95%). 70% of children are born out of wedlock, and as a result, children are far more likely to drop out of school, commit crime, get involved with drugs, be poor, be illiterate, be violent, you name the social ill, and children born out of wedlock are more likely to do it.

    But if you correct for that, and compare only children of married couples, then black children do just as well as any other ethnic group.

    And yes, gays are more than willing to trash an institution designed to promote the nuclear family rather than admit to themselves that homosexuality is NOT equivalent to heterosexuality.

    And yes, it is logically impossible for the institution to continue to be about promoting the nuclear family if same sex relationships are permitted to marry. marriage is instantly redefined from an institution with a purpose, to an institution with no purpose that is just another entitlement. And yes, it is logically impossible to prohibit any other kinds of consensual relationships if same sex relationships are allowed to marry.

    Gays have all the same rights to participate in the marriage institution that everyone else does, but they reject the premise of the institution.

    They want government to tell them that homosexuality is just as important to society as heterosexuality is. They want government to lie to them. They want government to endorse the lie they have told themselves.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 29, 2009 @ 4:56 am - May 29, 2009

  17. And just so we can be clear since many on the left have tried to claim, or suggest that there has been a great shift in public opinion toward supporting gay marriage — there hasn’t. It’s another lie, meant to mislead. 57% of Americans are still opposed to gay marriage and only 40% support it.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 29, 2009 @ 5:34 am - May 29, 2009

  18. Isn’t it ironic that it is always the response from the left that people of faith should relax their morals to appease them, and therefore become more “tolerant,” yet the left is never challenged to become more respectful of OTHERS’ morals and beliefs.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 29, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - May 29, 2009

  19. For most gays it is about playing the victim. They seriously couldn’t give a rats ass about marriage, or what change will do to the country. They LIKE playing the victim. No, they LOVE playing the victim.

    I have to ask, AE, about that comment and many of the other ones in your post, how do you know this? I don’t mean that as a snark or a troll, but just taking that point alone, what’s the evidence for that? Is it your opinion, which is fine, or is it something based on more information that you can share.

    For example, your other statement of the 57/40 split on gay marriage is true, but it’s not a complete description of what’s been happen. When you parse the data further, which many people who’ve been looking at this have done and the Gallup Poll you linked to does to, there is a fundamental and profound generational split on support. When you look at 18-29 year olds, the numbers flip, with 59% being in favor and 37% percent opposing.

    That acceptance for gay marriage is a generational shift is a consistent finding across studies. The larger and more detailed Pew “Trends in political values and core attitudes: 1987-2009″ show a 43/24 split in favor among those 29 and under.

    This reflects on the aggregate, as over the last 12 years, acceptance of gay marriage has shifted in favor by 13 points according to Gallup and 11 points according to Pew. So when pro-gay marriage people proffer that yes, GM will come, that it’s already arriving, it’s a view that’s backed up by some demonstrable metrics.

    So I go back to my initial question, just regarding playing the victim. Is there some evidence, survey data, research, that supports your argument? Or is it just your personal, deeply held opinion?

    Comment by Jody — May 29, 2009 @ 7:02 pm - May 29, 2009

  20. I have to ask, AE, about that comment and many of the other ones in your post, how do you know this? I don’t mean that as a snark or a troll, but just taking that point alone, what’s the evidence for that?

    Have you not seen any of the protests against “proposition “hate”‘? Have you not noticed that NO ONE on the left credits anyone who supports traditional marriage with legitimate concerns but reflexively brands them bigots, homophobes and haters? Are you really this daft?

    When you look at 18-29 year olds, the numbers flip, with 59% being in favor and 37% percent opposing.

    Sure. And young voters have long been more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Winston Churchill famously said, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain”

    The same remains true today. Young people are largely stupid, inexperienced and ignorant. I was the same when I was younger. I was also a liberal.

    But when people begin paying real taxes, working to support themselves, when they own property, they generally become much more conservative. Likewise with gay marriage, as people get married and have children they begin to actually realize that reproduction is actually very important and meaningful and makes heterosexuality very different from homosexuality.

    In other words, most people grow up. Those who dont form the base of the Democrat party.

    This reflects on the aggregate, as over the last 12 years

    Yes, and the media have been reporting lately on “aggregate” numbers for party identification.

    You know what it means when someone presents aggregate numbers? It means the numbers USED to favor them, and no longer do! So in order to hide the trend AWAY from their opinion, they average more recent numbers with old numbers that used to favor them.

    This is evident in the Gallup numbers on gay marriage which show that opposition to gay marriage has been increasing over recent years, NOT decreasing.

    So I go back to my initial question, just regarding playing the victim. Is there some evidence, survey data, research, that supports your argument?

    Yes, virtually EVERYTHING gay-marriage supporters have said and done — framing the entire debate in terms of hate and bigotry, how everyone who has a different view about marriage is a “bigot” opposing their “civil rights” and saying virtually NOTHING about the importance of the institution, or its function. the utter refusal to address any of the vast majority of court decisions which have utterly dismissed their arguments of victimhood.

    Your question is so ridiculous on its face, its hard to take you seriously.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 29, 2009 @ 11:14 pm - May 29, 2009

  21. Oh crap, how was it? I forgot to watch! @TGC

    WARNING: SPOILER ALERT

    It was pretty funny. If you didn’t know beforehand that the show is a swipe at enviro-wackos, you might think it was a show about them. Remember that liberal douchebag teacher on Beavis & Butthead? That’s the voice Mike uses for the father. Sorta how like Hank Hill sounded like Mr. Anderson, but occasionally talked like Butthead. I can’t say that it was hillarious, but it will probably get funnier as the show progresses. I really didn’t get into King of the Hill until this year. Now I watch the reruns on Adult Swim.

    I have a knack for not getting into shows until it’s almost over. King of the Hill, Star Trek TNG, Voyeur and Deep Throat 9, for examples.

    One of the funniest parts was that they have a vegan dog named Che. It goes without saying that numerous pets in the neighborhood wind up “missing”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 30, 2009 @ 6:17 am - May 30, 2009

  22. But when people begin paying real taxes, working to support themselves, when they own property, they generally become much more conservative. Likewise with gay marriage…

    AE, while I understand that’s your opinion, under closer scrutiny, it doesn’t hold up that well in light of research.
    Danigelis (2008) found that the trend in attitudes over issues in politics, economics and sexual mores over the life span is towards more liberal attitudes, not less Although people do tend to be shaped by defining issues during their lifetime, a general pattern of emerges that, regardless of era, Americans change their attitudes as they get older and that change is in a liberal direction.

    You know what it means when someone presents aggregate numbers? It means the numbers USED to favor them, and no longer do! So in order to hide the trend AWAY from their opinion, they average more recent numbers with old numbers that used to favor them.

    But I’m not hiding anything here. The trend over the last 10…20..30 years is towards increasing acceptance of gay people and, over the last 10-15 years, increasing acceptance of gay marriage.

    This is evident in the Gallup numbers on gay marriage which show that opposition to gay marriage has been increasing over recent years, NOT decreasing.

    That’s simply not what the Gallup numbers show. Over the last five years, there’s been no real change in the “yes” and “no” groups. The 2004 scores and the 2009 scores are within the margin of error. There’s no statistically significant difference between the 2009 and 2008 numbers. Or the 2007 and 2006. No trend. Variation in data, but you really never get out of your margin of error.

    Over ten years though? Big change. 11 point decline (+/-3) in those opposed, and a 13 point increase in those in favor.

    Now maybe if you want to argue the Pew numbers, that between the end of 2007 and the start of 2009, there was a slight, though statistically significant, 5% nation-wide increase in opposition to GM, I’d grant you that. But as far as trends go, the 2009 high is a full 3 points lower than opposition numbers to GM in 2006 and 11 points lower than in 1996. Again, downward trend.

    So I’m going to have to disagree that my questions to you about how you know what you know are “ridiculous.” You’ve offered a lot of opinion but not a lot of facts. Opinions are fine as they go, but as a statement on the nature of reality, of say a trend towards increasing opposition to gay marriage, then no, that’s actually not the case.

    Comment by Jody — May 30, 2009 @ 6:30 am - May 30, 2009

  23. I tend to agree with Jody that support for gay marriage is gaining ground, and it has majority support among young people. But that supports my initial claim that legalizing gay marriage is about destroying Judeo-Christian morality as the basis for America’s moral worldview. Who are those young people who support gay marriage so much? They are the most deChristianized segment of our population, that’s who. They are the ones who have been subjected to the most sustained anti-Biblical values conditioning, especially in school and in the entertainment media. Consequently, they are the demographic most likely to unquestioningly accept the Left’s characterization of gay marriage opponents as bigots, homophobes, etc. That explains their wide support for gay marriage and greater acceptance of homosexuality in general.

    The bottom line is this: believing that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equal is incompatible with Biblical morality. Liberals know this, which is why they have worked incessantly to undermine adherence to the Bible’s moral code. Gay conservatives who want legalized gay marriage are siding with liberals for the demise of Judeo-Christian values whether they realize it or not. That’s a quandry I don’t have a solution to. I guess the solution will boil down to whether gay conservatives are gay first or conservatives first.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 30, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - May 30, 2009

  24. Seane-Anna,

    I think you ascribe malice to what can be explained by stupidity. Or, in this case, to incompatibility.

    The thing that makes our society function (in theory) is the adaptabiltiy. Societal change is invetiable. What keeps our nation strong is the ability to allow us to incorperate changes.

    Baker v. Nelson was decided showing that the federal law did not disallow restricting the institution of marriage to opposite sex parties. It didn’t mean that is had to restrict the definition to it either.

    The beauty of our republic, is that we can craft a same sex relationship recognition. Something that is underway. The benefit of this process is such an institution can be created to limit itself to same sex partners, w/o opening the can of worms that the ‘it’s a right’ arguements that people like NJ bigot try to avoid talking about.

    Yes, same sex marriage (between men) is incompatible with Judeo-Christian teachings. Yes, those who feel that way should be expected (and allowed) to fight tooth and nail. And yes, win or lose, they should be expected to follow the law, and be allowed the freedom to express their beliefs by not participating.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 30, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - May 30, 2009

  25. Oh and Kevin,

    I assume since you’re enamoured with Loving and are waving it as proof of the court’s supremacy, you’re happy with and accepting of Baker? You know, where “It didn’t take votes from electorate to tell the court that our laws need to affect all citizens equally.” and that the equality included the states being allowed to limit the privledge of government recognition of marriage?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 30, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - May 30, 2009

  26. Jody,

    The study you Googled trying to find something to support your position doesn’t say what you think it says. Actually, according to its own abstract, your study is rather a joke.

    They measure their results according to how respondents “attitudes toward historically subordinate groups, civil liberties, and privacy” and laughably assume that people who have more favorable attitudes towards minorities, civil liberties and privacy are more liberal.

    As if!

    Most civil libertarians vote republican. The libertarian party is most closely aligned with Republicanism. Democrats, in power, are seizing private property, not to mention entire industries, intimidating, abusing and attacking people’s speech, religious expression, right to bear arms, due process, exponentially increasing the power of the federal government over the individual and generally trashing individual liberty to the point that even Pravda calls them Marxists.

    Liberals are simply delusional — they actually believe that they, as the champions of government power over the individual are really protectors of liberty — it is delusion of staggering proportion, and your worthless study illustrates it perfectly.

    And it does not support your point.

    Over ten years though? Big change. 11 point decline (+/-3) in those opposed, and a 13 point increase in those in favor.

    Furthermore, you need some remedial math:

    Ten years ago, 62% opposed gay marriage, today 57% oppose it. That is not an 11 point decline, that is a 5 point decline (62-57=5) in a survey with a 3% margin of error.

    Nor was there a 13 point increase among those in favor. Ten years ago 35% favored gay marriage, today 40% do.

    40 minus 35 is not 13; it is five.

    So I’m going to have to disagree that my questions to you about how you know what you know are “ridiculous.”

    You can disagree til you turn blue in the face if you want. It nonetheless remains ridiculous to ask “where is the evidence” that gays love playing the victim.

    It’s ALL they’ve DONE!

    Comment by American Elephant — May 30, 2009 @ 10:43 pm - May 30, 2009

  27. >Furthermore, you need some remedial math:

    Actually, I just need to look at the date better. It’s 11 and 13 points over 12 years not 10. Which makes that acceptance trend even more long term…

    >Actually, according to its own abstract, your study is rather a joke….

    Taking your opinion of the results at face value still undercuts your argument that people become more conservative as they get older… now they become more libertarian. Which is still fine as, if the Libertarian Party is any guide, they support GM, albeit under the notion that government should be out of the marriage biz altogether.

    So I’m going to return to my earlier statement that you’ve offered a lot of opinion but not a lot of facts. Which is fine; blogs and blog comments are all about people expressing their personal opinion and I applaud you for that.

    These are generation shifts, AE. Given the current trends and the generational replacement of voters, Gay Marriage will be the law of the land by 2020.

    Victimization or not. :-D

    Comment by Jody — May 31, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - May 31, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.176 Powered by Wordpress