This is true; but it is also true that it is entirely possible gay marriage will be banned at the level of numerous state constitutions. In the South, Midwest, and many of the Rocky Mountain states, there could be referenda relatively soon making gay marriage unconstitutional (I think Ohio is closest so far). The SCOTUS is likely to knock these issues back to the states whenever contention over the validity of marriage licenses across state lines crops up. If Bush manages to get a moderate conservative on the SCOTUS (quite likely if he wins a second term, IMO), I believe the courts will rule that states are not bound to honor out-of-state marriage licenses that violate in-state laws. That’s only slightly worse than a constitutional amendment, given that these people are on the bench for the rest of their lives. What’s even more troubling is that some of the States might adopt constitutional bans on civil unions as well. If Bush (or rather, his handlers) play this wisely, they’ll rally the troops around the virtually impossible, namely a national Constitutional amendment, while using bully pulpit of Oval Office to scare up enough support at the state level to keep gay marriage out of the heartland. Then gays become isolated in what are already liberal strongholds, and are effectively neutralized at the electoral level; they are motivated to relocate, and hence have real advocacy only where they would have won anyway.
Don’t sugarcoat it, Dio, tell us what you really think.
eeek, I meant “only slightly better”, not worse, as I wrote.
(No Freudian slip, please trust me; I think Freud was a crackpot.)
A fair point, oh LOOPY one. If Bush makes a big enough issue of it, and it also becomes clear that it cannot be done at the federal level, his hardcore anti-gay supporters may try to make it happen state by state. But that’s always the fall-back position when you can’t get your way on the federal level. As a dedicated states rightists, I have no problem with that as a political mechanism. But I don’t think it will be as easy as you seem to assumeit will be. Several states have floated trial balloons on amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage, but nothing has come of it so far. Nor do I see some mass gay exodus from the American heartland. Rural and/or conservative states are not overly welcoming as it is, which is why many gay people move to the cities already, where they can be part of a community, express themselves more freely, and not feel discriminated against (or, at least, not as much).
But then, as a moderate conservative, I’m not frightened by the idea of putting a moderate conservative on the U.S. Supreme Court bench – if Bush does that, I’ll jump for joy.
Well, in MA, gay marriage is legal right now. I rather expected more negative action more quickly, but have been pleasantly surprised by the fact that the State Legislature appears to be at an impasse on the issue. There is certainly a movement to amend the MA State Constitution banning gay marriage, and this has support from no less than Mitt Romney, the gub. It’s too soon to say how it will all pan out, but it appears for the present that such an amendment is DOA in MA. Until there is a radical change of personnel in the MA Supreme Court, gay marriage could stand uncontested for years to come.
But say you’re in Columbus, OH, and gay marriage is now illegal in OH (which it could well be). You’re in a gay couple. You want to start a family, or you already have one. Maybe you work, but your partner doesn’t. You’re denied the domestic benefits the breeders get, and it’s hurting you and your family. Whatever the specific reason, there are many good reasons for gays to simply move away if they can, now perhaps more than any time before. You don’t stay twenty and single forever. College ends, you get a job, you meet somebody, and you settle down. I agree, there already is a certain level of exodus from the center to the coasts, but there’s even more incentive now to get out when your life can be, literally, legally much better elsewhere than in Toledo or some such place. People get long-term jobs; they want their loved ones to be insured, to get rights of visitation, power of attourney, etc. Those are big, concrete incentives. There is now a very easily-definable and practical difference between living in a state that does not recognize gay marriage, and MA.
Again, how long that will last I don’t know, but for the present, it’s the reality. And that reality will have demographic ramifications, I’m sure of it.
I think you’re overestimating his influence. You know how hard it is to pass a constitutional ammendment?
Well I’m guessing that you’re not working hard to limit the regulation of the pharmacutical industry. True, it’s a guess on my part, but hey, it’s probably as low on your list of priorities as you getting to marry who you want.
Goody for you. I wish my gay friends could get married, but I’m not ready to make the significant personal sacrfices that may be neccessary to do so, just like they aren’t making big sacrifices in their lives to change life to the way I like it.
Dunno, 150, 200 years ago. The concept of homosexuality/heterosexuality is a rather new one. The ancient greeks and romans didn’t have such catagories, things weren’t sorted and linerized to the degree they are now. Some men had sex with women and men, they weren’t hetro/homo/bi, they just were men who were having sex with either a man or a woman at the time. Sure the persecution of people who performed homosexual acts goes back probably to the earliest parts of civilization but looking at a person as being homosexual versus acting homosexual is recent.
Well, yeah. I don’t think it’s a “non-issue” at all. I’m nowhere near as confident as you seem to be that the amendment has no chance of passing. But even if I were absolutely positive that it could never pass, that doesn’t make it a non-issue.
This is a matter of social policy, which is based on social perception. And the damage is already done, just by virtue of Bush’s proposing it as part of his campaign. When the President advances the idea that homosexual relationships are not as valid as heterosexual ones, and in fact are a threat to heterosexual ones, he’s giving implicit approval to the types of attitudes that could get such an amendment passed in the first place. It cements the idea that the homos are trying to take over the country. It fosters the type of environment that lets people like clothahump go around and say homosexuals are preverts who are rightfully shunned from society, while still maintaining that they’re not bigots. It perpetuates the idea that homosexuality is something to be feared and that it’s time to take a stand against it.
I don’t doubt for a second that this is merely a hot-button topic intended to win people’s votes through fear and moral outrage. I don’t see how that’s in any way an excuse – I see it as even more reprehensible. This isn’t like some silly flag-burning amendment; this will have a real impact on thousands of people’s lifelong happiness.
And I don’t understand at all how protesting it is “helping Bush out” in any way. I’m stunned and embarrassed that I had heard nothing of Bush’s proposal until after I came out. If anything, I don’t think it’s been publicized enough. Are you saying that by getting incensed about it, we’re confirming “Middle America’s” stereotype of homosexuals as completely self-centered and hysterical? I’m afraid I don’t see the alternative – the longer we smile and nod and let stuff like this come up unchallenged, the more we perpetuate the attitudes that would let an amendment like this pass.
SOL, I never said it was not an issue at all. Sure, it’s an issue, and I guess issues (and their importance) are in the eye of the beholder. What I said was: (a) it is unreasonable to call people homophobes or bigots based solely on the fact that they have different presidential priorities than you; and (b) to say that merely raising the specter of an amendment that is not yet law, and is unlikely to ever become law, is “worse” than a discriminatory law already on the books, is IMO patently ridiculous.
Now, this second point is entirely debatable, but it seems to me that Bush is attempting to focus the nation’s attention on a hot-button issue that has very little chance of ever being anything other than an abstraction (a proposed law that cannot easily be made a real law), in order to distract attention from important issues facing us right now, where his position (and his decisions) are far less popular. Assuming for purposes of argument that this is his motivation, when you help him focus that spotlight, you assist in that exercise of distraction. Does that impose upon you some obligation to fall silent? Of course not. If you agree with Bush that this is a pivotal issue, right here, right now, then by all means join him in concentrating on it. It’s just that while I know your interest is sincere, I’m less certain about his.
Will you still be jumping for joy when whatever beast Bush puts on the Courts casts the deciding vote in a decision that renders gay marriages unportable, and thus supports forever creating a sub-citizen status for innocent, harmless, law-abiding homosexuals?
You really just don’t give a fuck about gays, do you?
If Kerry and his side were supporting Constitutional movements, Federal or whatever, to strip you of your status as a full citizen of the United States, I wouldn’t vote for him.
Everybody’s world doesn’t revolve around gays and gay issues, you know.
Yes, but for any decent person, basic political equality for ALL PEOPLE should be a paramount voting issue.
Anyone who would rather vote for lower taxes or any other self-serving notion than for equal rights for all citizens is about as anti-American as you get.
What is it that you mean when you say “rights”?
Please don’t explode into a fit of righteous indignation. I’m just asking is all.
I’ll probably regret speaking to Liberal, but here goes: Equality under the law. If a straight couple has the right to marry, a gay couple should have precisely the same right, and all benefits and privileges included with admittance to said institution. And those marriages should be just as portable within the States as any straight marriage. Gays should also have equal access to adoption rights and military service that equivalent heterosexuals have.
Short of voting for a candidate who actively SUPPORTS all of that, voting for a candidate who actively OPPOSES the gay-bashing “Federal Marriage Amendment” is the least anyone who gives a damn about equality and the American way must do.
No decent person can actively choose to vote for a candidate who is actively supporting codifying hateful bigotry and discrimination into the Constitution.
There are a half-dozen or so presidential candidates out there this year. Only two of them support the FMA, as far as I’m aware. Voting for a non-bigot shouldn’t be hard.
Okay. Now I know what you meant.
Unfortunately, speaking of equality under the law, there are only two candidates who enjoy special exemption from mind-numbingly complicated, eratic, and onerous ballot access laws, as well as access to the federal money pit, network televised debates, and local level voting oversight.
Then the decent person votes for the one of those two who is not actively attempting to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution.
Point taken. Of course, the really decent person makes, as you put it, basic political equality for ALL PEOPLE the paramount voting issue, and pressures the candidate he votes for to open the elections to all political parties.
It’d be really cool if this weren’t dismissed as a “gay issue.” It’d be cool if both gay people and straight people could recognize there’s nothing scary or dangerous about two consenting adults who are in love with each other and want to get married.
And you should know that the world of gay people shouldn’t have to revolve around gay issues. I don’t particularly like having to constantly defend myself or explain myself or argue and debate over the things that most people just get to take for granted.
But hey, not your problem, right?
Very well said, SolGrundy. Liberalism holds that if even one man is not free, then no man is free. Whatever principle allows the law to oppress one man hangs over the backs of us all.
Since the American presidential electoral system requires a majority in the Electoral College, it naturally requires that only two, maybe three, parties be in a position to win electoral votes. The more parties you have in the presidential race, the greater you risk a Congressionally brokered presidency which is devoid of electoral legitimacy.
Third parties do their supporters a disservice by seeking the presidency. No major party in the United States has ever first emerged at a presidential level. The path to ascendency has always been winning seats in Congress. Instead of wasting time seeking the presidency, the Greens and Libertarians should be targeting specific Congressional districts, and eventually state Congressional delegations, in which to take office.
If the Greens were smart, they’d encourage their members to flood parts of Oregon, get a Congressional seat or two, and build from there. Once a party has a presence in Congress, they have a credible claim towards deserving national attention at a presidential level. The same goes for the Libertarians, though they’d probably fare best in New Hampshire, perhaps Maine.
In any case, this is a total non-sequitor, which has nothing to do with the utterly un-Americaness of voting for the gay-bashing, homo-hating, Constitution-defiling beast that is George W. Bush.
It’d be really cool if this weren’t dismissed as a “third party” issue. But hey, not your problem, right?