Quote from gobear in another thread, as thoughts of Republican and Christian run concentration camps ran through his head. Probably a little overwrought, but can you blame him for the despair? I sure can’t.
Of course, given the numbers from the states that banned gay marriage, it’s not only Republicans who got into the act, which we knew all the time, and is unfortunate. If Hawaii can pass an amendment banning gay marriage, you know something is up other than the neat, simple Democrat/Republican niches.
So what will happen now? Where do gay people go from here? What exactly do they really have to fear?
I think this needs to be discussed both in the context of, and apart from, the Presidential result. What now for gay rights? Certainly, Bush’s Supreme Court nominations might make a difference, but we don’t know that yet. I personally don’t think a big enough difference was made to make a Constitutional amendment any more likely than it was the last time. But yes, the bannings were a blow for gay rights. So what’s next?
I’m especially interested in the thoughts of Bush voters, whether you voted for or against a gay marriage ban.
As much as I feel sorry for gays unable to marry, the truth is that this country has never been more tolarant of gays than it is now. Gays have NEVER been able to marry, except in MA where they still can do so in that one state. All those other states did was formalize what most people in those states assumed all along-- that marriage is between a man a woman. Nothing has really changed.
This is something call backlash. The country is not ready for gay marriage, and it doesn’t surprise me that this is the reaction to what the judges in MA did and what Gavin Newsome did in SF. I’m not justifying it, I’m just saying it doesn’t surprise me. You have to act smart if you want reform. You have to be willing to make tactical compromises, like going for civil unions, or you end up with state consitutional amendments that will make it EVEN HARDER to reach your ulitimate goal down the road.
I think civil unions are the sane solution. Homosex unions are not precisely the same as heterosex marriage, & it is not irrational to have a near-equivalent institution that is not entirely the same.
On the other hand, I think the anti-gay crowd needs to clarify its standing. If the religious right were advocating stoning gays in the street, at least that’s intelligible & activist, rather than playing rearguard all the time.
Some will be challenged, especially the ones which also banned civil unions as most states have a provision that ballot initiatives have to address one and only one issue. But the ballot initiatives actually WERE (state) constitutional amendments in most cases, so there’s no way to overrule them other than technicalities. I also doubt, based on what our resident lawyers have said, that the SCotUS would even take the case if someone tried to appeal to that body. They will leave it up to the states.
I’ll just say what a said in my pit thread: The country simply is not ready for gay marriage. Keeping fighting for it if you want, but get on with your life. Join a gay-friendly Church, get married there, wear you wedding bands with honor, and screw the rest of the country. Oh, and get a civil union or other legal arrangement to secure your joint property rights, etc. Maybe it’s a pain in the ass, but there is still a LOT you can do right now.
With possibly three Supreme Court justices being appointed in the next few years, I’d say the transgendered are screwed. Remember, we’re still officially classified as “mentally ill.” The chances of us being able to legally marry anyone, or get our sex officially recognized, are shrinking.
Traffic wasn’t moving, but at least the car was still running.
I don’t think it’s open season on gay people… but this showed something interesting in the trend of acceptance. Yeah, we have Queer Eye, Will and Grace, gay and lesbian characters and personalities. Sure, they’re fun and entertaining - and what fasion! But this was something of a big, loud No coming from the people, which - though not an attack per se - was jarringly abrupt.
So, I’d have to disagree, but I realize that this could be a first step in a terrible direction.
Not on the ballot in Virginia. I’d have voted no on it if it had appeared. I have always said the states should decide, and I think the states should decide to permit it. I’ve ALWAYS favored civil unions precisely equal in law, and after a heated debate here I was forced to conclude that calling them “marriage” was the right thing to do, too.
I voted for Bush and have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. It’s not an issue in my state (yet) but when it comes up I will vote against the ban against gay marriages. However almost everybody I know is for the ban, so my vote won’t mean much to anybody but me. No, I’m not gay, but I don’t care who is or isn’t and who marries whom. And no, not everybody I know who is for the ban is a radical right wing xian. What I do think is interesting though is that several people I know who are for the ban are in bi-racial marriages. When I point out to them that at one time their marriage was illegal they say ‘yes, but this is different’. I suspect when laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages were repealed (if they ever were repealed or if they are simply ignored) people were upset and swore that the nation was going to hell in a handbasket. We survived that, we’ll survive this, eventually gays will be allowed to marry (or the equivalent) and 50 years from now people will wonder what all the fuss was.
An avowed Democratic lesbian county commissioner just unseated a Republican NC state senator who had been appointed to the seat a few months ago when his law firm partner quit his elected senate seat to run for governor against the incumbent Democrat. The senator’s backers had run several half-page ads and beaucoup tv/radio ads announcing that out-of-state gay-friendly organizations had been contributing to her campaign. It backfired. The gubernatorial contender also lost.