# The biggest shock: Pro-Bush gays **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 4, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021 "2004-11-04T19:24:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![OxyMoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9a140/32.png) [@OxyMoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OxyMoron)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021/121 "2004-11-07T03:23:58Z")
P.S.: I have absolutely no idea how that smiley got there - must’ve clicked on it by accident. ---
**Author:** ![Blackacre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@Blackacre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackacre)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021/122 "2004-11-07T03:25:11Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > If I had my way, inviting someone to leave the country in the manner you did would be on a par with wishing for their death, and punishable by immediate banning. You have not yet been given authority to decide what your fellow Americans may or may not do. Yawn. Punter. Cheers! BA ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021/123 "2004-11-07T04:19:38Z")
Let us not forget, in the midst of all this, that in eight of the eleven states that passed anti-SSM amendments on Tuesday, the language went beyond banning SSM and prohibited to some degree other arrangements such as civil unions. Kentucky’s exact wording is “a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized”, which to me implies that those pseudo-marriages that the conservatives say the homosexuals can easily cobble together for a few grand in legal fees could be challenged as well, as they are attempts to create “a legal status similar to marriage”. In my mind, there is no reason to oppose civil unions that doesn’t boil down to a general disdain for homosexuals. I do not think for a second that there is a lot of sin-hating/sinner-loving going on. In fact, I think that in addition to the clear anti-gay rhetoric we see in society, there is a far greater reserve of it that bubbles just beneath the surface, held down by what they would call political correctness and we would call common decency. My big worry is that this victory is going to embolden the anti-gay forces in society enough that we’ll see more of that sentiment bubbling up to the surface. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021/124 "2004-11-07T04:33:51Z")
> [@OxyMoron](#): > > My view is that with each such nomination W would be _losing_ political capital, not gaining it. Losing political capital with whom? He has a solid majority in both houses and never has to stand for election again in his life. Who exactly do you think he’s going to be answering to? > [@OM](#): > > No concrete progress, other than a remarkable increase in the acceptance of gay people and gay relationships. Yeah, I saw last Tuesday how widespread that acceptance was. > [@OM](#): > > And that’s the core of my argument: we’ve got quite a bit more progress to make socially before we’ll be able to win court decisions that have a prayer of surviving backlash. Again, there has been little or no concrete _legislative_ movement toward securing the rights of same-sex couples absent a court ruling forcing the issue. Hawaii passed its “reciprocal beneficiaries” law only after the state supreme court ruled in favor of marital rights. Vermont passed civil unions only after the state supreme court ordered it. Only California acted without court action. There is only so long that we can sit by waiting for the hearts of the hetero-majority to open and deign to recognize us. My feeling is that the existence of civilly united couples in Vermont and married couples in MA will go a long way toward reducing future backlash as more and more people realize that their own marriages aren’t threatened by married gay couples. > [@OM](#): > > Its rhetoric notwithstanding, I don’t believe a close reading of the majority opinion in _Lawrence_ supports that view, because the fundamental holding concerns substantive due process privacy rights rather than equal protection. _Romer_ comes closer, but even that’s not terribly clear. Er, Lawrence was clearly decided on Due Process grounds, which is what I said. > [@Otto](#): > > You are perhaps misunderstanding the full scope of Lawrence. It did not simply invalidate sodomy laws. It (AFAIK for the first time) extended the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause to matters of sexual orientation. > [@Justice Kennedy](#): > > We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution…The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. Romer was decided on Equal Protection grounds. > [@OM](#): > > Actually, I think you’re the one being circular here - what seems implicit in this statement is that it’s impossible to develop legislative momentum in this area without a court decision on your favor. History seems to back me up. I don’t think that’s the case at all, and sodomy is a good example. > [@OM](#): > > Look to _Lawrence’s_ discussion of the history prior to _Bowers_ - almost half the states were rid of their sodomy laws by then, itself notable progress since 1961,when all states had them. You may not have been aware, but in most of those cases it was by repeal. Not only was I aware, I made the same point. > [@Otto](#): > > But the thing is, half of the states didn’t repeal their sodomy laws. 10 were struck down by courts prior to Lawrence and Lawrence knocked out the rest. Texas had its sodomy law judicially invalidated more than once but kept passing not only new versions but targeted versions. The military still makes sodomy a crime. Yes, good on the states that did repeal their sodomy laws, but please don’t pretend like we had some amazing legislative momentum on our side in the battle against these laws. you initially seemed to agree that we didn’t have legislative momentum on the issue, now you’re saying that we did. Can’t have both sides of the argument. ---
**Author:** ![OxyMoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9a140/32.png) [@OxyMoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OxyMoron)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021/125 "2004-11-07T17:03:45Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Losing political capital with whom? He has a solid majority in both houses and never has to stand for election again in his life. Who exactly do you think he’s going to be answering to? Legacy, which is enormously important to the presidential ego. And to the reality that he doesn’t have an ideological majority in the Senate, or, on some issues, the House. That means he can’t indulge in the belief that he will achieve everything. And if the war in Iraq turns seriously sour - always a distinct possiblity, and I have little faith in his skills there - he’ll quickly find his party turning on him. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I saw last Tuesday how widespread that acceptance was. Stop being petulant. Where are the numbers going over time? Up. But we’ve got a very difficult road to slog, made much steeper by the impatience and insularity of gay leaders who mistakenly believed that a victory in the courts would be a political victory, too. > [@](#): > > Again, there has been little or no concrete _legislative_ movement toward securing the rights of same-sex couples absent a court ruling forcing the issue. Hawaii passed its “reciprocal beneficiaries” law only after the state supreme court ruled in favor of marital rights. Vermont passed civil unions only after the state supreme court ordered it. Only California acted without court action. There is only so long that we can sit by waiting for the hearts of the hetero-majority to open and deign to recognize us. My feeling is that the existence of civilly united couples in Vermont and married couples in MA will go a long way toward reducing future backlash as more and more people realize that their own marriages aren’t threatened by married gay couples. More petulance and more impatience. _First_ you move the culture, and _then_ you move the politics. “We only have so much time?” Good lord, what rot. We have all the time in the world. > [@](#): > > Er, Lawrence was clearly decided on Due Process grounds, which is what I said. Oh dear, I was hoping I wouldn’t have to go into this. You do recognize that the statement, “…extended the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause to matters of sexual orientation” is a _complete_ non sequitur, don’t you? We are speaking of _procedure_, not status, and the fundamental question is _privacy_, not sexual orientation-and, in fact, everything you quote from Kennedy, J. concerns privacy, not the status of one’s sexual orientation. > [@](#): > > Not only was I aware, I made the same point. you initially seemed to agree that we didn’t have legislative momentum on the issue, now you’re saying that we did. Can’t have both sides of the argument. Oh, good god, would you read the time frames in which I was speaking? For about 20 years, from 1961 to about 1980, we made legislative progress because the majority of the American public already agreed that private, consensual sexual acts shoudn’t be criminalized. At that point, we turned to the courts, and lost at the national level with _Bowers_. Post-_Bowers_, we continued to focus more on the judiciary, but mainly at the state level - and then turned _Bowers_ into _Lawrence_. And in the meantime, our leaders also started litigating the gay-marriage issue, an enormous tactical error because we didn’t have the culture on our side on the issue of “marriage” yet, and we won’t for a number of years. Our efforts would better have been devoted to get incremental changes, such as in California. We now find ourselves not only without the incremental changes in most places, but in states like Ohio, constitutionally blocked from obtaining those incremental changes. And that’s entirely because we got petulant and impatient, and decided we had to have everything _now_. And with that, I’m done. I’m not saying that you should _like_ any of what I’m saying - that’s not at issue. What I would like, however, is some recognition that the the political context in which we live is not nearly as awful as you would think. We have to look at how political systems evolve over time, and recognize that the cultural progress that we’ve already made will, to a great degree, protect us - it just won’t be enough to give us quick or easy victories. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021/126 "2004-11-07T17:51:03Z")
> [@OxyMoron](#): > > And with that, I’m done. Well if you’re done then I’m not going to waste my time on a point-by-point response. You continue to be wrong on several fronts, but if you’re not interested in discussing it further, that’s fine. Keep on believing wrong stuff. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021/127 "2004-11-07T19:54:08Z")
> [@](#): > > We have all the time in the world. No, we don’t. Some of us would like to have equal rights before we’re too dead to enjoy them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-shock-pro-bush-gays/273021.md?page=6)