Leading question. And I’m 99.999% certain this issue has never been discussed here either.
But even though all precints in Maine haven’t reported in yet, the repeals seem to be winning 52-48. Supposedly there have been 30 previous ballot initiatives designed to take rights away from LGBT citizens all over the US, and there was hope Maine would be the first popular vote that upheld those rights. But looks like Maine may make the record 0-31 for popular support for LGBT rights.
My question is, I can understand if people who do not like gay marriage, but why vote to have people’s rights to marry taken away? I really don’t get that. I am for gay marriage, but even if I was against it I would not go out and try to ban it. I am opposed to religion, but I have not tried to have any churches shut down. I also do not like diet coke (I prefer diet mt. dew) but I have never tried to get diet coke pulled from the market just because I don’t like it.
Why do opponents of gay equality feel they have to actually deny people those rights rather than just voice their displeasure like I’m sure they do with food choices? I do not understand that. If you oppose gay marriage, then don’t get one. Like I said earlier, I’m sure the anti-gay marriage group has various foods and restaurants they hate. I’m sure some hate eating at Taco Bell. But they do not en masse try to have Taco Bell shut down. They just avoid eating there.
What seperates this issue from others where people not only oppose gay rights, but actually try to strip them? In most other areas of life people have a more live and let live attitude.
Only about 20-25% of the nation is right wing authoritarian and want to impose their morality on everyone else via force. I do not get where the other 30-40% of the public who support these bans are coming from.
You don’t try to stop religion now, but what if they were sacrificing babies on their altars? It’s just a matter of abhorrence.
The other thing with gay marriage is that it “lessens” straight marriage. It’s like giving everyone a trophy. “Marriage” is about love and commitment, intending to start a family and raise children. Gay people just buttfuck one another and here people are telling them that they’re “married”.
A lot of people think that gays are inferior to straights, and so they get insulted by the idea that somebody who’s inferior would be treated like an equal. If there’s gay marriage, then that’s saying to straight married couples that their relationships are no better than what gays do together.
But my understanding is only about 20-25% of the country is right wing authoritarian. I expect them to vote other people’s rights away (the deep south under Jim Crow for example).
However gay marriage opponents are winning in liberal states like California and Maine (barely winning, but still winning). This is not Louisiana or Mississippi, this is California and Maine we are talking about. You cannot blame it on right wing authoritarianism. Something is making people who generally seem to have a live and let live attitude want to strip civil rights away from other members of society. Something I’d doubt they’d do in other areas of life.
I really don’t know where it is coming from. Do people just think they are voting to express opposition to gays, or do they actually understand they are voting to take away civil rights from a certain group of citizens? Do these people not understand the civil rights that come along with marriage, or what?
Would these same people in Maine or California vote 52-48 or 51-49 to make it illegal for bookstores to sell books on wiccan religions or atheism? I seriously doubt it. I don’t know where this opposition is coming from.
George Lakoff once said that these issues are framed as a referendum on gay sex, and that is a bad thing. So you basically end up framing the issue of ‘do you support or oppose gay sex’ and when you do that, you get 51% in places like California or Maine voting ‘no’.
Maybe that is why. Maybe people are voting because they feel they are expressing opposition to gay sex, not because they understand the civil and legal rights they are stripping other people of.
A better frame is ‘should government and mob rule be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights’.
Well, how long did gay people actually have the right to marry in these places? A year? A couple of years? (srious question - I have no idea, but I’m sure it’s a fairly short time)
I doubt if most people voting for this repeal think of it as “taking people’s rights away” because gay marriage hasn’t been around long enough for it to really percolate into people’s consciousness as " a right people have".
People are innately conservative (especially older people). They’re trying to get things back to the status quo. It’s not even necessarily that they don’t like gay people (though doubt there’s a fair amount of "well I’m not gay so it’s not going to hurt ME). They just don’t like change.
The liberal party isn’t primarily made up of Straight Dope style liberals. It’s mostly made up of poor folk who want government care. For instance, most black people vote democratic but are also highly homophobic. The parties are more formed by economic issues than moral ones.
Interestingly, I’d bet that the Republican party is similar and most of the intellectuals at the top are probably alright with or approve of gay marriage. But unlike liberal politicians, they basically keep this to themselves because the poorest Republicans are with them based on moral issues. With neither an economic nor moral platform for this group, the Republicans voting base would disappear.
Because they can’t legally get away with having them rounded up into camps. This is a matter of bigotry; and SSM opponents are simply taking the opportunity to hurt the people they regard as “sinful” or “icky”. Not even our government would let them get away with taking away homosexuals right to vote or tossing them all into prison, so the bigots can’t do that; but they CAN prevent SS couples from having marriage.
And yes; I do believe that the great majority of the people who voted to forbid SS couples marriage would also vote to have them rounded up and put into camps, complete with pink triangles if they were ever given the chance.
Liberals make up 19% of the electorate, but conservative democrats and disaffected democrats make up 25% combined.
I do think at the top ranks of the GOP are a large number of cynical people (Guiliani, Cheney, Rove, Gingrich) who reject the religious and social standards of the GOP but play along to placate the base. However there are also tons of true believers a the highest levels too.
False argument, I have never been able to carry a child to term, so by that intend to start a family and raise children is total bullshit. By those arguments I can never be married. Fuck that. A gay male couple can adopt, and a gay female couple can artificially inseminate and pop out a sprog.
Utter, complete insanity. Absolute nonsense. Even you know that this isn’t true.
How come 50-100 years ago when they was no real debate about homosexuality; when it was agreed that they were sick, filthy degenerates, was there no movement to put them in camps if even today the “great majority” of those opposing SSM would vote to round them up Hitler style?
There’s never any shades of gray in your world, is there?
So people only have the rights the government sees fit to grant them?
That’s a lovely view. On that view, there is no such thing as tyranny of the majority–if the majority is oppressing you, it’s not really oppression, because if they say you don’t have rights, then you in fact don’t have any, and ergo cannot have any of your rights violated!
Because they were typically in hiding, that’s why. And in fact Hitler DID round them up; and they weren’t treated at all well by the Allies when they found out what the pink triangle meant. Put right back in the camps for a while, in fact IIRC. And Alan Turing was tossed into prison and driven to suicide. And lesbians were often raped in order to “convert them”, much as often happens in South Africa today. And so on.
How exactly DID you think they were treated “50-100 years ago”?