The anti-gay appeals to "the will of the people" don't impress me. A 1964 state ballot measure to prohibit racial discrimination in housing was solidly defeated, and more recently "the will of the people" gave us Propositions 13 and 209 and 187. Anyone whose human rights depend on the will of the California electorate (which is not the same thing as "the people," by the way) is in serious trouble.
Well, the whole gay marriage thing has been a sad, pathetic clusterfuck from the time that scumbag Gavin Newsome and his cohorts pulled their stunt at San Francisco City Hall. They either didn't plan on or didn't care that there was going to be a ferocious backlash, and what did those dickheads end up doing? Creating a huge rallying cry for the right wing, a distraction from the horrors that BushCo. were perpetuating in the Middle East and on the Constitution and a boon to fundraising for them. "What's next! Man marries goat?!?!".
None of my friends were prepared legally for it, one couple I know signed a marriage contract that's almost destroyed their relationship because they were so hyped on the drama of it that they didn't think it through properly. The maroons that unleashed all that basically washed their hands of the consequences and there was no legal coherency at all.
Then there was the absolutely pathetic No on 8 campaign *shudder* I think the only worst campaign I've seen in my time as a voter (since 1978) was Michael Huffington's. The same old dinosaurs ran it, they totally misjudged the black and Latino vote and they just threw money down a drain.
So here we are, same-sex marriage is illegal, all those 18,000 "marriages" are farces and the only way to change things is ANOTHER bruising, hateful and wildly expensive initiative campaign. Wow, I'm just SO looking forward to another year of hearing that when I'm not molesting 8-year olds because I'm stealing little Johnny from the playground, I'm really plotting to have sex with sheep as a prelude to me marrying Little Fluffy. Whoppee!
I'm a big gay history maven and I think the people that came to politics through Stonewall would be flabbergasted that gay marriage is the top issue for homosexuals in 2009. We don't have federal employment or housing non-discrimination (it's very spotty state-by-state) laws, gays & lesbians still can't serve openly in the military (hello, Leonard Matlovich!), gay & lesbian youth are still suicidal timebombs in alarming numbers and we're freaking fighting for a dying institution that a good number of those 70's people thought was a patriarchal mess that stunted human growth and potential and that it should be done away with? An institution that two drunken heteros who have known each for two weeks can affirm at the Elvis Chapel in Vegas are increasingly shunning? WTF?
Saying that someone is "anti-gay" just because they backed Prop 8 is just as ludicrous as saying someone is "anti-fetus" because they are pro-choice. And the moral outrage and "tyranny of the majority" claims made by the Anti-8 movement seem eerily similar to those made by the Anti-choice movement.
Henry, you attack "heteros" using a bad example of marriage, yet you cringe at being compared to child molestors. Hmmmmm . . . Your verbal snipes at the fringes of your opponent's positions mirror those of the people you criticize. Brilliant. You and others like you sound like Rush Limbaugh making ham-fisted attacks on Sonia Sotomayor.
This is clearly an emotional issue for everyone, and the more gay marriage proponents vilify those in the 52% majority that voted for Prop 8 with ad hominim attacks, the more damage you do to the gay marriage cause.
BTW: Both Prop 8 and President Obama won a popular vote of 52%. Yet the President's victory is cited by many as a national mandate while Prop 8 is viewed by the same people as a "narrow victory." Go figure.
The "will of the people" and the "will of the electorate" are the same thing when it comes to elections. That's the fun of a republic. I'm sure you're perfectly fine with the will of the electorate when they agree with you, aren't you?
No one used the phrase "anti-gay" until you did, "Brown." Your analogy between the anti-8 and anti-choice movements don't hold water, but I'm leaving it to you to figure out the reasons why. And one person blowing off steam on my blog isn't the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.
Gosh, Lisa . . . the first sentence of the first comment by rootlesscosmo in this thread starts with the following: "The anti-gay . . . " Did you forget, or did you just ignore that comment? (I'm not making this stuff up . . .)
By the way, your "I'm leaving it to you to figure it out" smacks of walking away with the basketball when someone makes a call you don't like. You may not like my analogy, but it's pretty spot on. You know how I know? Because whenever I make it, those who disagree don't actually tell me why I'm wrong, they just pout and tell me I'm a horrible human being. Face it: Both abortion and same-sex marriage are emotional issues, NOT rational ones. When one tries to discuss it on rational grounds, things eventually devolve name calling and claims to the moral high ground by both sides.
Also, I never said one person "blowing off steam" is the same as Rush. I said what he said was as ridiculous as what Rush says.
The knife cuts both ways. If you accuse the other side of anything, be prepared to be willing to have it pointed out when the accusations apply to your own side.
BTW: I bet you think you know which way I voted in the last election or where I stand on abortion or same-sex marriage. And I bet you'd be wrong.
I know they're both emotional issues. I also have no opinions on how you voted (nor do I care). Using the term "anti-choice" is a clue, of course, on abortion.
No, I think your analogy is wrong, and I'm leaving it to you to figure out why I might think that.
The anti-gay appeals to "the will of the people" don't impress me. A 1964 state ballot measure to prohibit racial discrimination in housing was solidly defeated, and more recently "the will of the people" gave us Propositions 13 and 209 and 187. Anyone whose human rights depend on the will of the California electorate (which is not the same thing as "the people," by the way) is in serious trouble.
ReplyDeleteSigh.
ReplyDeleteWell, the whole gay marriage thing has been a sad, pathetic clusterfuck from the time that scumbag Gavin Newsome and his cohorts pulled their stunt at San Francisco City Hall. They either didn't plan on or didn't care that there was going to be a ferocious backlash, and what did those dickheads end up doing? Creating a huge rallying cry for the right wing, a distraction from the horrors that BushCo. were perpetuating in the Middle East and on the Constitution and a boon to fundraising for them. "What's next! Man marries goat?!?!".
ReplyDeleteNone of my friends were prepared legally for it, one couple I know signed a marriage contract that's almost destroyed their relationship because they were so hyped on the drama of it that they didn't think it through properly. The maroons that unleashed all that basically washed their hands of the consequences and there was no legal coherency at all.
Then there was the absolutely pathetic No on 8 campaign *shudder* I think the only worst campaign I've seen in my time as a voter (since 1978) was Michael Huffington's. The same old dinosaurs ran it, they totally misjudged the black and Latino vote and they just threw money down a drain.
So here we are, same-sex marriage is illegal, all those 18,000 "marriages" are farces and the only way to change things is ANOTHER bruising, hateful and wildly expensive initiative campaign. Wow, I'm just SO looking forward to another year of hearing that when I'm not molesting 8-year olds because I'm stealing little Johnny from the playground, I'm really plotting to have sex with sheep as a prelude to me marrying Little Fluffy. Whoppee!
I'm a big gay history maven and I think the people that came to politics through Stonewall would be flabbergasted that gay marriage is the top issue for homosexuals in 2009. We don't have federal employment or housing non-discrimination (it's very spotty state-by-state) laws, gays & lesbians still can't serve openly in the military (hello, Leonard Matlovich!), gay & lesbian youth are still suicidal timebombs in alarming numbers and we're freaking fighting for a dying institution that a good number of those 70's people thought was a patriarchal mess that stunted human growth and potential and that it should be done away with? An institution that two drunken heteros who have known each for two weeks can affirm at the Elvis Chapel in Vegas are increasingly shunning? WTF?
It's worse than a Donizetti opera, I tell ya.
Saying that someone is "anti-gay" just because they backed Prop 8 is just as ludicrous as saying someone is "anti-fetus" because they are pro-choice. And the moral outrage and "tyranny of the majority" claims made by the Anti-8 movement seem eerily similar to those made by the Anti-choice movement.
ReplyDeleteHenry, you attack "heteros" using a bad example of marriage, yet you cringe at being compared to child molestors. Hmmmmm . . . Your verbal snipes at the fringes of your opponent's positions mirror those of the people you criticize. Brilliant. You and others like you sound like Rush Limbaugh making ham-fisted attacks on Sonia Sotomayor.
This is clearly an emotional issue for everyone, and the more gay marriage proponents vilify those in the 52% majority that voted for Prop 8 with ad hominim attacks, the more damage you do to the gay marriage cause.
BTW: Both Prop 8 and President Obama won a popular vote of 52%. Yet the President's victory is cited by many as a national mandate while Prop 8 is viewed by the same people as a "narrow victory." Go figure.
Rootlesscosmo,
ReplyDeleteThe "will of the people" and the "will of the electorate" are the same thing when it comes to elections. That's the fun of a republic. I'm sure you're perfectly fine with the will of the electorate when they agree with you, aren't you?
No one used the phrase "anti-gay" until you did, "Brown." Your analogy between the anti-8 and anti-choice movements don't hold water, but I'm leaving it to you to figure out the reasons why. And one person blowing off steam on my blog isn't the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.
ReplyDeleteGosh, Lisa . . . the first sentence of the first comment by rootlesscosmo in this thread starts with the following: "The anti-gay . . . " Did you forget, or did you just ignore that comment? (I'm not making this stuff up . . .)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, your "I'm leaving it to you to figure it out" smacks of walking away with the basketball when someone makes a call you don't like. You may not like my analogy, but it's pretty spot on. You know how I know? Because whenever I make it, those who disagree don't actually tell me why I'm wrong, they just pout and tell me I'm a horrible human being. Face it: Both abortion and same-sex marriage are emotional issues, NOT rational ones. When one tries to discuss it on rational grounds, things eventually devolve name calling and claims to the moral high ground by both sides.
Also, I never said one person "blowing off steam" is the same as Rush. I said what he said was as ridiculous as what Rush says.
The knife cuts both ways. If you accuse the other side of anything, be prepared to be willing to have it pointed out when the accusations apply to your own side.
BTW: I bet you think you know which way I voted in the last election or where I stand on abortion or same-sex marriage. And I bet you'd be wrong.
Ever heard of "reading too fast"?
ReplyDeleteI know they're both emotional issues. I also have no opinions on how you voted (nor do I care). Using the term "anti-choice" is a clue, of course, on abortion.
No, I think your analogy is wrong, and I'm leaving it to you to figure out why I might think that.