Are we making the best case for gay unions?

[bluedawg12]

This is an interesting report from a recent Pew Poll.

Where have we gone wrong in our quest for fairness to committed gay couples?

Even conservative Democrats oppose "gay marriage."

If marriage is a social "good," if stable committed relationships lead to better quality of life and health, better financial strength, if children raised in two parent households are better off than in single parent households- why not accept that those rights,benefits and duties apply equally to all Americans?

The word marriage has become an emotionally loaded term. It suggests a religious and spiritual approval and blessing- but is that what we are looking for? Or is it a quest for rights and protections?

More than wondering what has gone so wrong on this issue since it burst on the scene with the few States that approved it in some form and then the back lash in San Fran...my question is where do we go from here?

How do we get people thinking in terms of fairness and get off the lurid terms "sodomy" and "sodomite" and the sexual connotations.

Gay rights are not about any sexual act - but, rather, the right to love another human being openly and to build a healthy, open, loving relationship.

Sex will always be with us, with or with out laws, I think the movement is about domestic issues and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thoughts?


http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948

snip > The public is divided over whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged, but Americans continue to decisively reject gay marriage. Americans oppose gay marriage by nearly two-to-one (61%-32%), a margin that has remained stable since the middle of 2003.

Fully 90% of Enterprisers are opposed to gay marriage. Social Conservatives are close behind at 84% opposition (with 65% strongly
opposed, the highest of any group). Majorities in all of the other groups ­ except Liberals ­ also oppose gay marriage by wide margins. Conservative Democrats oppose gay marriage by roughly four-to-one (74%-19%), and Disadvantaged Democrats oppose it by (55%-37%). But 80% of Liberals favor gay marriage, more than twice the percentage in each of the other two Democratic groups. < snip

[bluedawg12]

1. Found this from Andrew Sullivan back in 1989 but it still has good points

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php

>Legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract-yourself-from commitment to another human being. Like straight marriage, it would foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence. Since there's no reason gays should not be allowed to adopt or be foster parents, it could also help nurture children. And its introduction would not be some sort of radical break with social custom. As it has become more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge their loves publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and their friends. A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it. Burke could have written a powerful case for it.<

[kweerwolf]

2. As much as I support the right to marry ...

... I think the LGBT establishment led us down the primrose path on this issue - just as they did with the military issue in the early '90s.

Neither issue affects even a majority of gays and lesbians, so there wasn't even enough real support for them within our community. Oh sure, most of us would say they are good and noble causes; but in the longrun our support for marriage and the military were lukewarm at most because they didn't affect most of us directly.

Meanwhile, the majority of us work ... and the majority of that majority work in places where they can be fired simply for being gay. Sure there are a few states and a handful of cities that offer protections, but in most of the country we can still be fired for being gay or lesbian and have no legal recourse.

Earlier this year the new head of the Human Rights Campaign toured a number of cities and came back reporting that everywhere he went the people he talked to were most concerned about employment and non-discrimination issues. D'uh! That should have told him something! But when he got back to that magical, mystical land called Inside-the-Beltway wear he wouldn't have to rub elbows with us common fags and went back to working on the marriage issue. Sorry, but I lost what tiny shred of respect I had for the arrogant queens of HRC at that moment.

Marriage is a losing battle for us at the moment ... just as the military was a decade ago. Not only did both issues lack strong support among lesbians and gays, but our Democratic "leadership" is ambivalent and weak at best on gay issues. Hell, even on a progressive forum like DU I'm astounded at the level of homophobia at times.

Let's focus on fights we can win and fights we can count on the support of our alleged allies on.

Employment issues is one of those issues. It's an issue that affects the major of the LGBT community. Let's pick our battles more carefully ... and not based on what the queens who sit inside the Beltway think they should be.

[Maat]

3. Well, I haven't walked in your moccasins ..

I'm not gay. I'm a PFLAGer.

But .. two things come to mind.

(1) When I am advocating for same-sex marriage rights, or preservation of our domestic partnership rights, I use the term, 'rights for committed couples,' and it works very well.

(2) Most of the GLBT couples I meet are in committed relationships; maybe it is just because I'm a PFLAGer. and you don't get many young singles there of the non-monogamous variety.

Anyway, I rejected the 'we should have left gay marriage alone and we would have won the presidential election' talk because (1) bullies don't give up picking on you when you back down, and (2) we have California domestic partnership that they were viciously attacking before and during the same-sex-marriage battle; it is vital we preserve those.

Hope I interpreted the thread and the post correctly, and didn't offend. I just am putting my two cents' worth into an interesting thread.

I feel that I must educate and correct ignorance, for I have many friends, in committed relationships, who just want to have rights that protect their families, which involve kids.

So, anyway, I'm working on it!

[kweerwolf]

4. I agree with much of what you say ...

... but even among the committed couples I know, there's no rush to get married. Perhaps it's a geographic thing (you're in more liberal California and I'm in conservative Missouri) but marriage is not that pressing of an issue among gays and lesbians here.

For whatever reason, the LGBT leaders in D.C. decided to make "marriage" the lynch-pin in the struggle for equality. While I support the right of couples to marry if they choose, I also understand that the religious right sees the issue as a threat. I think we would have been much better off if we worked for equal employment/non-discrimination issues because that's something that a larger portion of the general public supports.

Putting marriage at the forefront is a lot like putting the cart before the horse. We can't expect marriages to be stable just because they are made legal by a piece of paper. Economic stability plays a greater role in keeping couples in stable relationships than whether or not they can point to some sort of legal document as legitimizing their relationship.

Unfortunately, the marriage genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back. Thanks to the ham-handed efforts of groups like HRC, every LGBT issue will now be tainted by the marriage issue in the eyes of the religious right.

P.S. - And thank you for being a PFLAGer, Maat! I'm always in awe of the support we can count on from our straight allies in PFLAG.

[Ayesha]

5. Midwestern values in a Western state

My partner and I (lesbian couple) very much want to get married. It's interesting that you think it's an issue that matters more to people in CA than in the Midwest - to me, marriage is more of a Midwestern value. My partner and I are originally from Minnesota and Indiana, respectively, but we now live in CA. Neither of us quite "fits in" here, though we never really felt we belonged in the Midwest either.

We both put a lot of value on family; being considered a family is very important to us, as is being accepted by *our* families. Our sexual values are also more "conservative" in that neither of us had many past girlfriends and we both believe in waiting to find someone you really care about rather than sleeping with everyone you date. That is not at all the typical attitude here in L.A.! My partner's childhood involved multiple divorces of both of her parents and an abusive stepfather, and she has always yearned for a stable family. I was lucky enough to have one and value them beyond measure.

I think that the ironic truth is that many of the gay couples that most want to get married grew up among the very Midwesterers who now fight their unions. They/we value marriage because WE WERE RAISED WITH MIDWESTERN VALUES! We want to have a big party with cake, gifts, and Aunt Edna getting drunk on punch, we want the house with the white picket fence and the 2 kids playing in the yard. We just want to do it with a spouse who is the same sex as we are. But they who taught us to want all those things don't understand that we have not forgotten our childhoods and our family values to embark on some evil path of sin. They reject us, so we try to create a community in another place where we can live our dreams. We end up here, in a place that doesn't necessarily share our values, but unlike our Midwestern home states, has the decency to respect our rights.

[Maat]

11. Thanks for the reply.

I'm always in awe of my LGBT friends who carry on despite enormous bias and discrimination.

Yes, domestic partnerships are very popular out here, but then San Francisco, L.A., and San Diego are our REAL capitals.

My in-laws (BIL, SIL, MIL, FIL, and the SIL/BIL's kids) all moved back to Oklahoma, and became crazy religious hardrighters. From listening to them, if not one person had advocated for same-sex marriage rights, their pastor STILL would have made an issue - because the churches back there are REALLY well-oiled rightwing political machines.

And, if you say either 'equal opportunity for women' or 'reproductive rights' or 'gay' or 'same-sex marriage,' my in-laws' brains seize up, and they are in a trance, do what the Rethuglican party wants them to do, and completely ignore how badly they are being screwed by the government.

Most ironically, THEY only had two children, and SIL/BIL only had two children; needless to say, THEY availed themselves of birth control. I just give up there. My husband handles the conversation. LOL! Call me the somewhat cynical retired social worker.

We do have a pretty good handle on the discrimination angle out here. The law's well-written in that regard, in my humble opinion.

Maybe that's why we focus on same-sex marital/partnership rights.

I can understand your viewpoint; it is shared by a few of my friends out here. I just think that the RRE-ers (Religious Right Extremists) are such miserable people that they'll be bullies no matter what (somewhat-cynical attitude).

And, you're right - that train left the station awhile back.

I just say, 'Keep on fighting (advocating, really).'

Our hope lies in the young - my nine-year-old is being raised to affirm all couples (competent and adult, at least). And, if you talk to the teenagers, and I do, and the twenty-somethings, THEY think that their wingnut parents are nuts, and these kids plan to push for anti-discrimination legislation and same-sex rights as to the extent possible. So, I have quite a bit of hope.

Take care!


P.S. I'm a J.D. (law degree). Most ironically, the ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) attorneys who initiated the "Newsom" suit (Staver, Tyler, Ackerman, Lively have been involved) work in my red pocket in a blue state (Murrieta/Temecula in SoCal). They were the ones who filed to stop Newsom - jerks (well, Staver's based in Florida) I, of course, fund the OTHER side, the ACLU, Equality California, and AU (who responded to the suit). There was much maneuvering going on in that suit, since some of us are trying to change the law via the court system. We have other cases pending. That dufus, Ackerman, is trying to get on the local school board, and is 'threatening' parents, messaging, "Planned Parenthood will influence your kids' minds ... unless I'm elected, and can fight them" or something close to that.

[bluedawg12]

7. Thank you for your support and comments, what is PFLAG?

Sorry, I am fairly new to the world of politics- but your group sounds fantastic so I want to know.

New to politics because I was comfortable as a hampster in a nest until shrub started destroying our nation, the world, and unleashed the unholy radicalright fundy gay bashing theocrats on us. But, better to flush out your enemies than wonder who they are.

[Maat]

10. PFLAG is ..

Parents, Family, Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

We march in parades, educate, advocate and provide emotional support.

We are family friends of 13 years+ to a committed lesbian couple.

[dsc]

6. I agree to a point

but in fairness to the HRC they have been working on employment as well as marriage. Also, with couples getting married in MA, it is hard to ignore marriage. I do with though, that there would be the concerted effort to push employment that there is for marriage. I am a single guy employed at a southern school so employment is big marriage little in my sphere.

[bluedawg12]

8. Very interesting discussion with great, honest replies, so...

Great comments everyone.

I agree with Kwolff- when I first started hearing rumblings about gay marriage it was on news oriented internet forums where fundyradicals were spouting pseudo-science, and hate mongering against gays throwing every crappy intellectually dishonest factoid at us. It was here that I first heard, "dire warnings" about the gay agenda- including gay marriage.

Prior to any public discussion the radicalright was already warning people on the internet discussion groups that the gay agenda includes *gasp*
gay-marriage...<<<shriek!!>>>

They stole the thunder. They set the frame work for this discussion. They set up straw man arguments, tied gays in with: pedophilia (not true) and increased drug abuse and increased disease and shortened life expectancy.

In short- dehumanizing and stigmatizing gays, whom they religiously and faithfully referred to as sodomites.--eeesh. Once gays were made to look dirty, diseased and addicted, it was not that hard to ridicule gay’s wanting to get married. It was an effective anti-gay rightwing marketing campaign.

So, it seems to me, living a quiet, productive, committed, life with my sole and only partner of 19 years I had never heard about the argument FOR gay marriage from gays on TV !

In fact, gays are never the ones on the MSM discussing marriage, It's guys like Pat Buchanan weighing in and spouting off. Like having the Grand Wizard of the KKK talk about civil rights...that's fair and balanced?

In short, KWolff is correct- the American public were never brought through the thinking process of why gays want to get married, what it means in terms of life and security, benefits and responsibilities.

Actually, one of the first and best ( and only) pro-gay marriage discussions that I saw was on CSPAN given by the Log Cabin repugs head.

He spoke about using the term- "fairness" to gays. Because people are burned out on "rights" movements and PC thinking thanks to an effective rightwing blitz against liberal thinking. And, he believed, that Americans are basically fair minded- so do I.

He mentioned that marriage brings not only benefits but also duties--and gays wish to participate in both.

He also mentioned that there are about 1,200 rights and benefits conferred upon married couples- most of which cannot be patched together by alternate documents such as will, and living will, and power of attorney.

So, gay marriage was thrust on an unsuspecting, fair, but a socially conservative, religious America, who equated marriage with gays wanting a party and a chance to play dress up!

The real message of fairness to all Americans was lost.

Gay advocates were shunned from MSM debate. And gay marriage was defined by straights - and mostly radicalrigtwingnut straights from groups that espoused family protection. Yeah, sure they do-political power mongers and money grabbers.

And the right wing jumped on this issue and conflated this with the moral decline of America- hitting the priest scandal as an example, and tying this into cultural decline- we never set the stage, we didn't take the lead publicly, we never convinced the American people of our thinking process and why this is a fairness issue and why it is not a threat to marriage- but rather a reinforcement.

So who the heck started this? Who are the originators of this idea?

And, now that it’s out and mismanaged- do we drop it for now or do we continue to fight for equality for all Americans including work, housing, and domestic benefits, duties and security?

For the record:
I am not interested in a church wedding. But I do care about:

Property rights and inheritance issues with my life partner.
Hospital visitation.
Social security and pension benefits.
Who gets to raise the pups and cats in the event one of us kicks off...LOL.

Thoughts?

[Maat]

12. This is where a lawyer is worth his or her weight in gold.

The ONLY way either a straight or a GLBT person (anyone) is pretty much guaranteed that property will go where they want it to go is via well-drafted legal documents (signed and notarized).

As to social security benefits, I'm giving up on those going to anyone pretty soon.

So, although fighting for constructive (created by courts) form contract rights (which is kind of what marriage/domestic-partnership rights are), is important - it doesn't relieve us of consulting with a lawyer to ensure that we get the distribution we want.

I just want my friends to remember that.

[bluedawg12]

9. Check out Pew Poll on: religion

This snippette is interesting but check out the poll summary link, it's fascinating and maybe shows some room for where we can reach out tofair minded Americans.


http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=254

>More Favor Gays Serving Openly

Consistent with a recent rise in the number of Americans who favor legalized marriage and civil unions for gays and lesbians(2), public support for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military has increased modestly since the mid-1990s. Currently, 58% say gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly, up from 52% in July 1994. Equally important, intense opposition has decreased ­ from 26% in 1994 to 15% today.

Solid majorities of seculars (72%), white Catholics (72%) and mainline Protestants (63%) believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the nation's military; most white evangelical Protestants (55%) disagree<

[Siyahamba]

13. It seems firsthand experience is the best way.

Places where equal marriage has been in place, such as Massachusetts and Canada, experienced a strong initial backlash when the notion of equal marriage was first raised, much like most of the US right now. But after living among married LGBT and seeing the sky hasn't fallen, the majority has become accepting.

But first we have to cross the big hurdle, making us equal under law. In Massachusetts and Canada this was done by the Supreme Court - for better or worse, that seems like the only effective way so far.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Screw conservatives of all stripes!

Screw Conservatism in all its permutations!

To a Socialist, the issue is equal rights! As a Marxist-Leninist I believe that there should be no class differences and that everyone is entitled to the same rights of citizenship, including women and GLBTs.

The opposition to "gay marriage" comes from religion, and it is religion that must be put in its proper place. As comrade Lenin wrote in his essay on Socialism and Religion:

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

But a slave who has become conscious of his slavery and has risen to struggle for his emancipation has already half ceased to be a slave. The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth. The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion, and frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on earth.

Socialism and Religion (1905)
V.I. Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm