| Author |
Message |
    
Jason & John
Citizen
Username: Johnh91011
Post Number: 108
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 4:23 pm: |     |
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/index.html
Let the sparks fly. Now comes the constitutional amendment at the state and federal level.
At least we have 3 years before they can actually amend the MA constitution.
One brick just got removed from our Berlin wall. Great! Grand! Hallelujah! |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4541
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 4:52 am: | |
Some of the political pundits are saying that this is going to be the major issue in the upcoming Presidential election. Bush is vulnerable on Iraq and on the economy. The win at all cost folks such as Karl Rove may very well feel that this issue is a big winner since a majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Kerry, because he is from Massachussets and because he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, is very vulnerable on this point.
I support, big time, domestic partnership and civil union legeslation. However, gay marriage is going to be one of the hot buttons in the election and all the progress that has been made in gay rights since the 60s may well be lost.
I know that for many gay and lesbian couples being allowed to have their relationships recognized as true marriages as opposed to civil unions is very, very important. However, at this time, with this President, all the progress made over the last forty years may be lost on this hot button issue.
Bush is going to be interviewed next Sunday morning by Tim Russet on Meet the Press. It will be interesting to see how this subject is handled by our compassionate conservative President.
"Fire when ready, Gridley"
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2190
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 6:41 am: | |
Bush will be interviewed on Sunday? Very good. That means Rove will have time to explain the issue to him and to tell him how to handle it.
It looks like 20% of the voters are in play. I wonder how many of them consider same-sex marriage to be a deciding factor as compared to the war in Iraq, the economy and the environment. Of those 40% or so who will vote for Bush and the other 40% or so who will vote for the Democratic candidate, I wonder how many consider same-sex marriage to be the issue that will motivate them to go out and vote.
It could be the case that focusing on same-sex marriages will make the election very mean-spirited without changing very many votes. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4543
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Tjohn, my read is that a lot of working class Americans who supported Bush in 2000 atleast in part for social and religious reasons might move to the Dem side this year because they are out of work or afraid of soon being out of work. Highlighting this issue will probably keep them in the fold. |
court07040
Citizen
Username: Court07040
Post Number: 30
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 8:04 am: | |
This thread belongs in the politics section. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2000
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
bobk, I really doubt that if this is a setback, it will set back progress we've made since the 60's. There is more grassroots support of gay rights than ever.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Let the sparks fly?
Let the rice fly!
I won't be happy until gays and lesbians can marry at every town hall in the nation and have their marriages recognized everywhere they go, but in the hopefully very short meantime, Boston looks like the place to be this June for some very joyous celebrations. Bring extra hankies.
I'd like to point out to bobk that the only two people I know who oppose gay marriage are an economist and a boutique publisher, not working class people, who tend to be less intellectual about sex and marriage than educated people, and therefore don't get tied up in contradictions arguing for civil unions as opposed to marriage, or for racially integrated marriage as opposed to same-sex marriage.
The argument against acknowledging other people's full human rights is always "it could jeopardize the progress they've made." You may notice that gays and lesbians, who live with this issue more closely than straights, are not afraid. If you watch television, you will see it is impossible that America is going back to the closeted 60s.
Besides, there are so many gay conservatives gunning for this issue with such passion, I think they'll knock the evangelicals on their butts. Bring it on! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 844
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Kerry must be a non-intellectual then as he opposes gay marriage, as does every viable democrat candidate for president. I'll bet he's on the horn to Mass. right now expressing his opposition.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
cjc,
I said it's by and large intellectuals who oppose gay marriage, and Kerry, alas, does fit that description. But I look forward to his next position on the issue!
Not hard to guess he'll end up in a much better political position with than does George Bush -- whom I expect to pay lip service to a constitutional amendment and then run like hell from the issue at the GOP convention in New York.
Isn't the Taliban pushing a constitutional amendment against just this sort of thing in Afghanistan? It's not going to be hard to paint the opponents of same-sex marriage as intolerant at worst and confused at best about the American tradition of separation of church and state, and to paint George Bush as no real conservative, sicne he wants to rewrite the constitution to intrude into bedrooms, marriage counseling, etc.
But mostly what is going to kill this issue for the my-religion-should-be-law-for-everbody crowd is the onslaught of TV pictures starting in May of happy couples getting married in Massachusetts, with their loving, adopted kids as ring-bearers and flower girls, the grandparents and relatives beaming and weeping for joy, everybody hugging, the sweet interviews on the Today show, the celbrity nuptuals, with catering and fashion advice from Carson et al -----
If I were Karl Rove, I'd get my guy out of the way of that moving train.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2196
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
Harpo,
Intellectuals may spend more time articulating their opposition to gay marriage, but I suspect that if I survey the UAW workers at the Caterpillar plant in Peoria, I won't find much support for gay marriages or even gay rights. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Go ahead and do it, tjohn. UAW workers in Peoria tend to have a lot more experience with life as opposed to books -- including the bible -- and catch on much sooner than the better education that when it comes to sex, it ain't necessarily so and nobody's changing who they are. The better educated aren't so smart. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2197
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:33 pm: | |
Harpo,
So I would expect to find that the majority of UAW workers at the Cat plant in Peoria would be supportive of gay rights and gay marriage? I wish I had the time and resources to conduct such a survey because that is a bet I would make with you. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
tjohn,
I can't go on arguing this in 2 separate threads (there is one over in the all politics side).
I'd defintely make a bet with you about Peoria and UAW workers -- provided we are talking rank and file and not their leadership!
I assume we are using UAW workers as a stand in for people without college educations, who are less sophisticated, who like Clint Eastwood movies, who are not metrosexuals blah blah.
What I am saying is this:
They will not vote for an amendment that bans same sex marriage. They will not vote for George Bush for pushing it.
I am also arguing that colelge educated white collar professionals are often more hypocritical and complicated about sex, and intellectual about it, and therefore believe in the "institution" of marriage rather than the reality of it or sex. Sometimes "plainer" people have a "plainer" and therefore more correct view of it: There is nothing intellectual or even rational about who a body wants to be in bed with. Passing laws about it is meaningless. In fact, it's laughable. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2198
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Ah, that is something slightly different. A person can be opposed to gay marriages but unwilling to support legal bans on gay marriage. Similarly, I might be personally opposed to abortion but unwilling to force my views on others with laws. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Well, who cares about that? I'm not the thought police.
But I think that if the GOP forced a debate on this, more people would come to change their minds in favor of gay marriage than those who would stick to their views. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2199
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Harpo,
It is perfectly possible for somebody to be opposed to something on a personal level yet have no interest in supporting laws against that something. That's all I am saying. All things being equal, a pro-gay position isn't going to play well with working-class America. They workers may not be fired about about outlawing gays, but that doesn't automatically make them supporters of gay marriage.
And spare me the dribble about your blue collar roots. So what, my grandfather was a coal miner and I have done a bit of manual labor myself in the past. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
tjohn,
I'm just going to keep arguing against this theory that working class America is less sophisticated about homsexuality or less understanding about the happiness of the gays and lesbians they know. AIDS demonstrated that wasn't true. It's a myth that working people are less open to gays and lesbians. In fact, you will often find that as you go down the income scale, people are much more accepting of other people's differences and departures from the norms than the uptight monied classes -- who engage in all the same behavior but hide it assiduously.
I don't have blue collar roots and never said I did. My mother was working class, but she wasn't blue collar and my father was a very low income earner (which was marginally better than the poverty he was raised in) -- but I don't know where you get off telling anybody to "spare you" their "dribble" about their family. I didn't call you names or say anything about your roots or your family. I just said you are mistaken in your projections of the working class about sexual matters.
Geez.
Did you once think the working class would turn on Bill Clinton about "that" woman? Turns out the only people who got bent out of shape about it were editors and Joe Lieberman. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2200
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 7:42 pm: | |
Harpo,
I did a bit of poking around on the web and found no support for your contention that anti-gay sentiment is higher among intellectuals. On the contrary it would seem that tolerance for homosexuals is higher amoung young than old, higher among the more-educated than less-educated and higher among women than men. Can you cite any studies to the contrary?
http://www.international-survey.org/A_Soc_M/Homosex_ASM_v4_n1.pdf
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/25/100906.shtml
http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB7537/
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 10:34 pm: | |
Your first study is about Austrailia and only cites US studies in passing with respect to education and attitudes about homosexuality in general.
Your other two studies don't address the issues of unions and the working class at all.
Try this:
"At its national convention June 14-18, the Auto Workers union voted to amend its constitution to protect lesbian and gay members from discrimination. The "Objects" section now reads "to unite workers regardless of religion, race, creed, color, sex, political affiliation, nationality, age, handicap, marital status
or sexual orientation." The long-overdue addition of "marital status or sexual orientation" passed without serious opposition."
Full story here:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/workplace/uaw-8.1.92
Also, among those who endorsed protection of gay and lesbian rights in Minnesota (just as an example):
AFSCME, Council 6, AFL-CIO, Council 14, Council 96, Local 66, Local 3800
American Postal Workers Union, St. Paul Area Local
Communications Workers of America
Minnesota AFL-CIO
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE)
Minnesota DRIVE, Teamsters
Minnesota Federation of Teachers
National Postal Handlers Union (SEIU AFL-CIO) Local 113
United Auto Workers State CAP Council
United Steelworkers of America (UAW), District 33
Gays and lesbians have also taken the auto industry to task for not protecting the rights of gay and lesbian workers. However, a recent report in the gay press noted:
"The most recent sign of progress in the auto industry came in the form of a four-year contract signed in October between each of the Big Three and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union that for the first time protected the companies' unionized gay employees from discrimination.
"Continuing the union's longstanding efforts to prohibit and eliminate discrimination, the language providing for contractual anti-discrimination grievance and arbitration procedures has been expanded," the union wrote in a summary of the changes. "The equal application clause now includes union activity and sexual orientation protections along with the previous equal application coverage."
Nondiscrimination protections were already in place at all three companies, but the contract added for unionized employees the support of their union, opening the union's grievance and arbitration process to those alleging unfair treatment based on sexual orientation.
As a part of the package, the Big Three also agreed to study offering domestic partner benefits to UAW employees. Some autoworkers in Canada already have benefits that came either directly or indirectly from union efforts."
You also might be interested in these links
http://fordglobe.org/2000/archive.html
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/25/80126
http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/modijk/SLOT.HTM
In sum, the notion that auto workers or any working class people in America are more likely to work against same-sex marriage strikes me as a canard. And that was what some people in this thread were repeatedly suggesting and I think that's projecting -- you know like: "I'm not saying I'd oppose it, but you know how the lower classes are."
|
clkelley
Citizen
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 89
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
harpo,
I don't oppose gay marriage, in fact I am 100% in favor of it and think the right to marriage between adults who love each other and want to establish a life together should be protected by the Constitution (not "defended against" in the Constitution - disgraceful).
I don't know and I don't care whether this attitude splits on class lines. Or if it does, whether intellectual types are more "complicated / conflicted" than the "plainer" folks you describe (don't you think using the term "plainer" to describe working class folks is slightly classist? gentle query, not a stab).
But I can say for CERTAIN that some people who are very anti-Bush are also very anti-gay-marriage, and this will be a real issue for them. I have a sample size of 2 - my parents. Both very anti-Bush (my dad nearly rabidly so - and he's never been interested in politics in his life before this). But both are very dubious about homosexual rights in general. Certainly opposed to gay marriage. I won't call them "working class" but they certainly couldn't afford to live in MW/SO. Are they representative of a demographic? I dunno, but if there's 2 there's more than 2 out there. Will this issue sway them to Bush? Never. Will it sway them not to vote? Possibly.
I personally don't see how one could take down Kerry with this - but I am certain that the Republicans will try. Will it work? I sure hope not. But I think it would be foolish to ignore this as a tactic. And naive to wish away the existence of people like my parents. (who are great people by the way and I am very close to them - but they are very squeamish about homosexuality.) |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 851
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
This issue is starting to look like the abortion issue. Coming close to 50/50, with significant camps from both sides of the argument in both parties. As for working class/union votes -- I don't think you can generalize about their acceptance either. Roughly 30-40% of the union vote is republican --but that doesn't say much about their stance on this issue either.
I thought only fundamentalist reactionary bigots were against gay marriage. Nice to know that at least two of them are "nice" and democrats. |
clkelley
Citizen
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 93
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
My parents are not even close to fundamentalist or reactionary (except for this one issue). Just very, very uncomfortable talking about sex, and with very old-fashioned attitudes about some things. My mom is of the very strong opinion that homosexuality is a "disease" that should be "cured." This is despite her having had many close friends over the years who are gay men, and loving all of them as individuals.
My dad is more likely to make a tasteless joke if the topic comes up, but generally less of a homophobe. But I asked him recently what he thought of gay marriage, and his opinion is that marriage is between a man and woman, period.
I am not bragging about this - my parents' attitudes about these things are not shared by me. I love them, so I look past some differences in our fundamental value systems.
They're not democrats by the way - they are GDIs. (gosh-darned independents.) I think I would have a stroke if either one of them ever registered with a political party. I would also have a stroke if either one of them ever uttered the word "lesbian" without whispering. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 205
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
I think this is a red herring - like the Janet Jackson issue. You have posturing from politicians - trying to stir things up - instead of focusing on the real issues. If you ask me it is a diversionary tactic. I don't really think Bush cares either way - this issue just seems to keep some in his base frothing - which iswhat he wants. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4563
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Harpo, a unions job is to protect their members, all their members. The actions you mention may or may not reflect the views of the members on same sex marriage.
Backlash does happen. Look at the wonderful new legislation in Ohio, not the most conservative state by far, that bans civil unions, medical benefits, etc. for gays and lesbians. It stops just short of requiring them to pin purple cards on their coats imo.  |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Yes, bobk, I know that. Some union members have no problem with gay or lesbian anything, some do. Just like some university professors do and some don't. I'll post for the umpteempth time that stereotypes about "other" people opposing this as a group are just that. And I'm not saying the issue isn't controversial, and we won't hear blather about "civil rights out of control." But we've been hearing that for 25 years now about "special rights" for gays & lesbians and other code words and it hasn't slowed to the march to legal equality and full social acceptance one bit. The "antis" will find it easier to organize politically state by state and the laws that get passed will surely stink. But I don't think it's going to fly ultimately nationally because it can't fly culturally. We're coming on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court demolishing the doctrine of "separate but equal." There is still backlash against that. Hell, there's still backlash against the Bill of Rights!
I agree with JJC.
clkelley,
I know there are tens of millions of Americans who feel as your parents do. But I don't think it splits significantly across class lines (or racial or gender or religious lines). I put "plainer" in quotes to distance it from words I would choose but which are in currency.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4565
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
Harpo, I am sure the gay and lesbians in Ohio are cheered up by your high minded optimism now that they have lost many civil rights. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
bobk,
Whenever you are sure of something, I've got good reasons to think it isn't remotely true. I feel confident that gays and lesbians in Ohio were just as cheered by the Massachusetts decision as those of us elsewhere who support full civil rights for gays and lesbians. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4569
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Harpo I am sure the gay and lesbian people in Ohio will be very happy for their brothers and sisters in Massachusetts as they pin the purple triangles on their coats. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Maybe it would help them all out if you supported same-sex marriage. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2202
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Harpo,
Did Bobk ever come out in opposition to same-sex marriages? I don't recall him taking such a position? He merely voiced the opinion that oppostion to same-sex marriages might play well with people who voted for Bush last election. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4570
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Actually I am ambivalent on "same sex marriage", although I strongly support civil union legislation or court decisions.
"Marriage" is a hot button word and causes strong emotions. The Massachussets Supreme Court decision has already triggered a rather Draconian anti-gay law in Ohio and will probably result in the introduction of a constitutional amendment on the subject. Also, it may well be a deciding issue in the upcoming Presidential election. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2203
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
God help the Union when gay-marriage and JJ's right breast are deciding issues in a national election. |
vor
Citizen
Username: Vor
Post Number: 165
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 7, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
The President proposes a constitutional amendment to define marriage based on Biblical principles. He should include a full Biblical set of rules. After all, God wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore.
A Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)
* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)
I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.
|
vor
Citizen
Username: Vor
Post Number: 167
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
I missed the MTP interview, was this topic raised? |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 406
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 11:25 pm: | |
Assuming that gays really do make up 5% of the population, we probably all have at least one gay member of our extended families, whether it's acknowledged or not.
Moreover, no one can be completely sure how their own children (or their friends' children) will turn out.
Best to be tolerant, just in case. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page