November 6, 2008

Should/must/will the Democrats repeal DOMA?

In the wake of the "yes" vote on California's Proposition 8, Glenn Greenwald urges congressional Democrats to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. [Correction: I wrote "no" before. "No" lost. I meant "yes." Sorry for the confusion.]
Barack Obama has, on numerous occasions, emphatically expressed his support for repealing DOMA. When he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, he wrote a letter to Chicago's Windy City Times, calling DOMA "abhorrent" and its repeal "essential," and vowing: "I opposed DOMA in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor." But he went on to cite what he called the "the realities of modern politics" in order to proclaim (accurately) that DOMA's repeal at that time -- 2004 -- was "unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress." After Tuesday, that excuse is no longer availing.

Democrats have a particular responsibility to erase the stain of DOMA. It was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA into law....

This would be a vital step that Democrats could take quickly and easily. But are they likely to do so?
No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power. That's my answer. Here's Greenwald's:
The conventional Beltway wisdom has already ossified, quite predictably, that Obama and the Democrats must scorn "the Left" and, despite polling data showing widespread support for equal rights for same-sex couples, such a move would be deemed by Beltway media mavens as coming from "the Left." Nancy Pelosi is running around decreeing that "the country must be governed from the middle," while Harry Reid emphasizes that Democrats have received no mandate from the election. And, most significantly of all, Democrats are being told they must avoid the "overreaching" of Clinton's first two years, defined by his attempt to eliminate the ban on gay people serving in the military -- something likely to scare Democrats from touching any gay issues.

Combine all that with the fact that only a small minority is actually affected by DOMA's injustices, that many Democrats will insist none of this is worth the "risk," and that many Obama supporters will refuse to criticize anything he does (marvel at the number of commenters here saying that Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is right because . . . it is Obama's choice -- just look at this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this). Even as leading Democrats flamboyantly condemn Proposition 8, and even with Obama's long record of emphatically vowing that he will support DOMA's repeal, there will be very strong currents pushing Democrats to do nothing.
Greenwald, who surely must be paid by the word, never answers his own yes-or-no question. He goes on to express his desire for a repeal. But I think if he were honest and straightforward and remembered his own question, he'd say what I said: No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power.

IN THE COMMENTS: Dody Jane says:
They should repeal it. They should be who they whisper they are. They have the power now. They should do it. I am sick of tippy toeing. They way I look at it, my daughter's generation will eventually get aroud to it in 20 years anyway. It is inevitable. It is a liberal issue, liberals have the power now, liberals need to be big boys and as NIKE would say, just do it.
ADDED: Greenwald adds an update that links to this post:
Simply reciting trite conventional wisdom from the TV is easy, particularly for those capable of nothing else, but that practice is exactly what has produced the last eight years.
Glenn, my observation was that you failed to answer your own question. I didn't watch that on TV. I read your post. I'd like to see you face up to your own question. I think you don't because I'm right and you know that the Democrats -- out of perceived self-interest -- are unlikely to repeal DOMA. So I will renew my accusation that you are dishonest. You're also verbose as hell: reciting trite conventional wisdom ... easy. Bleh. I think you are taking the easy way out, beginning by not editing tiresome redundancies out of your posts. Instead of assuming that something you don't want to deal with came from television and that things from television can be ignored and that things that are well-known aren't worth thinking about, you should answer the question -- which was your own damned question. You asked whether the Democrats are likely to repeal DOMA. I don't like DOMA either, but I know and I think you know that the answer to your question is no. Be honest and say it clearly and move on.

136 comments:

Mixalhs said...

It's time for the democratic party to stop throwing gays and lesbians under the bus. While I agree with Ann on the unlikelihood of any action any time soon, I wish it weren't the case. It's morally repugnant.

garage mahal said...

Is this one of those issues Ann hopes Democrats don't get too crazily partisan about, I wonder?

holdfast said...

In California, the high turnout of black voters (not there to vote for McCain, I suspect) was what put prop 8 over the top. I guess black is the new gay in Democrat greivance-group coalition politics?

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Donn said...

No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power.

The verdict on this is out, but will be answered in due time. My guess, and the main reason I did not vote for Obama, is that the Dems will not govern from the center, but from the far left. People like Greenwald will always over-reach. I think the current Dems in leadership will also.

Maguro said...

This would be a vital step that Democrats could take quickly and easily. But are they likely to do so?

Typically stupid analysis by Greenwald. If it looked to be quick or easy the Dems would go ahead and repeal the damn thing. The fact that DOMA passed the Senate 85-14 speaks for itself.

chickenlittle said...

It's time for the democratic party to stop throwing gays and lesbians under the bus.

Just how much room is there under that bus? Just who is still on board the bus? Who gets to sit in front these days? Who's driving that confounded bus anyway?

mcg said...

For those of you who read my previous comment: nevermind. :( When I first saw the exit polls the numbers didn't seem to add up right, and I felt that they incorrectly stated that whites didn't vote for the proposition.

However, I've found the final exit polls, and they do add up properly. Those exit polls show whites and asians voted against it 49-51, blacks for it 70-30, hispanics 53-47, and "other" 51-49.

On the other hand, the sample size was only 2240 people---about 1411 of them white. The margin of error is probably a couple of points either way. So it really isn't fair to conclude with certainty that whites voted against the measure. It is probably more accurate to say that they were split nearly evenly.

The Exalted said...

they would be really dumb to repeal the DOMA

particularly early on

really, really dumb

so its possible

mcg said...

Reading crosstabs can be fun. Because the survey is used to build crosstabs for a variety of issues you get weird correlations.

For instance, the pollster asked, "Do you favor or oppose drilling for oil offshore in U.S. waters where it is currently not allowed?"

Those who said "Strongly favor" voted for Prop 8 66-34. Those who said "somewhat favor", "somewhat oppose", and "strongly oppose" voted against it 49-51, 41-59, and 26-74, respectively.

What can that mean? Drill offshore, not at home? :-)

Smilin' Jack said...

With the country fighting two wars and facing a depression, I certainly hope the Democrats put gay rights at the top of their agenda, and keep it there for four years. Because a) it will help prevent them from doing serious damage to something important, and b) it would make it easy for McCain to win a rematch in 2012. Hell, it would make it easy for McCain's dog to win in 2012.

chuck b. said...

I think the gays (that includes me, of course) need to do more to engage the other side instead of the legal and legislative maneuvering, which just looks like political trickery to people who really have zero acquaintaince with us aside from what they've been told by non-disinterested parties. It won't bring everyone over to our side, but it will make a huge difference.

We've come so far. It was not that long ago that San Francisco voted against granting the barest rights of domestic partnership. (i.e., Proposition S, back in 1989 or 1990). Two days ago, the *entire state* narrowly declined to grant *marriage* rights. It's a huge improvement, to put it mildly.

People are stressed out and anxious. Time to take a deep breath.

Salamandyr said...

If the Democrats want to do something for gays in the US, they could modify the UCMJ to get rid of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. I think times have changed enough that this one would go down relatively easy.

Though the poor schlubs in Basic may not appreciate this. Telling the Drill Sergeant you're gay is about the only reliable way to get sent home left. I'm pretty sure at least some percentage of discharged gay Arab translators Andrew Sullivan cares so deeply about were just trying to avoid the stop-loss.

Doyle said...

But I think if he were honest and straightforward

Two qualities Ann is known for.

former law student said...

If the Democrats want to do something for gays in the US, they could modify the UCMJ to get rid of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell.

Sure, if they want to get off on the same bumbling foot as the Clintons did. Then perhaps Michelle could hole up in her Fortress of Solitude and come up with a universal health care plan.

Or maybe they could learn from the Clintons' mistakes and set a rational priority list. I would address the impending economic meltdown first. Maybe how we get troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. Stuff like that.

veni vidi vici said...

Gay is the new black on the "let us take your votes for granted" chain gang.

Greenwald is advocating not just an overreach, but an over-reach-around. Nothing new there, though.

mcg, I'm trying to follow your bons-mots of analysis, but you're all over the map:

"Those who said "Strongly favor" voted for Prop 8 66-34. Those who said "somewhat favor", "somewhat oppose", and "strongly oppose" voted against it 49-51, 41-59, and 26-74, respectively."

you quote Strongly favor as "for", but all others "against"; you did the same thing in the post above this one. Seems like those "somewhat favor/oppose" and "strongly oppose" were "for it" 51-49, 59-41 and 74-26 by what you wrote, which means those strongly favoring offshore drilling are less against gay marriage than those strongly opposed to offshore drilling. If that's supposed to be significant of something, pray tell.

A little consistency would make these posts easier to follow, assuming there is a point to the presentation of the data; as it is presented, the information is pretty useless. If that's what the crosstabbed poll you're cribbing from actually says, then it's to blame for rendering itself worthless.

veni vidi vici said...

"Then perhaps Michelle could hole up in her Fortress of Solitude and come up with a universal health care plan."

Only if the Fortress' room service serves lobster, of course!

Skeptical said...

I guess I am more interested in how Obama is going to spin his refusal to push this. He characterized the DOMA as repugnant, and now he won't do anything about it? Surely he also knows that he can't wake the sleeping lion on abortion — lots of folks were happy to leave that ideological beast alone to vote for Hope 'n' Change — but how is going to square dropping that hot potato with his insistence that he would push for the Freedom of Choice Act?

I see Clintonesque coming. I hope the Obamafolks are ready when it arrives.

Mixalhs said...

Chuck B.,

But legal maneuvering has been the ONLY way that any group has ever gained rights.

Put another way, if you put segregation to a vote right now, I'm sure it would win in a few states.

integrity said...

Absolutely not. Holy Christ, no.

The California judges(appointed republicans) did this intentionally to set up gay marriage as an issue in the election. It did not work how they hoped it would(help McCain in California).

The will of the people can't be overturned by judges or the people get angry. They did, and voted for the prop.

My area is being engulfed by this issue, and I have a very unpopular opinion on it. I was against the prop and voted against it, the people have decided differently and for now we have to live with it.

Leave it alone for now, it will happen in time. Let the people decide.

Why do democrats have to self-destruct just like republicans. Cool it.

Holy fuck.

Be patient.

mcg said...

VVV---drat, nothing like poor word choice to ruin a joke. :( Sorry about that.

Discarding the numbers, the points were this:
--- whites and Asians voted against Prop 8, though narrowly, within the margin of error. All other races voted for it.
--- those who strongly favor offshore drilling voted for Prop 8. All other categories voted against it.

Arturius said...

No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power.

Never underestimate the hubris of a politician, particularly after being handed a landslide election.

I guess I am more interested in how Obama is going to spin his refusal to push this.

If you listened to his acceptance speech he already has. Probably can't get everything done in the first term. Economy is the pressing issue, along with the middle class rescue plans and Iraq and Afghanistan. Greenwald and his friends will have to just take a number and wait thier turn. In the meantime while Obama is healing the planet, I'm sure something will come up that takes priority over DOMA.

LarsPorsena said...

1. repeal DOMA
2. repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell
3. Freedom of Choice Act
4. drivers licenses for all illegals
5. pay all mortgages in default




It's too good to be true!!

AJ Lynch said...

I just checked my Top Ten Priorities List and this DOMA topic ain't on it.

I have not seen the Obama Top Ten list yet.

TitusLoves Dogs said...

Barack Obama will not touch it.

He doesn't want to lose power, plain and simple.

That would be like when Bill Clinton came in and wanted to let the gay in the military. The outcry was evident and likely lost the democrats seats in the 94 election.

It would be the right thing to do but it would be a losing issue politically for the democrats.

I am not horny.

Steven said...

But legal maneuvering has been the ONLY way that any group has ever gained rights.

See, I was pretty sure the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were all passed through normal political processes.

And I was pretty sure that the 14th Amendment spent almost a century nullified through legal maneuvering, via the court ruling Plessy v. Ferguson.

mcg said...

Well, Steven, a handful of those amendments had the Civil War wrapped around them too. Not quite a "normal" poltical process, there. But I do agree with your larger point.

MadisonMan said...

Sure, if they want to get off on the same bumbling foot as the Clintons did.

I'm pretty sure that very much has changed since 1992.

For example, I'd say that millions of voters have died since then. Millions more have become voters. Of those groups of millions, which are friendlier towards gays?

Having said that, I'd be disappointed if the Democrats did anything but focus on the Economy and the various wars. But political parties aren't known for wisdom.

TitusLoves Dogs said...

I agree with Madisonman.

The democrats should focus on the economy and the wars.

No wedge issues at this time.

I also don't think Obama is that stupid.

Darcy said...

I'm so confused on this issue! I need a good place to go read on exactly what the problem with civil unions instead of "marriage" - which seems to be the sticking point, is.

I know...not really the topic. But I consider myself very conservative, and the idea of civil unions, with all the same rights as marriage is just fine with me.

Anyway, the Democrats should try to pass/repeal exactly what they promised. That's what they ran on. Let's have the debate, I say.

laura said...

I'd very much prefer they stay away from it for a while. I see it as an issue that's going to take time and finesse. I hope there's a time and place for it, but it's not now.

Triangle Man said...

If DOMA is really about saving marriage, why focus on gay marriage? Shouldn't they be trying to outlaw divorce?

TitusLoves Dogs said...

Rahm Emanuel's big brass balls...yum.

I want to do Rahm.

Pal2Pal said...

Ann, Californians did not vote No on Prop 8, they voted yes. Yes to add a ban to the Constitution and it passed 52.5% to 47.5%, immediately becoming the law of the state.

You can see that only the gay-lesbian corridor voted for it at this map of county by county which you can compare to this map of results for the presidency.

BJM said...

I keep hearing the refrain "get more troops into Afghanistan" I don't think that means what you think it means.

We will need to "nation build" in Afghanistan after securing as large a foothold as possible for local government. We don't do that well. Stabilizing and democratizing Afghanistan will require an expensive, decades long effort similar to the Marshall Plan.

We no longer have the will or attention span necessary for such an undertaking. Our politicians will declare success within a limited military goal, call it good and bug out.

Perhaps that is the best we can do realistically. It isn't our responsibility to rescue those who do not want rescuing, is it?

chuck b. said...

"But legal maneuvering has been the ONLY way that any group has ever gained rights."

I disagree. I grant that some maneuvering is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

Using segregation as an example undervalues the importance of other important events that happened to end that practice.

chickenlittle said...

It isn't our responsibility to rescue those who do not want rescuing, is it?

Who exactly wants us to leave there again?

Donn said...

I keep hearing the refrain "get more troops into Afghanistan" I don't think that means what you think it means.

Exactly, and one of the biggest blunders BHO and company will stumble into i.e. it will be an even bigger headache than Iraq. Good luck with that one Dems.

michael farris said...

Gay rights are a suckers game.
Obama is not a sucker, Obama plays suckers.

If I had to guess, I'd say that he's likely to repeat Clinton's strategy of pursuing relentlessly anti-gay legislation while occasionally saying something nice to pull the wool over the eyes of the easily/willingly fooled.

On the other hand, Obama reminds me uncomfortably of the few real, total, psycho sociopaths I've known and one of their distinctive features is that you never know what they'll say or do next (it took me a while to realize they don't either, they just want to get through the moment, they'll deal with the next moment when it arrives).

Darcy said...

I just heard Carl Levin talking about Afghanistan last night on the local news. Yep. Right away, they're going to institute a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq and redeploying to Afghanistan.

Spread Eagle said...

No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power.

You give them way too much credit. They will convince themselves they were given a mandate and they will drink themselves drunk with this new power. They will be unable to restrain themselves.

Revenant said...

But legal maneuvering has been the ONLY way that any group has ever gained rights.

The 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 21st, 24th, and 25th amendments were passed democratically, as were the various state and federal Civil Rights Acts. So your claim that legal maneuvering is the only way any groups has ever gained rights is embarrassingly wrong.

Put another way, if you put segregation to a vote right now, I'm sure it would win in a few states.

You're delusional.

chickenlittle said...

Donn wrote: Good luck with that one Dems

Well, to channel Palladian for a moment, we're all in together.

(but we will get to blame Dems if Afghanstan become a quagmire)

sonicfrog said...

If Obama is a student of recent history (if) he will repeal DOMA, but not right away, and probably in bits and pieces. Clinton's HUGE mistake when he took office was to barge in and try to make this massive change... as his very fors policy initiative. It backfired and set the tone for the rest of his presidency.

ElcubanitoKC said...

They won't. They wouldn't want to lose the black evangelical vote and others in their base. That's pretty simple.

The same people who elected The One (PBUH) in California, also voted to pass a ban on gay marriage. The Missouri Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage passed with 70% of the vote during a Democrat primary in 2004. You do the math.

Xanthippas said...

That would be like when Bill Clinton came in and wanted to let the gay in the military. The outcry was evident and likely lost the democrats seats in the 94 election.

The difference being that 1994 is not 2008.

michael farris said...

On Afghanistan.
There might be some Afghanis who would like to move their country into the 21st century (hell by Afghan standards the 18th century would be progress). Unfortunately they're a minority with no influence and are outnumbered by thugs/maniacs with machine guns.

Two data points (make of them what you will):
1. In the communist period (starting in the 60's or 70's) a number of Warsaw pact countries gave a lot of Afghans university scholarships. All the Afghans in Eastern Europe during the Russian invasion were firmly on the Soviet's side. Not because they were communists or pro-Russian (they had first hand experience of just how screwed up communism was) but because the Soviets seemed to be trying to bring some sort of (very imperfect) civilization (including education and industrialization) to Afghanistan as they had to Central Asia. How fucked up does a place have to be to make the 70's USSR look like progress? Even Ralph 'blood and guts' Peters has written that the Soviets were fundamentally on the right side in Afghanistan and that US uncritical support of the rebels was not a wise move.

2. In the early 90's I knew some Afghans who had studied/were studying in Poland. One hadn't heard from his family in months (he said they had 'gone to the mountains' in the latest civil unrest). He wasn't that worried since they knew how to take care of themselves but he despaired for his country. For too many Afghans, war wasn't a disruption of the daily routine it was their preferred mode of existence. Not much thought was given to which side would/could win and what would happen, they just enjoyed the shooting and killing (and getting shot at and made into martyrs) in and of itself. War for them wasn't goal oriented it was process oriented. He was a little drunk when he said this but none of his countrymen disagreed at all.

At present trying to nation-build in Afghanistan is enabling behavior, like the sober spouse who cleans up alcoholic spouse's behavior.

The Drill SGT said...

Notice Greenwald didn't raise this issue last week. Why?

Bambi at Saddleback: Obama: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it’s also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix.. But...



If the Democrats want to do something for gays in the US, they could modify the UCMJ to get rid of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. Sorry, DADT is part of legislation passed by Congress. I think it was in the Defense Authorization Act. In addition, the UCMJ also punishes sodomy in an equal opportunity fasion. It also punishes adultery. bottom line. Screwing anyone accept a spouse of opposite sex will get you in trouble: (Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
)

Xanthippas said...

The 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 21st, 24th, and 25th amendments were passed democratically, as were the various state and federal Civil Rights Acts. So your claim that legal maneuvering is the only way any groups has ever gained rights is embarrassingly wrong.

I see the point you're trying to make, but if you're being fair you have to admit that some of those amendments were fairly useless until they were litigated.

integrity said...

And stop laying this stuff on black or hispanic people.

Blame it on religious people, they are behind it.

Secular people do not care if gay people get married.

Blame religion, tell the truth.

Not democrat, not republican, but the religious freaks of all stripes.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

I said in another thread that I already have a sense of gays being thrown under the bus again as the Democrats rise to power. All the gay people voted for the Democrats and helped them get to where they are now, but we're unlikely to get anything in return. And many of the people who voted for Prop 8 are the same ones who voted for Obama. That's the problem with an interest group having unconditional love for one political party.

I think there's a significant chance that they'll repeal part of DOMA. This was what Hillary suggested doing, and I bet a lot of Democrats also think this is a good idea. The idea is to repeal the part that eliminates federal rights for married gay couples, but keep the part that says a state that doesn't have gay marriage doesn't need to recognize a gay marriage from that happened in another state. There's a good argument that this is the best step in the interest of gay marriage, because it would be much harder to make state-by-state progress on the issue if one state having it meant that the entire country, in effect, had gay marriage.

ElcubanitoKC said...

integrity, including your Dear Leader(PBUH)?

"The difference, Mr. Obama has told them, is religion.

As a Christian — he is a member of the United Church of Christ — Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively, according to these supporters and Obama campaign advisers. While he does not favor laws that ban same-sex marriage, and has said he is “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided,” he does not support it and is not inclined to fight for it, his advisers say."

Is just saying that he doesn't support them enough? Do his followers believe him?

I don't.

chickenlittle said...

Michael Farris wrote At present trying to nation-build in Afghanistan is enabling behavior, like the sober spouse who cleans up alcoholic spouse's behavior.

So it's back to 90's laissez-faire then?

The Russians might be up for another adventure this time around.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Oh, yeah, Integrity and I did say black evangelical, not just black.

Revenant said...

And stop laying this stuff on black or hispanic people.

Proposition 8 passed because of high voter turnout among blacks. That's simple reality; you can accept it, or not. Put another way, if only white people (religious and otherwise) had showed up to vote last Tuesday, gay marriages would still be legally recognized in California.

Blame it on religious people, they are behind it.

This may come as a shock to you, but "black people" and "religious people" aren't two separate and distinct groups. Why do you think all the well-known black civil rights leaders are religious leaders too? Did you think it was just a coincidence?

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

And by the way, I don't think this is an issue where we should "let the people decide." The majority shouldn't have the right to vote to oppress the minority. That's not the American way.

Arturius said...

And stop laying this stuff on black or hispanic people.

I understand that the truth is painful to some but the fact is, those two demographics have been historically intolerant of the gay community.

michael farris said...

"The Russians might be up for another adventure this time around"

Better them than us. If they fail, then too bad for them and no skin off our noses, if they succeed then they've done something good for Afghanistan. Where's the down side?

chickenlittle said...

Integrity wrote: Blame it on religious people, they are behind it.

Blame it on intolerence, but your blanket use of "religious" is exactly what you don't want to say or even believe.

Freeman Hunt said...

Put another way, if you put segregation to a vote right now, I'm sure it would win in a few states.

I agree with Rev; you're delusional. There wouldn't be a single state where the vote would even be remotely close.

Buford Gooch said...

Let's see, California, one of the three most liberal states in the union, just voted down gay marriage. So the Democrats should override what the people of the nation think and institute it anyway? That makes sense.

Freeman Hunt said...

Let's see, California, one of the three most liberal states in the union, just voted down gay marriage. So the Democrats should override what the people of the nation think and institute it anyway?

Yeah, I must say that it seems hard to claim that there is broad support for gay marriage nationwide if you can't even get California to accept it.

mcg said...

And by the way, I don't think this is an issue where we should "let the people decide." The majority shouldn't have the right to vote to oppress the minority. That's not the American way.

But how do we decide what rights are exempt from majority manipulation? For better or worse, this country lives or dies on majority rule. Even if a law is unconstitutional, there is the avenue of constitutional amendment. In the end, the will of the people, if sufficiently strong, can prevail over any legislative or judicial decision.

This is one of the problems, really, with setting the bar at only 50% to amend the California constitution. I think it ought to be harder to accomplish than that, as it is with the U.S. constitution.

TitusLoves Dogs said...

I am sorry but as a gay I have no doubt that the black whether religious or not is more anti-gay than the white.

On the other hand, as a participant in sex with the black, they have a higher probability than the white to do the down low with the gay. The gay and the black (who is supposedly not gay) have a lot of gay sex.

integrity said...

I'm saying that it does not matter the party, only whether the voting constituents are religious. White religious people don't support gay marriage either.

Secular people support gay marriage.

This ain't controversial stuff.

Is anyone here suggesting religious people support gay marriage? If so, I have not met those people.

TitusLoves Dogs said...

I still can't get my mind off of Rahm Emanuel's big steel balls being heard in the corridors of power.

That makes me horny.

My sense is, because Rahm was a ballerina at one time, he has done a gay. My only regret is that if it wasn't me...oh and that I wasn't there to watch.

sean said...

What mcg said. Any legal issue can be framed in terms of "rights"; you need a theory that explains which rights are protected from infringement, even if the majority wants it, and which ones aren't. Maybe Mr. Cohen has a theory, but he hasn't explained.

I have a theory, but it isn't very interesting in jurisprudential terms, because it says that the rights protected against majority rule are the ones that the elite thinks should be so protected. So there is a sociological question about what rights the elite privileges at any given moment, but nothing susceptible to legal analysis.

Cabbage said...

The majority shouldn't have the right to vote to oppress the minority. That's not the American way.

Unless you are a fetus.

TitusLoves Dogs said...

At this time in the commment thread I would like to say....


5,6,7,8 Fosse.

thank you.

Cabbage said...

Or a Fundamentalist Mormon.

Revenant said...

I see the point you're trying to make, but if you're being fair you have to admit that some of those amendments were fairly useless until they were litigated.

Well, no. The litigation was fairly useless until there existed a legal basis for asserting certain rights, e.g. a black man's right to vote. If the earlier amendments hadn't passed, the litigation of the 50s and 60s would have gone nowhere. The litigation was to force the government to recognize EXISTING legal rights -- not to invent new ones out of whole cloth!

The courts exist to protect rights, not to create rights. The problem with the gay marriage lawsuits is that the notion that there is an existing right to government recognition of a marriage between two men (or two women) is patently ridiculous.

Pogo said...

At least Oprah feels unleashed.

God, the pain that woman suffered, silently enduring hundreds of millions of dollars annually, housing only the super-rich can afford, and world wide travel.

But now -now- she is free from the horrible racism I as an evil-white-man (it's all one word now) lorded over her and kept her down.

Oprah unleashed!
Hope won!

Revenant said...

"The majority shouldn't have the right to vote to oppress the minority. That's not the American way."

Unless you are a fetus.

That's not really fair. After all, the majority was never given an opportunity to vote on whether or not it wanted unrestricted abortion on demand.

chickenlittle said...

This is one of the problems, really, with setting the bar at only 50% to amend the California constitution.

There might just be a prop (or whatever it takes to amend the 50% rule). But shouldn't it then take a 2/3 majority to repeal something?

Really, the State faces more daunting challenges, much like the nation.

Eric Trimmer said...

The rights protected against majority rule are spelled out in the Constitution.

Maxine Weiss said...

CHRISTOPHER ALTHOUSE COHEN:

"Though blacks and Latinos combined make up less than one-third of California’s electorate, their opposition to same-sex marriage appeared to tip the balance. Both groups decisively backed Obama regardless of their position on the initiative.

Obama has said he is not in favor of gay marriage"----SF Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL
___________________________


I see a Republican Party in Christopher's future !!!!

Host with the Most said...

And in other news today dealing with sexuality:

Justice Department declares it will not prosecute former Governor and prostitution-ring prosecutor Elliot Spitzer for doing a prostitute, multiple times:

Don D. Buchwald, the court-appointed lawyer for Ashley Alexandra Dupré, a prostitute Mr. Spitzer met in Washington on Feb. 13, said, “Ashley is pleased that this matter, is now, like the former governor previously was, behind her.”

Maxine Weiss said...

"Though blacks and Latinos combined make up less than one-third of California’s electorate, their opposition to same-sex marriage appeared to tip the balance. Both groups decisively backed Obama regardless of their position on the initiative.

Obama has said he is not in favor of gay marriage"----SF Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL


_________________________



Hey Christopher: Have you had your first job interview, whith a Black or Mexican ?

Didja get the job? How's it going with the Blacks in Mexicans out in LA ??? Treatin' you right ?

Mom lives in a complete fantasy world where Mexicans and Blacks are little St. Francis of Asissis and don't hate white people with rabid vitriol.

But Mom has never lived with the kind of resentment in LA where these animals are out to kill Whitey at the ballot booth, right before they kill him on the street.

Mom is clueless about life in LA !

chickenlittle said...

Thanks for the visual, Host :)

Trooper York said...

Titus said.....
"At this time in the commment thread I would like to say....

5,6,7,8 Fosse."


Holy shit, Titus is Pete Rose!

Seven Machos said...

No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power.

It's really simple. People aren't ready for the government to recognize same-sex marriages. When they are, it will happen. Since they're not, it would be political suicide to force the issue. Obama's a lot of things, but not dumb, and not likely to squander precious political capital on this.

In the mean time, as much as people want to argue differently, there's nothing separate but equal. Gay people are free to marry in private. They are also free to enter into any marriage that the state will recognize.

Seven Machos said...

The courts exist to protect rights, not to create rights.

Perfectly stated.

Maxine Weiss said...

But if you put a bunch of stuff on the ballot that was unconstitutional in the first place........

Maxine Weiss said...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story

__________________

Why are they taking their protest to the Church? Their enemy is Blacks and Mexicans. They need to go into the Ghetto.

I wanna see some good race riots !

Christopher, you ready to go out to Florence & Normandie ?

Original George said...

It will be very interesting to see how much Obama wants to escalate in Afghanistan.

The NY Times reported about a week ago that the Pentagon was briefing his and McCain's campaign on the horrible situation there. Essentially, the war will be lost if a brand-new policy is not in place immediately on Jan. 20.

Bush is already planning to send in an additional 15,000 troops. This would raise US force levels to about 45,000 men, not counting about 30,000 allied troops also there.

The Russians had a peak of 300,000 troops in Afghanistan during their 10 year war. We've been there eight years. And the harder we fight the more we anger the Pakistani government and its people.

If Pres. elect Obama wants to do community development, Afghanistan is the place to do it with tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of volunteers, sewer diggers, teachers, veterinarians, and soldiers. Draft, anyone?

Cedarford said...

Smiling Jack - I certainly hope the Democrats put gay rights at the top of their agenda, and keep it there for four years. Because a) it will help prevent them from doing serious damage to something important, and b) it would make it easy for McCain to win a rematch in 2012.

McCain has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination in 2012 as Jimmy Carter had of getting a "rematch" against Reagan in 1984.

**********
Any discussion of Greenwald writing on gay issues should mention he is just another gay liberal Jewish lawyer - albeit a little more exotic than his standard NYC ACLU peers because he prefers dining on Brazil nuts.

That he wants DOMA repealed and transvestites allowed to serve in the Brazilian military is no shock.

chuck b. said...

"Mom lives in a complete fantasy world where Mexicans and Blacks are little St. Francis of Asissis and don't hate white people with rabid vitriol.

But Mom has never lived with the kind of resentment in LA where these animals are out to kill Whitey at the ballot booth, right before they kill him on the street."

****

LOL!

I was in LA for a few days recently and we had Mexican food at Las Pappas and Beer on Melrose. The service was friendly and food was good, but they don't have a liquor license.

What's up w/ that?

And when you're having dinner at the Bar Marmont, I recommend the Welcome to Hollywood cake for dessert.

TMink said...

marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

See, marriage has a meaning. Like the word dog does not mean cat. And I agree that religious people are in large part responsible for the defense of marriage. We like marriage, we try to be good at it, and our religious tomes define it.

I will vote for civil unions that are equivalent to marriage in a heartbeat. You guys and gals just need to come up with a snappy new name for it: Gay Union, Sameiage, Homojoinious, Sappicalicious, Love Shacking, egiarram. I don't know, nothing is coming to me at this moment.

But marriage is taken.

Come on Althousians, we need a new name for when gay folks fall in love and get hitched.

Trey

Methadras said...

so has anyone here been shunned by their homosexual friends or family for voting yes on prop 8? just curious.

Palladian said...

"so has anyone here been shunned by their homosexual friends or family for voting yes on prop 8? just curious."

Yes, my gay husband won't speak to me anymore!

Palladian said...

Just kidding. I'm not married to my boyfriend and I don't live in California.

Trooper York said...

"I did not break the vow. The vow only applied until the end of September."

One of my clients who reads this blog got married this June. His wife caught him banging his secretary. He tried your line.

It didn't work.

Baron Zemo said...

My dear boy why not call it the holy state of sodomony.

It fits.

Without too much lube.

tjl said...

"All the gay people voted for the Democrats and helped them get to where they are now."

Not me!

Unfortunately the rest of Christopher's observation is all too true. Gays have a faith-based assumption that the Democratic party is the Force of Good and will thus bestow gay marriage on us all. How pathetic. The Dems reap guaranteed votes and substantial fund-raising from the gay community and deliver nothing but a few platitudes in return.

That said, nothing could give me greater pleasure than a sudden quixotic lurch to the left by the Dems. If they unmask too soon, we'll be spared much of O's messianic agenda. The loss of the symbolic blessings of gay marriage would be a small price to pay for that.

Steven said...

This is one of the problems, really, with setting the bar at only 50% to amend the California constitution.

Yep. If the Supreme Court of California had had to muster a 2/3rds majority to amend the California constitution, then none of this would have happened; four votes out of seven is only 57%.

The Exalted said...

All the Afghans in Eastern Europe during the Russian invasion were firmly on the Soviet's side.

um, what

you serious with this load?

walter neff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
freshlegacy said...

On the other hand, Obama reminds me uncomfortably of the few real, total, psycho sociopaths I've known and one of their distinctive features is that you never know what they'll say or do next (it took me a while to realize they don't either, they just want to get through the moment, they'll deal with the next moment when it arrives).

I think Michael Farris's comment is right on the money. Obama is amoral. He fills his speeches with so many weasel words he can always point to something when challenged. Something like, "I've always said..." or, "I've always believed..." is sure to be heard over the next four years when he has to piss off some group who thought he was the second coming.

"No stickler for consistency." That's what George Will called him, and I'll bet his presidency will be all over the place on one issue after another.

Obama has one True Cause -- himself.

Dody Jane said...

They should repeal it. They should be who they whisper they are. They have the power now. They should do it. I am sick of tippy toeing. They way I look at it, my daughter's generation will eventually get aroud to it in 20 years anyway. It is inevitable. It is a liberal issue, liberals have the power now, liberals need to be big boys and as NIKE would say, just do it.

The Drill SGT said...

Trooper York said...
"I did not break the vow. The vow only applied until the end of September."

One of my clients who reads this blog got married this June. His wife caught him banging his secretary. He tried your line


It doesn't rhyme, but is both accurate and funny.

I already feel a sense of buyers remorse from Ann

TitusLoves Dogs said...

Life is too short...thank you.

I recommend that we mix this blog up now that the election is over.

Some suggestions are a virtual book club, a food section, a doggy picture page, more sex, less politics, pictures of commenters breasts and hogs-we could have contests-who's hog picture matches which commenter. Games in general would be a welcome addition. It's time to mix it up.

Currently, I am watching William Macy's fine performance in David Mamet's Edmond. The movie charts the odyssey of a repressed businessman who gives in to his inner demons on a nighmarish journey through Manhattan's sleazy underworld.

TitusLoves Dogs said...

Right now in the movie William Macy is watching a girl dance through a window.

She just said take your dick out, take your dick out.

The Drill SGT said...

Titus sad...Currently, I am watching William Macy's fine performance in David Mamet's Edmond.

And we didn't even know he was gay j/k :)

I always thought he was a solid actor, not A list, but great in some roles. The loyal side kick kinda guy. (e.g. Air Force One, to Harrison Ford)

Seven Machos said...

I just saw a snippet of Edmond, a snippet of Macy at what I guess was a whorehouse and there was the obligatory pan across several whores twisting their hair and giving come-fuck-me looks. There must be some law that you have to have that scene in whorehouse depictions.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

"If the Democrats want to do something for gays in the US, they could modify the UCMJ to get rid of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. Sorry, DADT is part of legislation passed by Congress."

Actually, in 1993 both houses of Congress were in the hands of Democratic majorities. Democratic House + Democratic Senate = Democratic President = Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

Democratic House + Democratic Senate + Democratic President = Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell.

Not that you would know that from the commentary around this issue for the last 15 years. A byproduct of the usual "guess the party" obfuscation that passes for reporting in most of the media.

former law student said...

They have the power now. They should do it.

I have enough money to either buy a Bushmaster rifle or pay this month's mortgage. Which should I spend my money on?

Basically Dody wants the Democrats to spend the most political capital to benefit their smallest constituency. That makes no sense, given the Log Cabin Republicans and the many gays uninterested in getting married.

Gays are under the bus right now. Let Obama build up his muscles before he tries to lift the bus off.

former law student said...

Drill Sgt says I always thought he was a solid actor, not A list,

Two words: Jerry Lundegaard
Macy's also very good in Oleanna, for you IFC subscribers.

And I hope that normal marital acts would not put Mr. and Mrs. Drill Sgt in the stockade.

Aloysius said...

Well why not polygamy? Why not marriage to children? Where is the line? Who will stand up and say this far and no more?

LoafingOaf said...

Greenwald replied to you, saying that you just recite "trite conventional wisdom from the TV". What say you, Ann Althouse? Greenwald does have a point that there can be a compromise by repealing Section 3, and he does have a point that we've come a long way since 1994.

Tim said...

Abolish DOMA -- it's a vicious, hateful law that may not mean much to straights but to gays is a daily slap in the face. No federal benefits? No ability to be united with a foreign partner? I'm not prepared to wait another four years hanging on a tenuous promise.

We really need to take to the streets. Enough of this s***.

chickenlittle said...

We really need to take to the streets. Enough of this s***

Just don't start firebombing churches, or blowing shit up. You don't wanna become Ayers's heirs.

rateoforange said...

Glen Greenwald. I just don't understand why people continue to quote him, listen to him, and take him seriously after the sock puppet incident.

tjl said...

"We really need to take to the streets. Enough of this s***"

My partner and I, after 20 years together, have a house and a vacation condo, 2 BMWs, and a collection of original artworks. We aren't groaning beneath the yoke of oppression just because our relationship isn't called "marriage."

We're far more concerned -- alarmed, actually -- about O's Hope to Change our lives by redistributing away our income.

Michael said...

Some day somebody can write a nice paper about how the black civil rights movement got everything it wanted, and the gay marriage movement didn't, because one targeted public opinion and a series of presidents, and the other tried to short-circuit things by going through the courts.

If the black civil rights movement had worked like the gay marriage one, they'd still be trying to get enough states to pass a Constitutional amendment revoking the previous amendment establishing the right to segregation, passed in 1959.

K T Cat said...

Repeal the act? For cryin' out loud, we've voted on it twice now and it won both times. Don't we get any say in the way our state is run or are we just overgrown children who need the politicians to make our decisions for us?

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
paul a'barge said...

Dowdy Jane: It is a liberal issue, liberals have the power now, liberals need to be big boys and as NIKE would say, just do it.

Oh yes. Please. Repeal it. Repeal it now. Just do it.

Us Conservatives are just waiting, lusting for you Liberals to do something like this. The whole idea of y'all slitting your own throats with the American electorate practically sprouts wood.

It's just a matter of time. We all know you folks can't help yourselves. After all, if you had any self restraint you wouldn't be, well let's just say Liberal.

Whatever you do, don't put off the inevitable. Remember gays in the military? Remember nationalized health care?

Please. Just do it. I double dare you.

Shanna said...

Just do it. I double dare you.

I think they should but they won't, because they are only pretending to care about that stuff. They think they will lose votes over it in future elections, so they won't do it. They will just string gay people along forever.

I wish they would. It would probably be the one libertarian thing they would ever do.

Tim said...

@tjl -

With all due respect, rich gays like you sat on your hands and let Prop 8 succeed. And I might add, if your partner were a foreigner, you'd be driving your BMW in a foreign land because he would not be allowed to come to the USA. DOMA may not affect you because you don't need benefits or immigration help, but there are loads of gays who need this resolved, and desperately so.

@ paul a'barge -

You are living in the Rovian "permanent Republican majority" past. If you think gays can be used as a wedge issue to make voters forget what your party did to our country, think again.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Don't blame it on the blacks, says Integrity, but even his friends at the MSM say otherwise:

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds

Dark Eden said...

And stop laying this stuff on black or hispanic people.

I understand that the truth is painful to some but the fact is, those two demographics have been historically intolerant of the gay community.


Nonono... only the eville xians are intolerant! Its funny how the only bigotry that is actively encouraged is bigotry against Christians. Go to any liberal group and you'll find rabid and disgusting Christian bashing as a pretty regular thing.

Dark Eden said...

Okay on topic. I really hope that the Democratic congress strongarms Obama to make Gay marriage legal. Its something I support, and I would like for Democrats to actually live up to their promises to gays someday. Liberals love to bash Bush for a lot of reasons, but if Bush had made promises to gays like this, he'd suck it up and make gay marriage legal and pay the price, because he thought it was the right thing to do. For Democrats it always seems like political expediency wins over doing the right thing, because they don't want to pay the price.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: History Repeating Itself, Again?

" I already have a sense of gays being thrown under the bus again as the Democrats rise to power." -- Christopher Althouse Cohen

Why not?

Hitler did it after he rose to power.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And if anyone wants to complain about the 'Hitler-comparison Card', I'll remind them that (1) the so-called 'progressives' did it about President Bush (43) and (2) compare and contrast IS a legit form of debate.

submandave said...

"Secular people do not care if gay people get married."

This is the sort of mindless identity political thinking that I generally despise from the Democrats. Many people, including myself, oppose gay marriage for completely non-religious reasons.

Despite the relatively recent (in terms of human history) popularity of equating marriage with romatic love, generally the institution of marriage has been focused on the creation of a new distinct family and raising children to continue society. In my libertarian opinion, this function is much more important and deserving of government attention than "recognizing a loving, committed relationship." An undeniable biological fact is that unless they take steps to prevent it most heterosexual couples will produce children while no homosexual couple ever will.

My oposition has nothing to do with religion, oppression, discrimination or even the "ick" factor, but simply utilitarianism. The interest in government recognition of marriage is continuation of society and the vast majority of gay relationships do not directly apply to this end.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Chuck, Ernst Röhm

ElcubanitoKC said...

And I am not violating Godwin's Law either, just making a historical note.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ Christopher Althouse Cohen

"And by the way, I don't think this is an issue where we should "let the people decide." The majority shouldn't have the right to vote to oppress the minority. That's not the American way."

That is singularly idiotic.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

My partner and I, after 20 years together, have a house and a vacation condo, 2 BMWs, and a collection of original artworks. We aren't groaning beneath the yoke of oppression just because our relationship isn't called "marriage."

Congratulations to you and your partner. 20 years in a committed loving relationship is an admirable and enviable thing. I applaud your sensible attitude and your achievements. I imagine that you both would be a welcome addition to any social gathering or dinner party, unlike some of the rabid gay rights posters who frequent this site who seem to see the world through a prism of bile and victimhood.

We're far more concerned -- alarmed, actually -- about O's Hope to Change our lives by redistributing away our income.

Thank you!! An issue that transcends gender, sexual orientation, race and religion. Perhaps we would all be better off if we concentrated on issues that are of real importance to the health and welfare of the nation.

Tim said...

@ Dust Bunny --

Gay people who seek equality are not "rabid." There may be some who are extremists, but most people just want the same rights as everyone else. Obama's policies are also important, no question, and I will be the first to criticize him if he launches into vast big-government schemes and so on. But try to imagine living as a gay person, actively denied the federal benefits, legal protections and immigration rights as straight people. I think, if you had kindness and empathy in your heart, you'd sing a different tune.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Gay people who seek equality are not "rabid

I never said they were. Some of the posters on this site who are gay advocates are rabid and despicable. Others are reasonable and present good arguments. The rabid and bitter proponents do your cause no good whatsoever and actually turn people against your cause. Downtownlad is one of the worst.

But try to imagine living as a gay person, actively denied the federal benefits, legal protections and immigration rights as straight people.

None of these issues are solved by forcing a change in the definition of marriage. The reversal of Prop 22 by the Calif courts and the passage of Prop 8 do nothing whatsoever to change Federal Benefits, the legal protections and equality of domestic partnerships to marriage (already provided by the State of California) or Federal Immigration Policy.

On the State level in California at least, you have equality. The Federal level is another thing.

I rarely agree with Michael, but this posting of his is quite correct:

"Some day somebody can write a nice paper about how the black civil rights movement got everything it wanted, and the gay marriage movement didn't, because one targeted public opinion and a series of presidents, and the other tried to short-circuit things by going through the courts."

I have all the sympathy in the world for people who feel oppressed and who are working responsibly to change their oppressed status. I have no sympathy for people who are vitriolic like DTL and who want to cram their agenda down my throat.

Even though they may have been ambivilant about same sex marriage,
many who voted yes on 8 did so because of the resentment of the Courts constantly overturning their votes and overstepping the percieved boundaries of what courts are supposed to do.

I'm a woman and a feminist and have zero sympathy with aggressive man hating feminism either. They also do their/my cause no good and are an impediment to actual progress.

BJM said...

Gays thrown under and women shoved to the back of the bus was SOP during this election. Yet both aggrieved groups lined up in the tens of millions to pull the lever for Democrats.

Unfortunately for many of the traditional Democrat interest groups, tens of millions of newly enrolled and politically activated Hispanic voters are socially conservative and have been converting to evangelical churches in droves for the past twenty years. They are not aligned with the progressive social agenda.

Very soon Hispanics will be the majority voter demographic in CA, which is the 800 lb electoral college gorilla. The Democrat Party must retain their vote to remain in power, so many of their traditional constituencies will be marginalized and/or quietly neglected between elections. They have no where else to go.

SF Bay Area may be the center of CA radical activism, sexual politicas and progressive thought, but LA has the population muscle and how they vote, so goes the state.

California's population and geographical disparity has been a bone of contention since the 1850's and erupts periodically over issues. A partition movement emerged from The Central Valley Project in the 40's and again as recently as '92. It's not as loony as it's been made out to be. Many Californians, especially those who have been in state for generations, are often ripe for the picking by culturally driven initiatives. We are not of one mind and never have been.

Ironically the cultural far right has effectively exploited this new voter block, and they will continue to target gays and abortion rights in CA.

Will progressive vs socially conservative Democrats eventually force a split in the state or will Hispanics be assimilated into the progressive culture quickly enough to prevent a political schism in California?

I think we will see a similar cultural divide in Arizona as liberal Californians migrate to AZ and begin to control the urban vote. It's a natural progression as one voter block supersedes another.

The GOP didn't handle the transition from red to blue CA very well; alienating moderates and driving the state further into the blue.

How will the Dems handle the emerging cultural dichotomy among their voting blocks? Interesting times ahead.

zefal said...

Revenant:

Don't ruin his delusions about the "white devil" be all that is evil in the world.

chuck b:

And don't forget, if you go back to 1986, it was politically advantageous for the Italian Roman Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, to chastise her opponent in the democratic primary by referring to him as the "gay socialist".

Maxine Weiss said...

bjm:

"The Cultural Far Right".

___________________


Sounds like you need to read your Joan Didion....'Where I Was From' 2003.

This has nothing to do with ideology. It's strictly a socio-economics and class thing.

In California, the Gay Rights Movement is essentially a white, educated, upper class thing, and it transcends right wing/left wing politics.

People in conservative Palos Verdes will align with the movement....because even though Palos Verdes is conservative Republican....they are educated and wealthy. Isn't that where Judge Kozinsky (the porn guy) lives ? Same thing with wealthy Orange County coast and much of Ventura County.

Southern California is filled with these pockets of educated, evolved Conservatives who would be a natural alliance.

I'm not talking the white trash pick-up truck in the driveway, red-necky Conservatives (lots of those neighborhoods in So. California) .....I'm talking people like Kozinsky in the tidy suburban neighborhoods, who just want to be left alone. ---These well-to-do Libertarians who see nonsense like Prop. 8 as nothing but Busybody legislation.

The Gay Rights Movement ignores these natural allies, and instead campaigns in the most diametrically opposed demographics.

White Republicans are your friends, especially the wealthy, educated ones !

chuck b. said...

"The interest in government recognition of marriage is continuation of society and the vast majority of gay relationships do not directly apply to this end."

Then marriage should only exist when children exist.

***

"I will vote for civil unions that are equivalent to marriage in a heartbeat."

If you endorse civil unions for same-sex couples, how do you avoid the slippery slope of endorsing them for polygamists too?

futoo said...

Dust Bunny Queen, you would do well to read up on the psychology and feminist writings on internalized oppression. Calling those who are louder than you, point out oppression more than makes you comfortable, etc "rabid" or blaming them for their own oppression is classic internalization. It has been documented in every movement.

TJL is clearly a white male wealthy partnered individual who has experienced a lot of privileges in his time and doesn't see how DOMA affects others and how he might want to care even if he himself is riding high. Just because YOU aren't daily experiencing (noticeable) oppression doesn't mean it isn't weighing heavily on others of us.

Why don't we just do away with government marriage, let people enter into the LEGAL contract of their choice (a civil union) and if desired go to a church or other non-government social institution for "marriage." Why should my money be paying for straight people's marriage privileges and my own oppression?