It's because they Hate Gays, there is no other reason

Good points. I think primary elections are a bit different from what I was describing, though.

On the Texas general election ballot, there was a checkbox where you could vote the entire party plank with just a single selection. You didn't have to read through the rest of the ballot; you just checked the one box, cast your ballot and voila! That's what I found troubling. I understand the need to limit the promotion of primary candidates to the general election, but I think it is a separate matter.

Sure, it's troubling and it's lame. Do I expect it to pop up in other states once the idea becomes more known? Yep

Part of the reason behind these odd ballot rules may be the increasing fear that both major political parties have been displaying towards third-party candidates. As the Republicans veer hard to the extreme Right and the Democrats wallow in wishy-washy Clintonian centrism, both liberals and moderate conservatives find themselves increasingly disenfranchised. The ruling orthodoxy tries to tighten its stranglehold on power, because popular support for a two-party system sponsored by corporate campaign contributions is waning. But the dinosaur is nearing extinction.

From today's Washington Post.

So having the ability to fire people because they are gay...Is that part of protecting marriage as well?

No healthcare, no jobs. It's good to be gay in America.

Land of the free indeed!

Miss Ellie, if I don't call it a job like the straight people do you think that would make it easier for the majority to let me work?

Nehai, live how you like, work how you like, be and do what you like with whomever wants to with you. I'll share an office with you, I'll go to lunch with you, I'll listen to your troubles, if you'll listen to mine. You want certain legal and social rights that I have? You got it, if it were up to me. I've already sent e-mail to my governor, my congressperson, my senator, and the person who calls himself my president and told them to do the right thing for you. Seriously.

Just don't ever call me a "breeder" again, and I will be damn sure to call you whatever you like.

We must be incredibly close to reaching our collective goal of establishing separate continents for males and females, where the twain shall never meet save once per year for procreative activity... What else can explain these inane, knee-jerks in a circle reactions?

I used to think that way. The best way to be a Libertarian is to join the Libertarian Party and help purge it of all the nutcases in its leadership.

Thank you Paolo. I truly appreciate you taking the trouble to try to answer my question.

The only trouble is, you didnt. I dont need examples because I'm perfectly willing to concede that all the things you cite are no real justification.

My question, and my argument are different. Not "what valid reasons are there for the straight community demanding to retain possession of the "marriage words"".

I accept that there are none.

My question is -

Part 1: what valid reasons are there for the gay community demanding to get posession of the "marriage words"
and
Part 2: what % decrease in opposition to legal equality would result if, as a matter of practical strategy, they abandoned this demand.

Part 3: Are the reasons found in Pt 1 sufficiently critical for it to be rational to forge ahead without claiming the decrease in opposition available under Part 2.

My belief is that the answer to Pt 1 is, that you cant come up with anything better than the illogical stuff the straights put up in the other direction.

That the answer to Pt 2 is maybe somewhere between 40% and 70%. Enough to swing it and determine whether you get legal equality, or lose it for a generation.

That the answer to Pt 3 is a resounding No!.

My viewpoint is that of a calm rational observer outside the situation. Purely as a practical matter, if you want to win legal equality, abandon the "marriage" word. Then you'll win, because there are millions who can see the injustice, and theyll be with you. But when it comes to giving you "marriage" they become emotional and irrational, and they'll be against you.

Are you happy to lose, so long as you feel you stuck to a "principle" ? But what principle ?

So you see, I say to hell with philosophy. Just be practical.

Even being right is not much consolation, if you are defeated. Unless your a masochist, I guess.

You're unfortunately very right. I wish we could hang every politician who has ever suggested civil union over marriage, as they've evidently forgotten what fundamental principles they're supposed to be upholding. In cases like this, it's the job of the government to protect the minority against the tyrrany of the majority. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have forgotten this fact...

Problem is, folks like Gov. Ehrlich now want to strip us of even the lesser "civil union" because it infringes on "traditional marriage." So, we can't win for losing, eh? Might as well stick to the high road, IMHO.

Im sure you understand me perfectly well. The "something more" is the insistence on calling an otherwise completely legally equal union "marriage". Not "more than equal".



I have to apologise here, Neehai. You are absolutely right that I simply haven't understood whatever this is that you are trying to tell me here. I can't even understand this very sentence, I am afraid.

Its true, I am talking at a slight tangent if what you want to discuss in this thread is the particular apalling behaviour of one legislator in one location last week.

I am trying to get at the underlying wider issues and causes.

Why he has the electoral support to feel strong enough to do something so bad, and what might be done to reduce it. I cannot see how that can possibly be not relevant, unless the only purpose of the thread is playing "oh how awful".

I am using the word "marriage" repeatedly because my own experience, talking to people who vote, is that (irrational, unjustified and emotional though it may be) a huge chunk of voting support hangs on whether the gay community insists on this or not.

Not any of the other words, just "marriage" "wedding" "bride" "husband" "wife". Those five. Its crazy, but those five words can turn someone who is on your side, seeing the justice of equality under the law, into your enemy. I'm not guessing. This is from my own discussions with people, and my own experience.

I don't see how you can fail to grasp the emotional significance they give these mere words. If you don't see them as at least equally significant, why on earth are you risking everything to get them ?

Why don't we try to be calmer, and to understand each others points? If you really dont want to discuss anything more than this one Governor Whatsisname, and how bad he is, say so and I'll shut up.

If you want to explain what your sentence meant that I cant decode, explain and I promise to listen carefully.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there , Paulo. The other side may be using the exact same logic.

The voters have been stirred into action by somebody trying to take their words off them.
Once they're awake and fighting, they think they too might as well "go for broke", or "stick to the high road". Get in a premptive strike and end it. Establish a "buffer zone" to force you back even further from what they care about.

Nasty situation.

Thats where we differ though. I think winning is still perfectly possible, given a calm rational strategy that doesn't insist on fighting on the wrong bit of ground, which it isn't really essential to hold.

I don't see why people get so worked up over this when it comes up for a vote... as long as my name doesn't appear on any of the paperwork, I don't give a damn who anybody gets married to.


Gydeon.

You have a valid point, but I think you may be putting too much stock in the marriage nomenclature. It's an aversion to the homosexual lifestyle that's at the crux of the matter.

I'm totally open to a Gandhi-esque, MLK-style approach to this battle. I agree that we may have to approach this in stages, and accept "civil unions" as a bridge step toward full marital equality. I just think that you may be missing the bigger picture and the broader ramifications of settling. As in my previous Civil War example, it took almost 100 years until the Constitutional "compromise" was reconciled, and then another century before minorities were truly afforded equal rights. Even after 1964, the equality battle has raged on within a broader cultural context. I fear that, if gays and lesbians "settle" for a short-term gain, we may be in queue for a similar long-term outcome.

Neehai,

In your zeal to wrap yourself in your comfy vicitm blankie, you failed to notice a very important part of that article so lemme point it out for you...

"Special counsel Scott J. Bloch told a Senate panel yesterday that he lacks the legal authority to enforce the Bush administration's ban on discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation."

Who's ban? Yeah, that's right-Bush's. The man you've been bashing left and right....but mostly left.

-Kiamat Dusk

Yea, I read it. Are yo trying to illustrate incompetence?


How important is that part of the article. I think it pretty much states the facts. This administration does not prevent gays and lesbians from being fired from their government jobs based solely on their sexual orientation.

Is it malicious or is it stupidity? At the end of the day the result is the same. Somehow Clinton was able to do it. So you are saying I should be happy that they made some feeble attempt?

This is just one of many attacks by this administration on homosexuals.

This was Clinton's policy that a Bush's special counsel refuses to enforce. Smoke and mirrors on the part of this administration. (Is that new?)

Of course, everyone knows Clinton was better as getting the job done. This administration is good at standing around pointing fingers and claiming "that's not my department". It's worse than lunch time at Best Buy with these guys. Who exactly is in charge?

I'm married. You can call it what you like... but you can also call the moon a dinner plate. It's still the moon. I would hope the government might recognize the moon as a moon, even if religious orthodoxy insists that it is a dinner plate (and a wicked plate at that).

I insist on the M word because it's emotionally significant to me. There is no monolithic Alternative Lifestyle Conspiracy that's going to accept or reject the idea of abandoning the M word. Some would just as soon NOT have it, as it has bad associations for them. You're fighting against a plank that's not a plank.

Further, I doubt the gap between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to ANYTHING gay is really all that wide. As Ehrlich demonstrated, the forces of intolerence and hate will fight anything even approaching equality, regardless of the terminology. A handful of politicians try to straddle the line, hoping to find middle ground between haters and supporters, but there's no middle ground to equality. Either you're in the club or out, and erecting a similar club across the street doesn't change that.

EXACTLY. There is the truth. The same for your opponents. THATS why asking for this one particular thing makes them get up, take notice, and fight. How many of them care whether you can visit your loved ones in hospital, or how your tax is assessed ? Very few.

You're as bad as each other, aren't you ?
.
If thats how you want it. Get fighting, stop whingeing. Does a boxer whine as the next punch singes its way towards him?

Same Teddy, two irrational toddlers. It really is no more complicated than that.

But one toddler is much the bigger. Don't fancy the likely outcome.

Irrational in what respect? Calling out critical-thinking errors is an irrational act?

Ellie, you've asked us to justify our side of the debate. What about your assertion that it's ultimately the M-word, and not some other factor or a combination of factors, that is driving opposition of gay marriage? I think that you may be basing your assertions on your own, anecdotal experiences and/or observations. Do you have relevant data or study references that show strong patterns of opposition primarily based upon the term "gay marriage," itself? What I've read, over the last year or so, seems to indicate that it's more of an issue of a broad but restrained distaste for the homosexual lifestyle. That general aversion to homosexualisty is largely invisible within in the public square, but is quickly provoked to the forefront when issues such as gay marriage are proposed. Said another way, the mainstream is willing to tolerate us provided that we keep quiet and maintain a low profile. How does that not offend your sensibilities WRT civil rights???

Again, an evoluationary path is one thing; abandoning the greater cause for convenience sake is quite another.

Part of the evidence for my assertion described in your first paragraph above, Paulo, is exactly that observation you yourself make in your second paragraph.

I think your observation is correct. Low level unexpressed distaste in many. Not enough for them to oppose legal equality, but bursting into flame when the M word is mentioned.

I say irrational, because the reason either side wants to fight over this word is one and the same. Emotion. For the homosexual minority it may even be more irrational, if it is in fact counterproductive, endangering the stuff that matters more.

But as I say, you will fight on this if you so choose. Only the gay community itself knows how much it matters to them, what increase in the risk of failure it is worth taking to try and get it. I've made this point enough. I'll now drop it unless seriously provoked, lol.

Its perfectly possible that I've overestimated the significance of this effect, although your own post seems to confirm its importance. Perhaps you're right, and I'm totally wrong. Without studies which I doubt exist, how can we know. It is notoriously difficult to get good data on prejudicial attitudes.

What I don't know: is anyone in charge on your side ? Is there a strategy-making umbrella organisation, or is it all a bit of a hodge-podge ?

The Queer Conspiracy fell apart amidst heated infighting over the design of the uniforms.

Seriously, there's no "umbrella organization" that I'm aware of. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals are an amazingly diverse group of people. Some are staunch conservatives. Some are devoted Christians. Some of us are old treehugging hippies, some are trendy young urban executives. We have a common stake in this issue, but we don't have any consistant strategy... or agreement on what to call it. Some will accept "civil union". Some will accept "civil union" but secretly translate it to "marriage" in their heads (we have some experience with the closet). And some will insist that the only way to preserve the rights is to have the same thing, with the same terminology, that other Americans have.

I wonder... if somebody had proposed to Martin Luther King that black people be given all the rights of white citizens, but would be called something other than citizens (maybe "pleebs", if he would have graciously accepted that generous offer. After all, "seperate but equal" had worked so well up to that point...

Miss Ellie, I honestly don't know how to explain it to you any better than I already have.

At no point in this thread have I advocated the use fo the word 'marriage'. Both instances of injustice in this thread refer to 'civil unions'. You suggest that using the words civil union is the answer to the problem.

My point, and the point of this thread, is that even when we use the "heterosexually approved" terms, we still get shit upon.

So for that reason alone, I find your opinion on the matter to be incorrect. For over a decade gay people have tried the route of 'civil unions' and we have failed. (I've stated this before in this thread but you refuse to listen to anything because you think you have a great idea no one ever fucking thought of before.)

My assertion still stands, it is not what we call our relationships that people find offensive. They find our relationships offensive in and of themselves. That is why no matter what we call them (see examples in this thread) we are challenged or denied.

Ellie already proved to us all that "separate but equal" not working isn't the issue here. It was lucky she did, I thought that was it exactly. Glad she's here to tell us these things.

No, no, people. I've said my bit (probably over-said it because I seemed to keep being misunderstood). I think everybody understands everybodies position now.

Given that, I am happy to acknowledge that you lot have much more hands on inside experience than I do.

If you say that avoiding the marriage word won't significantly reduce the opposition, then I guess I should accept that you know what you're doing.

I think the whole thing is getting increasingly tricky for you anyway, because of a much bigger movement. The trend towards a sort of religiously-driven paranoid semi-fascism. Which I guess is likely to get you in its sights too, whatever you do. Along with anything or anybody else who doesn't adequately conform to increasingly rigid norms. Its all very worrying.

Good luck, anyway. Sorry if I've been irritating.

Oh, you'll be back, Ellie. You're having way too much fun.


Gydeon.