Skip to main content

Gay people won perhaps our biggest victory in history just a few days ago and we can't even celebrate that. Witness: A story about how we should take the word marriage out of the equation completely appeared here. Then later, another story on this blog showed up about how the Prop. 8 fight was not over gay people at all, but it was over control of women. The overlooked implication that the diarist (probably accidentally) made was: gay people didn't win shit with this decision, women are the real winners.

The right is crying victimhood over their right to vote (against people they find icky) and some on the right are loving this victim mentality. They get to win by losing. This decision gets to be all about them and their rights, or more accurately, their perceived opporession and denial of rights. That's right - the biggest gay rights decision we've ever had is all about someone else, and we need to take it away.

With all the concern trolling from the Prop. 8 team, and with the concerned legal blogs saying that, oh no, we've gone too far with this, as if equality is ever too far (a stigmatizing concept that itself hurts gays, regardless of the "merit" of the caution), and with all the calls for ridiculous things from ending marriage completely to banning marriage through an amendment, it's all getting to be too much.

The interesting thing? Almost all, but not quite every single one, of these arguments are coming from the left. Many are coming from this very blog. I've seen about five diaries now saying that now that gays have won this fight, it's time to rip that away from us and "get the government out of the marriage business."

Ignoring, for a minute, the attacks on the decision by libertarian-minded but eminently reasonable people like Eugene Volokh, who for some strange reason is now calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment (take two!) because apparently gay people are the only group who don't deserve to have discussions of our rights aired out in courts - only in the legislative process (which is one of the main reasons Colorado's Amendment 2 was struck down in the Romer decision, and would be one of the provisions of his proposed amendment, but I digress) - even ignoring attacks like that coming from people who aren't always on our side, it's heartbreaking and frankly terrifying to see people on our side fighting this.

If you've paid attention at all, this whole fight over Prop. 8 is about THE WORD MARRIAGE. This case and this movement and Boies/Olson/AFER's work is all about the word marriage. It's all about how marriage is an important social and civil thing that American society can participate in. It brings stability in relationships, it makes kids less depressed and more secure when their gay parents can be legally married, it removes an important stigma - Americans are allowed to participate in this custom that makes us whole, but gays are irrationally excluded just to hurt us. Again, it's JUST to hurt us.

This whole fight is over the word marriage and I'm getting so tired of my so-called progressive allies wanting to take this victory from us. So, just stop it. We will not allow this campaign that reeks of "now that gays are allowed to get married, marriage is essentially meaningless and should be eliminated" to keep going or to get rid of the significant fight we've just won.

I don't know what the deal is. I don't know if it's the ridiculous Democratic sense that we always have to work to rip defeat from the jaws of victory. I don't know if it's irrational fear that we're moving too fast on this. I don't know if it's irrational fear that this ruling will inadvertently affect Democrats' or President Obama's re-election chances. I just know that no matter what people are thinking, you need to stop trying to argue that marriage needs to be taken away from us again, not 72 full hours after we've just won it.

This is not political pragmatism; this is political homophobia.

Even the President, the leader of the Democratic party and our mission, is unclear on this. His position seems to be that he "opposes same sex marriage" but "is for equality" but "wants gay people to call their marriages something else, but "wants them to have all the same rights as married couples."

The problem is, that is what voters of Prop. 8 were voting for. That is what Prop. 8 did (well except for the fact that domestic partnerships are not "all the same rights" as married couples, but even then, there's no assurance that civil unions would have all the same rights, especially not with this conciliatory President and Congress. God knows what they'd decide to give up to Republicans who hate us.) So the president opposes Prop. 8, but holds the position that would lead someone to vote for it. But he's for equality. But equality under a different name.

It really hurts to hear this from the White House directly after our win. We just won the right to same sex marriage and the President comes out and says "I oppose same sex marriage." It's like, oh, well, thanks for the "support."

I just wish they could either have:

  1. been more clear on their position on the decision, or
  1. kept their mouths shut like they have in regard to the DOMA and DADT cases and the recently won decisions at the Supreme Court, CLS, Doe v. Reed, and such.

The people in power and the people with the institutional backing of, well, everyone, have an obligation to stand up for the rights of the minority. That's what this whole thing is about. The court ruled that it is unfair for the majority of Californians to take away the right to marriage just because they don't like gays. That happens because the "over" class always has more of an advantage than the underclass. They can take our rights away because there's more of them.

Just like you can call for the elimination of marriage if you're white and heterosexual and you will be listened to. People will take your point of view into consideration and honestly a lot of the bigots might like it because it would help them in the end. By talking about destroying our victory and eliminating marriage (in order to save it?) you're providing fodder for institutionalized homophobia.

That's especially hurtful when we've just won a victory against those very same forces. And as you can see it's everyone. It's progressives. It's activists and bloggers. It even came out the other day that white Democratic women decided at the last minute to come out in droves against our freedom to marry. This is who we're up against: everyone, even ourselves.

With friends like these...

I don't like this at fucking all. Apparently we have more scared people than we thought, who are willing to destroy our rights. Apparently we have many more progressive enemies than we thought. And if you are trying to suggest that the freedom to marry should be taken away, you are an enemy in my eyes. I know that people won't appreciate my tone here and I doubt that even other gay people on this site or anywhere will agree with me but I don't care. Read the decision. Read the testimony. Learn how important the word marriage is and how it's the entire reason for this case.

The world is not ending. There is no reason to take it back. There's no reason to get rid of marriage. There's no reason to hurt everyone instead of just gay people. This is not defeat, it is a win. It's a progressive win. Be okay with that. Learn how to deal with it instead of trying to rip it away. We can win things and the world will be just fine. I know that Democrats operate under the assumption that they're not doing the right thing unless they not only fail but cave to Republicans and short-change the lives of the American people, but seriously, it's okay to be happy about a win.

The idea that there may be an underlying homophobia to this whole thing really creeps me the fuck out. It seems odd that so many so called progressives would be on message so soon after our win. So many people are just willing to get rid of our victories because, yes, it is politically awkward. I personally don't care about what's politically awkward. If the President were to call for repeal of the Hyde Amendment a week before the election I would be cheering him (and women) on because that is deserved. All equality fights are important no matter the timing and no matter if they are at odds with the President's positions on certain issues.

Not to mention the completely obvious fact that some people are willing to do what conservatives are screaming about: eliminate the institution of marriage. Really, THAT'S a more politically feasible message than to just accept a judge's ruling that gays can't be excluded from marriage? You really want to say that gay people can marry and now the next step should be to eliminate the institution of marriage completely? Shit, why not advance the idea of man on dog marriage or marrying a box turtle? While we're advancing Republican fears. Let's go all out. I mean that's what seems to be happening here.

And I don't get it. I don't understand why all of these sentiments are allowed as part of progressive discourse. I don't understand why they are going unquestioned. I don't understand how the people saying these things are not chased off the site for the worst kind of homophobia.

Let's pretend for a second it's 1967, except we have internet. Let's say someone wrote a post titled "Loving v. Virginia: Let's get rid of marriage instead." How well would that go over here? How many people would say, oh hell yeah, blacks just won a huge legal fight and now interracial couples can marry... so now that they can, let's keep EVERYONE from marrying! Great idea! Who would say that? And who would get away with it? Nobody. But apparently it's perfectly fine for people to espouse blatantly homophobic talking points (that would be blatantly racist in the context of Loving and 1967.) Why is that?

Then, a day later, someone writes: "Easy fix for interracial marriage issue? Get rid of all marriages." They also argue that marriage should be ended because of this new decision, with the benefit of the frame that we have something that needs to be "fix(ed)." We did have something that needs to be fixed. A judge in California just fixed it. There's your fix.

There is no "problem" in need of addressing with this decision. There is no need to destroy marriage (in order to save it?) We just need to be progressives and look forward to progression. We have won a fight. There is no going back. We've won.

Let's learn to be okay with that or keep the homophobia to ourselves, please.

Originally posted to indiemcemopants on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (268+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pat K California, norm, Renee, JekyllnHyde, TXdem, raboof, LeislerNYC, Manny, ultrageek, grollen, AaronInSanDiego, SaveDemocracy, musing85, Rolfyboy6, tiponeill, tnichlsn, TechBob, Psyche, OLinda, LEP, mslat27, celdd, recentdemocrat, lawnorder, Matilda, mataliandy, expatjourno, rasbobbo, cfm, bronte17, Silvan Elf, medaka, understandinglife, DaleA, CoolOnion, shanikka, LeftofArizona, Clues, Larry Bailey, Fe, Iberian, askyron, high uintas, KathleenM1, decca, Texknight, peterborocanuck, lcrp, riverlover, porsupah, Sue Hagmeier, fritzrth, DMiller, Oaktown Girl, gavodotcom, homogenius, vacantlook, Julie Gulden, julifolo, joanneleon, Fabian, Simian, CTPatriot, Technowitch, sc kitty, Militarytracy, craigkg, grey skies turning to blue, ChemBob, Laurence Lewis, eru, Dem Beans, dew, paxpdx, Carnivorous Plantling, Ginny in CO, mph2005, FindingMyVoice, kerplunk, Dunvegan, Detroit Mark, begone, SoulCatcher, Shirl In Idaho, esquimaux, vigilant meerkat, ferallike, dharmafarmer, andydoubtless, koNko, dougymi, droopyd, deha, earwulf, fiddler crabby, Son of a Cat, Hobbitfoot, blueoasis, triv33, 4Freedom, figleef, Sagebrush Bob, plf515, bleeding heart, AndyS In Colorado, MBNYC, ebohlman, SingerInTheChoir, Cenobyte, JugOPunch, emsprater, ShowMe, Stripe, Oothoon, rkh, Opposite Reaction, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, EdSF, psychodrew, Sydserious, Nespolo, Cofcos, Matt Z, Jimdotz, ezdidit, DWG, sfbob, joyful, NoMoJoe, jayden, st minutia, mlv1055, Moderation, Rumarhazzit, uciguy30, keikekaze, Predictor, oxon, Terra Mystica, roycej, Corporate Dog, sk4p, Scioto, rontun, scooter in brooklyn, GlowNZ, bythesea, elwior, New Mexico Dem, blindyone, mikeconwell, MrJayTee, bluesheep, Tam in CA, mofembot, Chimpolitic, Gemina13, kyril, Jacques, luckylizard, jayjaybear, nokkonwud, JamieG from Md, rodentrancher, Ellinorianne, dmhlt 66, DavidW, papicek, ZhenRen, lostboyjim, LaFeminista, smellybeast, Neon Vincent, DeepLooker, Rick Aucoin, socalmonk, BoiseBlue, Boudicia Dark, Carol in San Antonio, Rabbithead, Norm in Chicago, h bridges, CamillesDad1, JesseCW, Mercuriousss, beijingbetty, moonheart, MKSinSA, sanglug, allep10, billssha, Kiku, mdmslle, ArthurPoet, angel d, deviant24x, Leftcandid, nocynicism, commonmass, newdem1960, Alec82, FogCityJohn, p gorden lippy, amk for obama, BFSkinner, DrWhk, Dave1955, freedapeople, DavidHeart, Lady Libertine, ypsiCPA, Egalitare, roystah, progdog, farrelad, wagster1969, Onomastic, praying manatheist, snapples, Colorado is the Shiznit, Wilma Rudolph, I love OCD, ozsea1, ban nock, Olon, cooper888, m00finsan, soothsayer99, BlueHead, Situational Lefty, ThAnswr, trs, KelleyRN2, Alice Olson, Veeajera, justsayjoe, evangeline135, Angela Quattrano, CKendall, enhydra lutris, whaddaya, Aquagranny911, Imhotepsings, hpchicago, Dbug, Miggles, mfinch, T100R, Cleante, jacey, weatherdude, GenXangster, freelancewoman, Liberalindependent28, anodnhajo, damfino, OHknighty, Williston Barrett, iphelgix, mojada, Lonely Texan, swampyankee, banach tarski paradox, Ginger1, congenitalefty, glassofmilk, TheProudProgressive

    'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

    by indiemcemopants on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:01:10 PM PDT

    •  Don your asbestos jacket, young man. (28+ / 0-)

      Because I think you're gonna need it.  ;-)

      Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

      by FogCityJohn on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:06:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not so naive as to doubt homophobia plays (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Texknight

              a role for some people, that's just reality - but I believe for many more it does not as there's also the separate issue what will best hold up on appeal given the current makeup of the Supreme Court?  

              If this recent hallmark decision does not hold up in the Supreme Court, then the cautious approach will be vindicated.

              If it does hold up, however, then your argument will be vindicated, and many progressives who have been more cautious in the past will have to eat some serious crow (the President included, myself included).  And the fact is I'd be quite happy to eat it if it meant true equality for everyone - in a second.  Justice Kennedy, crow for table six please.

              We also have to remember there are different levels to the whole cautious vs. not cautious approach.

              For example, when this lawsuit was announced, I was happy that it was going through the courts on the basis of equal protection under the law instead of relying in state-by-state referendums, and argued as much in the comments of a diary on the topic, while an activist who had been working on issues like gay marriage for years - someone who would consider themselves as far to the left on those issues as possible - suggested that I was being risky and not cautious ENOUGH, because I wasn't acknowedging the conservative nature of the Supreme Court and how damaging a bad decision could be.  So there is also a multidimensionality to the idea of caution here which makes a boolean test for homophobia somewhat lacking, particularly since the person I was debating with at the time happened to be gay and certainly not a bigot.

              77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

              by ShadowSD on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:59:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  HELLO!?!?! (0+ / 0-)
              did you see my comment below responding to how you used my diary

              and drop a house on your friends?  that's what you think?

              what is that supposed to mean?

              let me be clear about one thing here.

              i'm not gay.  i get exactly NOTHING AT ALL from helping gay people.  i do it because i care about people.  but i get nothing for myself out of it.  nothing but being called a traitor from bigots and now being given shit from you because i found an added victory from the ruling the other day.

              you know what.  fuck you.  

              there are a lot more gay people than just you and they don't need you giving shit to people who are trying to help.  you think you are going to guilt trip everyone into treating you well?  no you are not.  you are just pissing them off.  making them at best decide that there are other people who are oppressed to help who don't treat them like shit for helping.  at worst you make enemies out of them.

              me.  you just piss me off because you speak like you represent all gay people.  and then on behalf of gay people you say fuck you to progressives.  well fuck you back.  you just had your biggest win and instead of just enjoying it you found a way to piss on everyone who is on your side.  what the hell?

              •  i see below that you don't need 'friends' anymore (0+ / 0-)
                now that you have a few judges on your side the rest of us can go fuck ourselves.  i get it.  well, i guess all the shit i got for standing up for gay people was for nothing.  they don't care what non gay people suffer for standing up for them.  good to fucking know.
              •  Ah, another "ally" is upset (0+ / 0-)

                Anton,

                It's quite clear you're not gay.  See, if you were, you'd have gotten the "drop a house" reference.  It's from the Wizard of Oz, a film with special cultural significance to gay men.  But I digress.

                One gay person says something you disagree with, and you start dropping f-bombs.  What's that all about?  Why all of this over-the-top anger?  Why do you feel like gay people should be kissing your feet just because you say you support equality for us?  

                Would you go into a diary about African-American civil rights and talk about how you get "nothing" for supporting equal rights for AAs?  What about Native Americans?  Or women?  Why is it just with gays that you feel you deserve some kind of extra special gold star just for doing the only right and decent thing?  

                Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

                by FogCityJohn on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 02:01:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  excuse me? are you fucking joking? (0+ / 0-)

                  i'm pissed that MY diary was used by this diarist to accuse all progressives of taking away a victory for gay people.  i'm pissed that this diarist claims to speak for gay people as he says fuck you to progressives.  

                  and i got the wizard of oz reference.   progressives like me are evil witches who the diarist wishes to drop a house on to crush to death.  yeah.  i got it.  

                  i still remember my parents telling me that i was not allowed to be friends with one of my best friends because they thought he might be gay.  i was 17.  it was 1991-92.  later in the year i would be leaving for seminary to be an evangelical minister.  i was such a goody two shoes kid that i had never actually swore but once as a very little kid.  no drinking.  no drugs.  no skipping school.  no sex.  not even porn.  and for the first time in my entire life i defied my parents openly.  i told them i would not abandon my friend for being gay.  he was my friend.  they actually threatened to ground me from going to church.  

                  years later i would quit church on my own.  after being a minister.  in part because i could not stand the open sexism and hidden racism but what really pushed me away from being a minister and even going to church was the fact that i could not accept a god who would torture my friend with fire for all time being gay.  everything i had thought my life was about since i was 12-13 years old i had to walk away from.  

                  it meant walking away from my entire family who rejected me for my decision.  as someone adopted after being a foster child for 7 years first i can tell you that it was not a little thing to be rejected by my adopted family.  

                  i gave up everything i had in my whole life to do the right and decent thing.  i didn't ask for a fucking gold star!  i didn't ask for anything.  i just did it.  and it cost me everything.

                  you act like it costs nothing to do the right thing.  you are so fucking full of shit.  it cost a lot to do the right thing.   and it hurts a lot to have your efforts to help people thrown in your face.  and it really hurts a lot to have someone wish you were dead.

                  as for black people.  if you look down at my comment i referenced you will see that i say that slavery was about money and that racism was about making oppressors feel justified for being oppressive.   that is equal to what i said about mormons and other christians who oppose gay marriage because it threatens their sexist oppressive power structure.    

                  by the way.   in addition to watching the wizard of oz film as a kid i also read the books, listened to the record and watched the stage plays.  i also performed on stage frequently growing up as a singer and dancer.   you don't have to be gay to get a fucking wizard of oz joke.

                  but whatever.  i'm just another 'ally' who is upset.  what do you fucking care.

                  •  you know what... i'm not mad anymore (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lightfoot

                    i was just surprised and hurt

                    i understand that gay people and all people who are oppressed are hurting every day

                    but people who 'do the right thing' are not doing it for a 'gold star' they are doing it because they are good people and 'doing the right thing' when it's standing up for oppressed people often means having to choose between them and friends and family and jobs.

                    i hope that you realize that there are people who have given up as much as you have gone without to stand up for you

                    and it's not about getting a gold star for having your loved ones hate you for choosing to stand with a stranger over them it's about the fact that your heart is already hurt being rejected by your loved ones and you hope that at least you are not also going to be hated and rejected by the stangers you gave everything up for

                    •  Okay, let's dial this down a bit. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      alizard

                      First of all, I don't think anyone wants you dead.  The Wizard of Oz reference is a joke.  Just like no one really believes anyone will melt if water is thrown on them.

                      Second, indie doesn't claim to speak for all gay people.  He's speaking for himself and expressing his opinion.  That's what diaries are for.  LGBTs are a varied group, and we have lots of individual takes on the issues.  Some of us agree with indie often, others disagree often.  

                      Third, if you take a look at the comments in Angry Mouse's FP story today, you'll see a lot of people there calling for the elimination of marriage.  Whatever you may think of the issue, I would hope that you could see why gay people would perceive such an idea as equivalent to closing all public pools rather than desegregating them.  Why should an institution have to be abolished just because gay people might now have access to it?

                      Finally, I applaud your taking a stand for your friend.  I know it's not easy.  All of us will likely have to make a choice like that at some point in our lives.  My questions were intended to get at why you were reacting so angrily to indie's post, and to get you to see that, in my view, your reaction was inappropriate.  If you're going to threaten to withdraw your support for LGBT equality every time a gay person says or does something you don't like or don't agree with, then yeah, we gay folks are going to question how strong your support actually is.  

                      Believe me, we get plenty of instructions from straight people on this site, many of whom seem to think they know better than we do how we should fight our battles.  Please try to remember that some of us have been at this quite a while.  Some of us (myself included) have been around a good bit longer than you have.  You need to show some respect for the views of actual gay people and not simply assume you know better than we do.  You don't have to agree with us, but you do need to respect us if you want to have a conversation with us about our issues.

                      Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

                      by FogCityJohn on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:37:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Ditto (7+ / 0-)

            What about my Daughter's future?

            by koNko on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:41:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Truth-telling is good (44+ / 0-)

          Neither Pres. Obama's (nor any serious recent Dem presidential candidate's) position has made any sense. Making sense isn't the point though--it's really all about the polls.

          Having said that, gay marriage will happen without Obama's support--as more and more states adopt it and when the Supreme Court eventually nationalizes it via the 14th amendment.

          Obama and other high-profile (future) Dems will support "marriage" down the road--especially since the polls will have flipped on it by then.

          •  Exactly, the good thing (44+ / 0-)

            about Prop. 8 changing everything is it looks more and more like we don't NEED the president or legislators. We had 3-4 pro gay SCOTUS cases last term and a few more federal cases, and all the campaigns to end "hate" that everyone is paying attention to.

            It looks like less and less we need those politicians. If they want to join us I wouldn't turn them down but I also know at this point they'd only do that to protect their legacies.

            'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

            by indiemcemopants on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:48:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We elected him to lead, not follow (38+ / 0-)

            And we will remember him not for eventually changing his mind and supporting equality, but for his active bigoted opposition to equality. George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and a number of other vile racists claimed to have an epiphany on race and came to be OK with that pesky 14th Amendment. But we don't remember them for that. We remember Thurmond for proclaiming

            All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.

            We remember George Wallace for standing in the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama. We remember Orval Faubus for Central High School in Little Rock. We remember James Eastland for claiming the murder of three civil rights workers in Mississippi was a hoax. We remember the bigotry, not late to the game conversions. Obama will forever stain himself by continuing to oppose fundamental rights and equality for LGBT people.

            "So it was OK to waterboard a guy over 80 times but God forbid the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend."--Jon Stewart

            by craigkg on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:56:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  indiemcemopants is right (8+ / 0-)

              The hang-up is over a word. Tens of millions of mostly decent Americans are hung up on a word. Obama favors equal benefits and has made/is making progress.

              Some will compare Obama to George Wallace. I believe their number will be few.

              •  The problem with this line of thinking (48+ / 0-)

                is that is amounts to an argument that Brown v Board of Education was wrongly decided, that the problem with segregated schools wasn't that they enforced a separation of the races irrespective of the level of equality between the all-white and all-black schools, but rather that the all-black schools were called "schools," that if we called them "centers for negro achievement" and they had the same resources as all-white schools, that equality has been achieved.

                The same could be said of Loving v Virginia. Obama must be a bastard since his parent's supposed "marriage" violated the morals of many Americans and at one time or another had been banned in 41 of the states and could have resulted in his father's execution in some of them for the "rape" of his mother. But if we gave race mixers "civil unions" while preserving marriage for the racially pure, those that obey god's law to stay within their own race, that would be OK, right? Right?

                Separate but "equal" is not equal. Never was and never will be. It serve no purpose but to divide. If we have civil unions for gays, and interacial couples, who's next? Civil unions for bastards, because bastards shall not be admitted to the church? Civil unions for interfaith couples? For those that committed pre-marital fornication?

                "So it was OK to waterboard a guy over 80 times but God forbid the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend."--Jon Stewart

                by craigkg on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:13:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't really disagree with your point (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Iberian, Cedwyn, kestrel9000

                  The real-world implications of separate-but-(un)equal schools were much greater, though, than the contemporary impasse over civil unions vs. marriage.

                  •  Only because a greater number of (16+ / 0-)

                    Americans were impacted by such segregation.

                    Otherwise, the harm is actually deeper for those LGBT Americans unable to fulfill their lives in a legally recognized partnership the same as heterosexual Americans have without objection.

                    School years come to a close.  

                    Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

                    by emsprater on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:34:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I disagree (5+ / 0-)

                      Poor educations negatively affected the economic and social lives of tens of millions of African Americans following emancipation.

                      The only reason this argument is remotely useful is that outreach to black voters on this issue is important. Bad outreach cost the 'No' campaign dearly in 2008.

                      Being a little more sensitive toward black suffering can be the beginning of an improvement on this front.

                      •  No one disputes that fact (26+ / 0-)

                        The basic point being that you're only legally required to be in school until you reach a certain age or you pass out of the system having completed its requirements. You could then find other ways of supplementing your education--or you could move someplace where Jim Crow wasn't the law of the land.

                        Until marriage equality becomes the law of the land, however, gay and lesbian Americans will all suffer state-sanctioned discrimination each and every day. There's no place we can move (at least within this country) to get away from it, either.

                        Case in point: Two friends of mine are among those who got married in California while it was legal for them to do so. I went out for a visit this spring, not long after they'd filed their taxes. They had to pay their accountant to do them twice--once for California, where they're legally married--and again for the IRS, where they're not. They had to pay extra to the accountant, and also had to pay more in taxes to the federal government, since it does not recognize their relationship as a marriage. That's going to happen every year from now on until either one of them dies, they get a divorce, or the government of the United States gets its collective head out of its arse.

                        •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Iberian, Cedwyn

                          I would like to point out though, that persistent school and workplace discrimination kept most African Americans in the worst schools and worst jobs throughout the country. In places like Boston and Detroit, blacks of the Great Migration could vote, but many barriers remained.

                          The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit

                          •  When did this become the opresssion olympics? (29+ / 0-)

                            Look, you are comparing apple to oranges, and in fact don't get how bigotry impacts gays in ways that you don't understand.

                            I have written here on the subject of gays and how bigory impacted us economically. Just because You don't know about, doesn't mean it ain't happening:

                            *    A range of characteristics that predict poverty having been accounted for, same-sex couples are significantly more likely to be poor than heterosexual couples.

                            *    In general, lesbian couples have much higher poverty rates than either different-sex couples or gay male couples. Lesbian couples who are 65 or older are twice as likely to be poor as heterosexual married couples. *    Among people 18 to 44, gay/bisexual men and heterosexual men are equally likely to be poor (15 percent versus 13 percent), and lesbian/bisexual women are more likely to be poor than heterosexual women (24 percent versus 19 percent). *    African Americans in same-sex couples and same-sex couples living in rural areas have particularly high poverty rates. *    Children of gay and lesbian partners are twice as likely to be poor as children of heterosexual couples. *    Many more LGB people live in families with very low incomes, defined as 200 percent of the federal poverty level. *    Both gay and lesbian individuals and couples are more likely than married people to receive government cash supports."

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            Many of these economic issues arise out of the destabilization of gay relationships as well as work place and societal discrimination. Again, just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
                            Here you commit the sin of assuming you know the impact on gay people of discrimination on their lives.

                            You also commit another sin I see amongst people discussing gay issues. You assume they are white issues.

                            The fact is- many gay people- are people of color. So, you add to their burden by ignoring how bigotry impacts them from this stand point. For example, as I also wrote:

                            ""A new study finds same-sex couples in the Bronx are more likely to have children than those in any other New York City borough, and, "perhaps more than any county in the country."

                            The couples were predominantly people of color.

                          •  it's not the oppression olympics (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Iberian

                            someone made the analogy to separate but equal.  so txdem has been pointing out the ways in which the questions of segregation just aren't comparable to public school desegregation and he/she would be right.  schools, etc., were in fact not equal.

                            whereas civil unions can be, such as in vermont.  that's one state where civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.  gay couples can be just like "married" couples in the eyes of the state.

                            "marriage" only comes into it when one introduces religion, because that's all marriage is once you have fully equal civil unions.  and it is just a word.  if a relationship can have everything a marriage has without being called a "marriage," what's the difference?

                             

                            Die with your boots on. Gonna try? Well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

                            by Cedwyn on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 03:35:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  First, to change all the laws that use (8+ / 0-)

                            marriage to make 'civil unions' equal under the law, would require a huge waste of legislative and bureaucratic time.

                            The intangible one is that marriage, as Walker brilliantly articulated, is about much more than sex and has connotations that are intrinsically a part of what the word means.

                            Just for instance, consider all the literature and art that use the word marriage or imply it. 'Civil union' cannot begin to compete.

                            Nor does making marriage obsolete work at all.

                            The government has a major responsibility in regulating marriage. Leaving it up to religious groups would open the door for marriage to minors, siblings, children, etc. And as the Judge also argued, marriage stabilizes society in many ways. It adds to our health too.  

                            The Unitarian-Universalist Association worked to end homosexuality as a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis. Since '73 we have been advocating, performing and celebrating gay unions. They are only treated as equal within our churches.

                            Too much sanity may be madness. The maddest of all is to see the world as it is and not as it should be. Don Quixote "Man of La Mancha"

                            by Ginny in CO on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 05:48:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it would take a one sentence bill. (0+ / 0-)

                            something like...

                            for all purposes and meanings in the US laws, civil union shall be synonymous with the word marriage.

                            "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                            by zedaker on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:30:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it wouldn't address (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ginny in CO

                            state and local laws or private action.

                          •  yes it would. (0+ / 0-)

                            if the two terms are defined specifically as synonymous under federal law then there is no escaping the equal treatment under the 14th amendment. state laws would have to adhere or be shot down every time in federal courts.

                            "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                            by zedaker on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:54:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So we should have to go to all the fuss (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ginny in CO

                            and bother of passing this law, and changing all the forms where you have to indicate marital status, and everything else that such a law would entail, just so a few bigots can pretend to themselves that they still own the word "marriage"?

                            Why not just leave things the way they are and tell the bigots to suck it?

                          •  but it doesn't do that (0+ / 0-)

                            if the two terms are legally defined as synonymous you could fill in the blanks as you choose, and that does tell the bigots to go suck it. all marriage is legally is a form of domestic partnership contract and this puts that fact right in the bigot's faces and tells them there is nothing special or sacred about their own particular contracts.

                            "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                            by zedaker on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 11:43:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It violates the principle of simplicity (0+ / 0-)

                            (Known in logic as Occam's Razor, and in science as the Law of Conservation of Energy.) Or, proverbially, why re-invent the wheel? We already have a word that perfectly describes the kind of relationships we're talking about. That word is "marriage." Why do we need to create another word that means the same thing, to describe the same state?

                          •  Except 'Civil Unions' even in Vermont ... (7+ / 0-)

                            are not equal to marriage.  They may confer some or even most of the states rights to same sex couples, but without that word marriage and while DOMA exists, it's never equal.  Never, just like segregated schools were all schools and places to get and education, but they were never equal.  But I committed the cardinal sin of comparing gay segregation with racial segregation, and I forgot the prevalent opinion that the word 'segregation' is somehow owned by only one group.

                            My bad.

                            Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

                            by emsprater on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:24:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And of course the real sin (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            emsprater, Predictor, FogCityJohn

                            in the comparison is to invite people to think of their own internalized bigotry over these issues rather than because the words actually have any real difference here with regard to substantive ideas of what the words mean.

                          •  Except it is, and you just don't understand (5+ / 0-)

                            how it is.

                            Which is part of what I am trying to do here.

                            Yo have no idea how interwine marriage laws are into a vast number of legal questions that affect people basic ability to operate equally in this society.

                            My advice go do a little research on the subject. I am not trying to be mean. Just do the research.

                          •  by the way, the presumption when there (6+ / 0-)

                            are two words is that they must have two different means in the law. The questionw ould always be "does this apply here?" What about here? What about here? The here being literally thousands of scenarios, and some of them are private, and even then, you would have contend with resistance with costs a lot of money to resolve. Economically disavantaging and already economically disadvantaged minority group. Again just because you didn't know they were disadvantagd doesn't mean they aren't.

                          •  This has always been my argument on (6+ / 0-)

                            this issue.  If we settle for civil unions/domestic partnerships, the far right will litigate every single statute using the word marriage in every single state just to slow down our progress.  The word marriage is entwined throughout statutory and caselaw.  The litigation would be endless.

                            The three richest men in the world have more money than the poorest 48 countries. Maude Barlow

                            by DMiller on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:49:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Exactly. Better to end this in (0+ / 0-)

                            one move rather than extend the harm.

                          •  Vermont has marriage now. (5+ / 0-)

                            New Jersey is the only state with civil unions...and they are in no way equal to marriages.

                          •  I attended Vermont's Democratic Curtis Awards (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rserven

                            Dinner last year where the Vermont Democrats, from Leahy to Welch to state legislators, spoke out passionately about marriage equality as a civil right for all Vermonters.

                            They were very strong on the issue, which was was the cornerstone of the evening's talks.

                            You know there's a problem with the educational system that when out of the 3 Rs only one begins with an R. - Dennis Miller

                            by 4Freedom on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:15:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  People from Vermont... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, 4Freedom, Predictor, FogCityJohn

                            ...spoke passionately in New Jersey about how civil unions were in no way equal to marriages...but we still failed to enact marriage equality here.  And the vots standing in our way belonged to Democratic state senators.

                          •  WA also has civil unions, and is also fettered (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bruh1

                            by DOMA and private policies derived from DOMA which are not obvious.

                            Part of the problem is that for civil unions to work, you have to vest all of the rights involved in a family in a civil union, and probably only in a civil union, at least all of the things the state can do as a legal matter. As in the uk where everyone has to go to the registry office to get what the law gives to the married,  and can go to church/synagogue/etc as well if they want, but it's the registry office and only the registry office that gets you the rights and status in UK of a married person.  

                            I am a supporter of what WA did because it's a helluva lot better than what was(n't) available before,  and part protection is better than none at all until better comes, as long as you don't lose track of the 'better' and stop fighting for it. Half protection is not better than the full deal if the full deal can be obtained. And now we can hear the footsteps of the full deal slowly headed in the direction of those we love. Hel-lo, Judge Walker.

                            But as long as private entities and the Feds give separate rights on different terms to families created by law, no one state can fix it alone and this Federal matter has to be resolved, because . . .  I did for years the ever larger piles of papers that LGBT couples had to do to approximate the unitary legal institution from which they were barred, and no matter how many papers went into the pile, one could never get them all, and something was always at a critical moment missing that the little 'certificate of marriage' gave in one very short page. And no way to provide generally the sense of legitimacy and normalcy and rightness  and stability that the little piece of paper gave all by itelf. All the differences between being really married and, remember this one, 'living in sin.' No notion of abolishing 'marriage' can deal with the nonlegal elements of an institution, which is why civil unions no matter how good, are a half measure only. And why abolishing the institution entirely is not even responsive to the issue.

                      •  As I said ... (9+ / 0-)

                        numbers, that's the only difference.  Lack of committed recognized relationships with full rights as heterosexuals cost LGBT Americans in diverse ways every day: from costing more to accomplish some of the benefits by extra legal work that may or may not be valid when the time comes, or by discrimination on jobs, insurance benefits, not to mention social effects because there are LGBT couples in America today who remain locked into .....

                        oh hell, why bother.

                        you are right.  Gays have nothing to complain about.

                        Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

                        by emsprater on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:57:13 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I just think it's important (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Iberian

                          for all supporters of gay rights (gay and straight)--especially since we are admittedly building on the legacy of the civil rights movement--to fully appreciate the roots of that movement.

                          This comment

                          School years come to a close.

                          falls woefully short.

                        •  No. bother. Lawyers see all the time what my (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AaronInSanDiego, julifolo, st minutia

                          state calls 'meretricious relationships,' the formerly committed relationships of people, usually heterosexual, who will not or cannot marry but formed families and then split up, and have to go to court to make that split work where there are no rules and understandings and legal assumptions about this and that.

                          Anyone who wants to see the difference between that an the legal status of a marriage should have a look at those disentanglings of nonmarried relationships and what a godawful mess they are to untangle when 'divorce' is not available because 'marriage' is not present. Divorce could be almost a matter of forms, and is in many places, but those almost always sent a lawyer's kid to college for a year or two, just on the expense. Watching a court try to sort out employment pensions and fringes where the rights of the married are spelled out but not of the 'meretricious', so the married separator gets a share of the pension but there is no provision for it otherwise and the company granting teh benefit or administering it doesn't want to hear about any rights of the other party in such a relationship -only the married get 'em. Or the absence of dower and curtesy in real estate for states whic still have it.

                          It's one way for the skeptical to see the horrible legal mess that leaving LGBT couples out of one of our core legal institutions makes, every time out until this is fixed. And this one is visible for anyone who has access to reported cases.

                      •  Some quick calculations (5+ / 0-)

                        Based on 1950 Census figures...

                        African American population in states that required racially segregated schools (17 states + DC): 10,522495
                        African American population in states where some schools were segregated (4 states): 44,257
                        Percentage of all African-Americans nationwide living in those states: 70.25%
                        Percentage of all Americans those African Americans subject to racial discrimination represent: 7.8%

                        Emsprater's supposition seems quite plausible and it is factually correct that more (by percentage) African-Americans were subjected to segregation than gays impacted by sexual orientation discrimination given that the generally accepted percentage of LGBT's in the general population varied from 2 to 5%. In terms of absolute numbers, it is possible that there are more gays and lesbians affected by marriage equality discrimination now than blacks affected by racial discrimination in education in 1954, but the U.S. population is 2.2 times larger now than in 1954.

                        When Judge Walker's ruling goes into effect and the stay is lifted, 17.5% of the U.S. population will live in states with marriage equality. That leaves 247,380,000 people in the other states, approximately 2-5% of whom may be LGBT, yielding 5,000,000-12,370,000 LGBT's subject to discrimination in our ability to marry.

                        "So it was OK to waterboard a guy over 80 times but God forbid the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend."--Jon Stewart

                        by craigkg on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:15:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You are underestimating the LGBT population (5+ / 0-)

                          Right now, the number of self identitied are as follows in a political sense:

                          ""Specifically, this means that 5% of the electorate will self-identify as LGBT by 2016 at the latest, and that 6% of the electorate will self-identify as LGBT by 2028 at the latest. It is possible, though not a certainty, that this number will rise to 7% in the 2030's, even as early as 2032. Further, if the self-identified LGBT percentage of the population under the age of 45 increases rather than remains stagnant, then the 7% figure will definitely be reached in 2032, and even higher percentages might occur in the future."

                          http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          Indeed, "key pieces of data make it clear that the self-identified LGBT population is already 4% of the electorate (2004 and 2008 exit polls both confirm this).

                          http://www.openleft.com/...

                          This is just self identified.  There are a lot of unidentified.

                      •  I am in agreement (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        esquimaux, emsprater

                        We have to truly resist anything that seeks to divide us and we have to back eachother up unceasingly.  We can't make comparisons and say that 'your' suffering is not as much as 'mine', or we will never get anywhere.  Only by joing together can we make an impact.  We can't really understand another's suffering, we have to take it on faith that we have enough in common to join our missions together.  Remember, the capitalists joined their interests with those of the pulpit, and ever since, they have successfully been able to divide the american people successfully, to the point that most people vote against their won economic interests. If we can successfully work together and create a real progressive coalition, then maybe we can work on policies that benefit us all.

                    •  and I'm not sure a greater number (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      musing85, emsprater

                      of Americans WAS affected. Yes, there are more African Americans (probably) than GLBT Americans. But when you bring in the families of GLBT people and their children I'm not so sure of those numbers anymore.

                      The fact is that we are ALL affected when the policy of the land is active bigotry.

                      My mom wrote a great book on the church & gay marriage - buy it here! http://www.ermalouroller.com/

                      by hpchicago on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:47:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Your comment is factually inaccurate (13+ / 0-)

                    a) as to what marriage means versus civil unions.

                    b) The impact of being equal means for gay people both at home and abroad.

                    The impasse, as you call it, over marriage versus civil unions is about how inequality persist regarding a wide range of legal issues, including how to apply federal laws, state laws, local laws, etc when looking at two different classifications. And, yes, as far as the practice of law goes, that's a very complicated question. Right now, I have someone I am helping in which a wide range of legal issues are coming up regarding the private sector interpretation of these laws. Its not easy- especially given the fact that private sector actors are being told by the government that these are two separate classifications. Surprisingly , guess what- they are treating them as unequal.

                    Frankly, i really wish people like you would stop thinking of this as a matter of semantics. It just suggests to me that people haven't done enough research. If you want to understand some part of the complicated ways in which separate but equal impacts gays, check out NJ and the experiences there.

                  •  Hmmm. (9+ / 0-)

                    "I think the recently freed slaves should have have the ability to create contracts called Freedmans Unions, but I don't think we should call them marriages ."

                    I'm thinking such a policy would have had a damned big impact.

                    We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

                    by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:14:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  i actually think (0+ / 0-)

                  that government should get out of the marriage business simply because of the idea of 'sanctity' in the term. define all legal uses of the term as civil union or domestic partnership and have the government only involved in the making/breaking of the contract. it is a separation of church and state issue then. the government has no business establishing the sanctity of anything.  

                  "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                  by zedaker on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:25:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Obama supports .... (28+ / 0-)

                the equivalent for LGBT Americans in regards to marriage equality that once was the southern segregation answer to everything: separate water fountains, restrooms, pools, schools, and lunch counters.  Yes, everyone had access to water fountains, restrooms, pools, schools and lunch counters, but we all know they were never really the same.  They were never equal.  Separate is never equal.  'Just like' is never 'the same'.

                You are wrong.  Obama and Wallace share far too much here in ideology, sadly.

                Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

                by emsprater on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:30:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Obama just doesnt want to enflame (5+ / 0-)

                the body politic any more than necessary.  So he thinks he can occupy both sides of the line without standing on either.  He can hide behind his religion and at the same time claim ... hell, I don't know what he claims any more.

                Suffice it to say, it's not unlike FDR throwing American civil rights because he knew he couldn't govern with his presidency tied to fighting battles he couldn't win.  With Republicans going after him like then go after Barack now, FDR knew he had to keep his 'eyes on the prize'.  

                That's fine by me.  It just goes to prove that we gays won this WITHOUT the overt support of the President.

                Planning a vacation or convention in Arizona? Come to Palm Springs instead! Same desert weather, none of the bigotry.

                by grey skies turning to blue on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:49:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, actually, FDR refused to comment (12+ / 0-)

                  on publicly on virtually all racial matters.

                  While it is accurate and fair to point out his failure to do more than few small things to fight against segregation,  he didn't come out in favor of moderate segregation.

                  We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

                  by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:19:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Which you might call "thowing them under the bus" (10+ / 0-)

                    when numerous lynches were going on in Democrat southern states.  Yesterday is the 70th anniversary of the very lynching that prompted the poem and lyrics to 'Strange Fruit', recorded by Billie Holliday, while black men were still being lynched in the south.  The last lynching in the north, mentioned above, is said to have taken in 1930 in Marion, IN.

                    And FDR gave the silent treatment to the Jews, as well;  numerous incidents could be cited, and I don't mean to suggest FDR hated blacks or Jews.  Rather, it must have broken his sturggling heart to have to weigh their sacrifice against the successful conclusion of the war, and creation of a just, peaceful world after the war.

                    Planning a vacation or convention in Arizona? Come to Palm Springs instead! Same desert weather, none of the bigotry.

                    by grey skies turning to blue on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:26:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Both the word and the rights (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                celdd, esquimaux, ohmyheck

                both matter.  There are legal rights that should be available to all that some wish to deny. There is also the stigma inherent in separate but equal

                However there is more at work here than indies one dimensional caricature

                I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

                by Guinho on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:02:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  how does it matter? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kestrel9000, Onomastic

                  how does a damn word matter?  plenty of hetero couples who aren't legally married call themselves married.  it's a !@#$%& word.  isn't it the rights that matter here?

                  Die with your boots on. Gonna try? Well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

                  by Cedwyn on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 03:45:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the word matters, I think, (12+ / 0-)

                    because it is part of a classification system. In one class is a group that gets to be "A" (in this case "married") . . . and as part of that group gets all the benefits that come with it. Many of those benefits are strictly legal and may also be accorded to the class of group "B" (the "civilly unioned?"). But many of the benefits of group A are not strictly legal - they are traditional, they are notions, they are ideas. Words have power (that's why there are certain words we don't say, for instance), they convey ideas and they transmit deep emotions. And, in a sense, denying access to the word is also denying access to all those non-definable benefits that come with it.

                    Oh, and it's frakkin Unconstitutional and just plain wrong.

                    Nothing ever doesn't change, but nothing changes much. -OK Go

                    by vadasz on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:18:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  In case you haven't noticed, the GOP (11+ / 0-)

                    has been very successful because of using specific words to frame their causes and ours.

                    Words do matter. They evoke very powerful emotions. The linguists and communicators have been pounding this argument for years.

                    Take two different comments on a subject, one being articulate and easy to understand, the other unable to make the point and confusing.

                    Word choice is a big part of the difference.

                    From sound bites to bumper stickers, campaign and corporate slogans, just a word can make the difference.

                    "Transmutation we can believe in" ?

                    Too much sanity may be madness. The maddest of all is to see the world as it is and not as it should be. Don Quixote "Man of La Mancha"

                    by Ginny in CO on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:04:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I simply can't believe that you ... (4+ / 0-)

                    don't know or realize why it matters.  The fact that some heterosexual couples choose not to marry yet call themselves married has no point.  It's their choice.  Why can't LGBT Americans also have that choice?  And, if you honestly don't know why being legally married is a 'big deal', you are intentionally muddying the waters here.

                    Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

                    by emsprater on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:47:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  RTFO (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FogCityJohn

                    It's not like there wasn't a whole section in Judge Walker's opinion about why the word matters just as much as the status or anything.

                    God you people are fucking dense.

                  •  maybe it doesn't matter (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    musing85, FeDhu

                    TO YOU whether your relationship is called a marriage or a civil union.  this is not about your personal preference, or the beliefs and baggage about marriage you bring to the discussion.

                    first of all, you are in a position of privilege where you may choose which way to codify your union.  don't you think everyone should have the same options you have?  if not, why not.

                    secondly, this is about giving gay couples equality in every way, including the semantic way.  do you care if someone refers to women as bitches?  it doesn't matter if one particular woman is offended or not by being called a bitch.  it's about making a society where people don't think of women as bitches.

                    do you care if waterboarding is called torture or not?  we can't prosecute "enhanced interrogation" because that's not against the law.  but torture is.  

                    in addition to the legal niceties that necessarily result from the use 2 different terms, the words we choose affect how we, as a society, think about the concepts to which we assign those words.  words have power.  and it's worth it to come down on the right side of the argument even if you have no personal preference.

                    Listen very carefully. I shall say this only once.

                    by st minutia on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:07:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  The sad thing to me... (21+ / 0-)

              ...is that it was found that back in like 1997, Obama said he was all for marriage equality.  Either he's become more conservative as he's aged, or his being against it now is nothing but crass, cynical political ploys to try to appeal to homophobes so that they'll vote for him.

            •  We Remember Ronald Reagan For Putting 100s (8+ / 0-)

              of thousands of citizens to death with his homophobia toward the AIDS epidemic.

              It was the gay community that came together and demanded research for AIDS while the rest of the American citizens did everything they could to block, block, block.

              Today many new medications are available for all kinds of diseases because of the research that eventually did occur.

              Wake the hell up!

              250 is the new 180

              by kerplunk on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:56:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Disagree craig. Pres. Obama is not a bigot. He... (5+ / 0-)

              ...is a political coward some of the time, and no different in that regard from most politicians, but I do not believe his heart (despite his stated opposition to same-sex marriage) is on the side of the bigots. I think he's just trying to have it both ways on a critical rights issue. And that is almost as bad as being a bigot, but not quite.

              Learn more about second-class U.S. citizenship at http://www.equalitymatters.org/

              by Larry Bailey on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 03:19:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  de facto bigotry has the same impact (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                decca, esquimaux, FogCityJohn, FeDhu

                as intended bigotry. most people in jim crow south were not rampant KKK memebers either.

                •  That's a bridge too far for me. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dclawyer06

                  Learn more about second-class U.S. citizenship at http://www.equalitymatters.org/

                  by Larry Bailey on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:22:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Then you disagree with the S.Ct. which (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FeDhu

                    held against de facto segregation regarding race as well? Because that's where I derive my views on the subject of de facto versus de jure (of the law) discrimination. There is no bridge here. There's just a willingness to really think about historicial analogies and how they are playing out now rather than deny the obvious. I can look to multiple other civil rights and/or political analogy. All of them add upt o the same thing- if you in a place of power, and you refuse to use tha tpower to prevent bigotry, you are de facto creating bigotry through permission rather than outwardly moving it forward. there's no around that given his position in our society.

              •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Larry Bailey, FeDhu

                The President is in the dog house with me right now.  I understand what you're saying, but it's hard not to take his equivocation personally when his fucking parents were an interracial couple that couldn't get married in like something 1/3 of the states at the time.  Right now, I don't give a shit what may or may not be in his heart when he can't stand up for what's right.  I understand the political hazards this issue poses for him, but so what?  The Sherrod affair should have made it crystal clear to him that voters don't reward cowardice.

                Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

                by fou on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:25:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Obama is not George Wallace. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dclawyer06

              His equivocation on this issue is certainly cowardly, but Obama is not opposed to any and all rights for the LGBT community as Wallace and Thurmond were for the African American community.  That comparison is disingenuous and frankly offensive.

              Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

              by fou on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:51:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see him moving on it soon. (15+ / 0-)

            Just as Lincoln is forever remembered both as a racist and an emancipator, I think Obama has made his bed on this one.

            Even if he signs the bill overturning DOMA, nothing changes the fact that he condemned the recognition of a basic civil right.

            We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

            by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:10:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Of course that's the difference (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musing85, esquimaux, emsprater, m00finsan

            between leadership and just trying to get ahead of the crowd and declare yourself a leader ...

            My mom wrote a great book on the church & gay marriage - buy it here! http://www.ermalouroller.com/

            by hpchicago on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:44:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You're OK. (5+ / 0-)

          We can use a few more positive irritants around here.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:43:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why don't you link to the specific diaries you ar (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, ohmyheck

          are claiming have impugned the Prop 8 decision as being someone else's victory?

          Not picking a fight here, just not having the time to go read a lot of diaries and figure out which ones you're referring to as having somehow aimed to diminish the victory for nonstraight rights.

        •  Wow I can really feel your anger (6+ / 0-)

          and frustration, and you have said what many of us are thinking better than I could dream of.  Marriage matters to us.  I just don't understand how some people could still miss that little fact.  

        •  Perhaps you should have a closer look at ... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rosita, st minutia, blueocean, Onomastic

          ... what you're saying.  There are points in your diary with which I strongly agree, particularly your criticism of this notion that equality for gays is a legislative rather than a Constitutional matter.  But there is nothing bigoted or even wrong with questioning this assumption:

          It's all about how marriage is an important social and civil thing that American society can participate in. It brings stability in relationships, it makes kids less depressed and more secure when their gay parents can be legally married

          My position on marriage as an institution has been evolving for more than 15 years and, quite frankly, it's formed mostly by the world of heterosexual marriage.  I've seen far too many examples of people subverting their own happiness for the sake of preserving this institution or, more benignly, giving greater credence to couples that are married.

          In heteroland, children of divorce are described as living in broken homes, the couple is considered to have failed and people devote decades to loveless, sometimes bitter marriages "for the sake of the children." And a couple that spends a lifetime together, loving each other every minute of it but without getting married?  People say "what a shame they never got married."

          I could add many paragraphs, but this is a comment, not a diary. My point is that the quick condemnation of those of us who question and are critical of the institution as bigots is as irrational as is the opposition to gay marriage. Our views may be very much out of the mainstream, but that does not deprive them of their legitimacy.

          "But your majesty, you cannot die an old maid." "I have no intention to, Chancellor. I shall die a bachelor!" (Queen Christina)

          by VetGrl on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:43:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  indie I'm not taking insult, this is great (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emsprater, Aquagranny911

          My only improvement would be in the title.

          SOME progressives are trying..

          My straight perception may be skewed, and the recs on those diaries are painful.

          Whether you change the title or not, I hope you have gained a sense of the community supporting the use of marriage instead of anything else.

          Too much sanity may be madness. The maddest of all is to see the world as it is and not as it should be. Don Quixote "Man of La Mancha"

          by Ginny in CO on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:12:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Right. Because if anyone brings up any issue (0+ / 0-)

          that has a shared dimension with one of the reasons that not affording equal protection to we GLBT obviously means that they are trying to take a victory away from us.  

          There are other issues that this particular issue overlaps.  It is only natural for people to look at all dimensions of the issue and to point out that while they pertain the GLBT community, they also pertain to other people as well.  This is to point out that its affects are broad, NOT for the purpose of victory thievery.  Do not let your white male privilege blind you to the experiences of us GLBT that do not fall into that category.  For those of us in the GLBT community that are not white males we get other layers of discrimination that fall under the broad umbrella of other people wanting to control our sexuality.  It is not unfair to recognize and discuss what people in the GLBT who are not white males experience in relation to the same opponents that go up against gay marriage.    

          Some people, myself included, don't believe in marriage any more than we believe in monogamy.  There are many of us who think the very idea of such an institution is outdated.  We believe that we should just have partnerships (gay or straight) that allow for the same rights among one or more of a person's partners.

          Having said that, if there is to remain the marriage institution, as it is set up now, then everybody should be able to take part in it, even if it is restricted to two people.  If you want a marriage, then I say go for it.  Meanwhile, those of us who want nothing to do with the institution itself continue to not have our relationships recognized with the same legal or social weight as those who take part in the institution.  This is a matter of principle for me and other who do NOT believe in the institution of marriage (at least as it exists today) and/or monogamy.

      •  Whinning 'progressives' are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zeiben

        increasingly 'icky'!  Never enough-- never perfect--always monday morning quarterbacking--always smarter than the President..Hijacking what has been done for their own purposes!  Leading is hard but critiquing seems easier all the time!
        Give credit where it is due and move forward to help fix that which is not..When was there ever a PERFECT BILL?

        •  Too many progressives are intellectual progs (0+ / 0-)

          only. They look at the theory of this and that and state their position, but don't really regard a lot of these things as sources of real pain and injury in real lives of people who are not them. And that the real pain and injury has a substance and a shape that is entirely different from what 'disinterested theory' provides to the armchair thinker. The thoughts of the 'walking wounded' involved in one of these issues are invariably different and sharper. We've all read al the "OMG, I, I, I am now unemployed.' after a long range of posts which feel different by the same posters. Or on the AZ thing or some of the IPs, looking at actual video of actual people ensnarled in that issue, as opposed to the theory of national self determination, or whether a Terry stop is a sufficient blah blah blah.

    •  [hug] (34+ / 0-)

      I think there's a lot more homophobia in the Democratic party and among people who consider themselves pro-equality than most people are willing to recognize.  It can be deeply frustrating.

    •  You seem to confuse Democratic leadership (24+ / 0-)

      with progressive.

      People toss that word progressive or liberal around here too much lately. It has come to mean for some whatever the Democratic leadership does or does not do.

      That's neither liberal or progressive. Since the leadership is about what politicians do. Not what values are undergirding a particular ideological perspective.

      To be honest, the Democrats are old school conservatives. Not progressives. Until we accept that reality, we will continue to wonder why they are doing what they are doing. They stopped by the party of FDR a long time ago, and gave up on civil rights issues about at the same time as far as advancing rights beyond what was accomplished in the 60s.

      •  I'm not just referring to (13+ / 0-)

        politicians but activists and people here who are not leadership but who are engaging in this kind of talk.

        'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

        by indiemcemopants on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:52:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The "activists," especially at DK, are an arm (12+ / 0-)

          of the Democratic Party in DC rather than an independent voice seeking to push the party toward progressive values. In other words, this site is now co-opted by DC Democrats.

          Here's BTD (who is not very useful on the gay rights issue in that he argues the whole "government should be out of marriage" b.s. that always misses the point, but nevertheless defines how sites like this are co-opted regarding progressive values):

          "...    Someone told me at Netroots Nation that in her opinion the group she works for had made a mistake in not diverting some funding away from HCAN and toward single-payer groups precisely in order to create this sort of anchor.

          (Emphasis supplied.) That's sort of been my argument since 2007. I hoped that the Progressive Blogosphere could have been that Left Flank anchor, pulling the debate to the progressive side. Unfortunately, much of the progressive blogosphere decided that it was more important to denounce an independent Left Flank (Firebaggers anyone?) and to cheerlead the Democratic Party. This was a big mistake. Long story short, Yglesias' post is quite compelling."

          http://www.talkleft.com/...

          Some people think there job is to protect the DC Democratic leadership rather than advocate for moving the party towards the values that progressive stand for. THe former is how co-option happens through the leadership because the leadership uses this sentiment (party loyalty above better Democrats and personality based politics) to neutralize us on issues and policies.  Whereas others, see it as their jobs, like you, to obtain the policy outcomes that will actually affect your life substantively. Still others want to just declare victory and go home even if the victory is just branding such as "Mission Accomplished", the Democratic version (see Chris Bowers).

          They are like this on issues that affected a lot more people than us gays. Thus, I don't expect them to be any less of a cheerleader for the party on gay rights when it suits them. The only time they aren't is when it is something thats important to them (see bowers in net neutrality).

          So, again, I want to emphasis, you aren't discussing progressive values or people trying to push for them.

        •  Incidentally, the reason why the cheerleading (14+ / 0-)

          is a mistake (at least politically) is that it neutralizes the blogsphere political voice regarding influencing o utcomes.

          Of course, pretending as some do that they have no power of to influence such as being a site where 2 mil people visit makes it difficult to discuss blogs. I mean- Fox news only has about 2 mil or so viewers as well. Yet, it has a heavy influence. The real reason blogs such as this seem less effective is that they have choosen to be cheerleaders for various reasons, some of which are financial.

    •  I've got your back. (6+ / 0-)

      If there are flames, people need to make sure they're in no danger of blowback.

      Hope is a good thing--maybe the best of things--and no good thing ever dies.

      by Gemina13 on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:06:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well stated; very well stated. -eom (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emsprater, Matt Z, Alice Olson

      Yes. We. Did. ... Begin.

      by understandinglife on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:44:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I kinda see what your saying (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, ETF

      but don't at all like the term progressives used to describe the people that you are complaining about.  I just think you really missed the boat on that one as I don't see those people as progressive at all.  I also don't see them as very important or typical of the feelings on the left or in the party.  To me the concern trolls are the Blue Dogs.

      Also, I see the silence on this from the establishment right (although not the Tea Party, which goes out of its way to say stupid things every chance it gets) as speaking volumes as to how they feel about attacking gays with the election less than 3 months off.  Given that every other group\issue that can be attacked by them is fair game presently, I figure they think they are losing bad on this one.

      Finally, I think that we should all be more interested in results, not perceptions, with the caveat that I don't feel that results across the spectrum have been very good at all.  At least the barbarians are being held at the gates, except for hurling the occasional dead cow over the walls now and then while their meager supplies are just about run out and their starvation is beginning to take hold.  (How it seems to me right now any way)  

      Organize and agitate!

      by Carlo on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:07:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It was my pleasure to edit your tags. (7+ / 0-)

      People were so busy reading and discussing they didn't notice your diary has been on the rec list for nearly 2 hours.

      "The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead." ~ Paul Krugman.

      by Neon Vincent on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:10:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Eugene Volokh (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chipoliwog, Cedwyn, Dunvegan

      and many of the posters at the libertarian- and conservative-leaning Volokh Conspiracy support gay marriage.

      Volokh is not calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment. He was against DOMA,  as being overbroad- and an overreach by Federal government to regulate mattersbelonging to the states.

      The dissent from the Volokh crew appears to be exception to Walker's legal reasoning based on the 14th Amendment,not that they disagree with the result.

      It is a matter of time that gay-rights become mainstream - neither the left nor Democrats own this issue exclusively, and should not assume that we do so at our own political peril. This is part of the reason why as a progressive I read Volokh for perspective and balance.

      Otherwise, I think this is a fine diary and I agree with your sentiments. Tipped and recc'd.

      The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

      by beijingbetty on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:08:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually what they really say (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, esquimaux, Predictor

        is they are for it, but don't really see how it can be made law- much like Rand paul is for many things like the civil rights act. Of course, they are full of shit, for example, saying they don't see how under the 14 Amend one can do this when in fact the `14 amende is meant to be vague and broad (read the thing- its written broad and vague) and is meant to use constitutional law (well settled principles of judicial review at the time) to interpret the meaning of the amendment with regards to balancing majority versus minority interests. They basically have a problem with the ruling on the level of it aint libertarian. No it isn't.

    •  I write a diary year after year... (14+ / 0-)

      ...that says that MY GAY MARRIAGE IS A THREAT TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE.  If this shit keeps up, I'll have to do that again before our anniversary in a month and a half.

      Thanks for this diary.  I have long objected to first State Senator Barack Obama's, then Senator Obama's, and now President Obama's cavalier views of how we should embrace the separate-but-equal thing, like Plessy was still the law of the land or something.  Mr.-Constitutional-Scholar should know that SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL.

      "You wanted Change. We said NO. Vote for us." - GOP

      by ultrageek on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:55:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well done. (4+ / 0-)

      Really, most people are the worst craven moral cowards.  Most straight people are scared shitless when it comes to saying frankly and forthrightly that homosexuality is a morally neutral trait and that they wouldn't mind if others thought they were homosexual because they care very much what others think, even others who hold hateful views.  Fortunately people don't want to be seen as cowards either, so the tide is slowly turning.

      People are fungible. You can have them here or there. - Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, responding

      by peterborocanuck on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:37:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I should clarify. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater

        Most homosexuals are just as frightened by mindless opprobrium and the judgements of others.  Anyone who thinks most gays are already out is profoundly mistaken.

        People are fungible. You can have them here or there. - Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, responding

        by peterborocanuck on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:37:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I thnk anyone who wants to get married should (5+ / 0-)

      be allowed to.  I believe gays have the right to do what everyone else wants to do.  Civil rights are for everyone, not just for some.  Just like I believe all Americans should enjoy freedom in Arizona and not just those with the correct skin color.  I believe women should be able to enjoy all the rights of men, including being paid equally, and having control over their bodies.  I believe people of all skin colors should enjoy the same rights, and should have all the same opportunities that the majority enjoy.  This is the problem here, we allow others to define us and divide us.  We have to resist.  What every happened to the idea of resistance?

    •  Deliberate misreading (4+ / 0-)

      Abolishing the institution of marriage in its current form is not about forbidding marriage. It's about removing a plainly religious ceremony from state proceedings.

      The premise is that from the perspective of the state, its legitimate need is to know and establish who has permanent or semi-permanent domestic living arrangements for the purposes of taxes, inheritance, power of attorney, and so on. The state does not have a legitimate need to enforce a particular religion's or group of religion's view on the matter.

      By removing the term marriage from the equation, it lets individuals and religions define it however they please, and accept or reject any coupling they please. It also lets the state recognize that their only interest in the matter is the legal status of the family in question.

      Already in states like Wisconsin and Texas, constitutional amendments targeting homosexual couples inadvertently affected more heterosexual couples than homosexual ones by abolishing domestic partnerships, and anything similar. They're forcing people to marry in order to legitimize their relationship as part of a bigoted agenda. All this talk about the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship is a proxy battle for interracial coupling all over again, only instead of Irish, Jews or blacks, it's Mexican immigrants. Gays aren't the only ones with skin in this game across the country.

      No one is trying to take anyone's victory away. Prop 8 was a fantastic ruling, and most importantly for its longevity, very well-reasoned. And a lot of people, gay, straight, and everything else won a victory for equality.

    •  True progressives support equal rights for all. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, emsprater, LiberalATX

      Every person is entitled to the same the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

      Anyone who does not support the above statement is not progressive, but rather mistakenly self-identified as a progressive, or mistakenly labeled as a progressive by others.

      I rejoice in the victory that is the overturning of CA Prop. 8, but this diary is not recommended and not tipped.

      •  LOL at "birth" and " national/social origin" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DMiller

        Anarchist imo.

        You know, some rights, like citizenship, are conferred by the state, not by natural rights. You only have the right to vote, for instance, because of the state, not because there's some creator-given right floating around out there.

        Too big to fail = too big to exist.

        by Liberaltarianish on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:00:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sure, swinging for the fences and doing the right (4+ / 0-)

      thing is risky. There could be backlash. We could make the big scary conservatives angry and they might hurt us!

      Please. I am sick of being cautious. I am sick of capitulating. Marriage equality is the right thing to do. We (all of us) won a huge victory here. I, for one, am for patting our gay brothers and sisters on the back and celebrating together.

    •  Hmmmm ........ (0+ / 0-)

      Gays win fight, progressives try to take it away

      Maybe the "progressives" are trying to turn back the clock, but this LIBERAL isn't.  

      Gay rights have always been a civil rights issue.  The disgrace of far too many progressives is they bow to "religious freedom" as if civil right should take a backseat.  

      Gay rights should no more take a backseat to religious beliefs than civil rights taking a backseat to the Southern Baptists.  

      Keep fighting the good fight.  :)

      This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

      by ThAnswr on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:06:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are exactly right (4+ / 0-)

      I've been surprised to see the "let's change the name" meme on the left.

      1. Marriage has cultural meaning
      1. Marriage has legal meaning
      1. If we change the name to avoid the difficult fight for equal rights, we have left victory dead on the floor
      1. If we keep letting the other side determine what words mean in our culture, they'll be more than happy to define us right out of the picture.

      We need to OWN the words that define our culture. Still afraid to call yourself "liberal"? How about "feminist"? Why do we allow those who hate us to take our language away from us? STOP it.

      Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

      by mataliandy on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:27:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let me just say (0+ / 0-)

      Amen!!

    •  While I understand your frustration (0+ / 0-)

      ... the call to get government out of the marriage business far predates this event. And there are good arguments for it that not only don't have anything to do with homophobia, but actually serve to protect gay-friendly churches who do want to perform gay marriages.

      The whole point is that government has no business basing any of its actions on the actions of a church. The fact that a minister has presided over a ceremony should have absolutely no effect on anything the government does, and vice versa. That's not what's happening right now.

      Right now, to have the government recognize your partnership, you are required to have an authorized representative of the state preside over a marriage ceremony. In most states, there are only a limited number of people who can act as that authorized representative. Legally, religious clergy fit that bill. I find that ridiculous.

      Government should separate themselves from religious marriage ceremonies. If you want a government sanctioned partnership (gay or straight), you go to the government and get it. You want a ceremony of some sort, you take care of that on your own with your church, or your friends, or whoever you want to involve in it.

      Now, I'm not stupid; we live in a world where the government's gotten itself all tied up in a religious ceremony, and it's not going to change any time soon. Given that reality, I am a vehement supporter of gay marriage rights. If a straight couple can have their minister sign a state document that says they're eligible for government recognition, then a gay couple should be able to have their minister sign that same government document.

      I just personally think ministers shouldn't be signing those documents at all!

    •  i wrote one of those diaries (0+ / 0-)
      and how many people even noticed it?  a handful.  barely.  and it was NOT about how the fight for gay marriage was really about women instead of gay people... it was about how the MORMONS who put MILLIONS into PROP 8 are against gay marriage because it is a threat to their view of marriage in which a husband essentially owns a woman.  it's just another facet of how mormons oppress women, period.  get your hands on basic mormon prostelizing materiall and you'll learn about how only a select few women even go to heaven.  women are second class in the mormon faith.  and Prop 8 was to them about oppressing women... and they say so openly when they say 'gay marriage is a threat against straight marriage'.  and they are not the only religious groups who view it that way.  

      if you doubt that religion is the reason that many people are opposing gay marriage just look to the President who opposes gay marriage for religious reasons.  

      homosexuality is a threat to a traditional social order.  that is a fact.  it is wrong.  it is unjust.  but it's still the reality.

      if you think it's taking something away from the victory overturning prop 8 i am sorry for that, but you are only hurting your ability to combat bigotry if you ignore the reasons why it exists in the first place

      slavery was about money not about hating people.  racism was about not feeling like you are evil when you oppress people because you tell yourself that they don't deserve to be treated the way you would want to be treated.  bigotry against gay people is about people protecting a traditional social order.

      i think that if you understand what the roots of opposition to gay marriage are you will be able to change people's minds easier, because the TRUTH is on the side of gay marriage.

      and i said roots plural.  my diary was specifically about exposing one of the reasons behind some people who oppose gay marriage.

      i gotta say... i don't know why there is any offense to saying that this victory for gay marriage is ALSO a victory for women... not only are there WOMEN who are gay but it's kind of fucked up to be incapable of feeling good that good that happens to you is good for other people too.  seriously... what the fuck kind of shitty attitude is that to have.  you are not even close to being the only people who are hurt in this country and in this world.  you are not hurt more than other people.  i'm on the front lines fighting for you and it's kind of a slap in the face to have my effort thrown in my face because god forbid this victory helped someone other than a male gay person.

      proof that being oppressed doesn't make you any less of an asshole

      and i know you feel that way about the black people who voted for prop 8, so, don't get too fucking offended

      anyway.  what the fuck ever.  i am not going to let one gay person who can't handle being gracicious and feeling even better about a victory for them because it helps others make me stop fighting against gay bigotry

      i gave up my career as a minister and my entire religious family who rejected me because i choose to stand up for gay people and for women and for children and for minorities.  just because you are gay doesn't mean you are the only one who has suffered and sacrificed for you cause.

      •  it would have been nice (0+ / 0-)
        if this diarist would have talked to me about my diary before writing this diary

        it wouldn't have been that hard.  find a comment i've written and write me a message.

        i would have been more than happy to explain my diary to clear up any kind of misunderstanding or to have made up for any kind of misdirection of focus that my diary might have caused

        my last week has been working overtime at my job and then spending what little free time i have demolishing bullshit opposition to gay marriage riding the momentum of the wave of this victory

        one of the ways i have convinced people who are religious is to show how opposition to gay marriage is just another effort to roll back freedom for women and that is a very powerful place to start because 1) most religios people don't even know why the fuck gay marriage is supposed to even be a threat to 'traditional' marriage and 2) when they realize that they don't approve of 'traditional' marriage anyway it's an easier step for them to accept gay marriage.

        now would you rather i just let religious people i am in contact with keep opposing gay marriage for reasons they don't even really understand because it makes you feel bad that i am taking a little of the lime light from this victory away from you?

  •  Im not quite clear (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Khun David, Cedwyn, wader, LiberalATX

    on who these progressives are that are saying what you say they are saying.  I am not doubting you, i just myself have not heard any.

    Down with Prop H8! Jerry Brown for CA_GOV 2010

    by GlowNZ on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:02:55 PM PDT

  •  Can't let teh ghey get too uppity (35+ / 0-)

    or we'll start thinking we're somehow entitled to all the rights that heterosexuals enjoy--and the fall of Western civilization will surely follow shortly thereafter.

  •  Ignore those people (19+ / 0-)

    Many liberal Democratic candidates are happy for this ruling. So are many members of Congress. Jerry Brown is even working with Arnold Schwarzenegger to get the marriages restarted right away, which will certainly help Schwarzenegger's image and Brown's election campaign.

    Obama is obviously walking a fine line, since gay marriage is still not accepted by a majority of Americans. But ignore those other people. There will always be people who say a cause doesn't go far enough.

    People panic too much on this site.

    by thematt523 on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:10:11 PM PDT

  •  There are racist progressives (24+ / 0-)

    so you know that there are homophobic progressives.  

    They won't admit to either so they just hide behind code words.

    Down with Prop H8! Jerry Brown for CA_GOV 2010

    by GlowNZ on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:13:16 PM PDT

  •  you totally misquoted my diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GlowNZ

    I never said anything about interracial marriages. I expect you to edit it with the real title of my blog.

    Entry Level .NET programmer looking for work

    by SetaSan on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:13:57 PM PDT

  •  Talk about painting with a broad brush n/t (10+ / 0-)
  •  I have to admit I haven't been following the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dunvegan, emsprater, yella dawg

    issue at all.

    Marry anyone you want and good luck to you, good grief I must be missing something.

    Isn't it a civil rights issue? Sorry I haven't followed something this seems kind of cut and dried.

    "Don't fall or we both go" Derek Hersey

    by ban nock on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:18:12 PM PDT

  •  Libertarians Aren't Progressives (10+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:18:39 PM PDT

  •  I saw and ignored some diaries, so I don't (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, esquimaux, ohmyheck, angel d

    know - were the authors and commenters really progressives, those normally taking a solid leftist stance on things, or some of our "centrists".

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:19:19 PM PDT

  •  Words matter. (19+ / 0-)

    Personally, I don't like the idea of  marriage, I think it is a tool of the patriarchy. I think that it's more about property than love.

    But, little kids who will grow up to realize they are gay are told the cozy stories about finding true love and marrying that true love. Until we as a society stop putting that expectation into the heads of children, we have a responsibility to make that option available to all of us.

    And honestly? If it puts a few nails into the coffin of fundamentalist Christian credibility, I'm all for it.

  •  The majority of us, (16+ / 0-)

    even though it does not directly affect us, are ecstatic.  And I'm really glad that AH-nold is speaking up and voicing his support finally.  It's about time the world turned sane on this issue.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:32:45 PM PDT

    •  Ahnold is not just voicing his support-- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro, luckylizard

      He's acting on it. He and the other members of his administration named as defendants filed separately from the AG to dispute the stay of Walker's decision. The administration's filing specifically challenges the defendant-intervenor's standing to appeal the decision or ask for a stay.

      "[The GOP wanting to debate Obama is like saying] 'Let's see how tough Aquaman is when we get him in the water.' " --Seth Meyers

      by homogenius on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:27:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't say that I've been a fan (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        homogenius, sunbro

        of Arnold's given the rotten condition he's left the state in, but I do have to give him props for his support of marriage equality.

        Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

        by fou on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:47:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It may be a day late... (0+ / 0-)

          And a dollar short.

          And it may also be rather "convenient" now that he's not running for anything. But say what you will, he's all-in. Finally.

          "[The GOP wanting to debate Obama is like saying] 'Let's see how tough Aquaman is when we get him in the water.' " --Seth Meyers

          by homogenius on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:48:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't see the big deal (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paulitics, Cedwyn, sviscusi, icemilkcoffee

    with those diaries.  People have different opinions.  They might be wrong, implausible, or misguided, but I don't think they had any ill will.  I didn't see a hint of homophobia.  

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by johnny rotten on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:33:23 PM PDT

    •  That's your opinion (15+ / 0-)

      I'm not required to share it. And nobody not subject to it himself gets to tell me what is, and what is not, homophobia.

    •  You don't see any homophobia... (16+ / 0-)

      ...in people, who upon a victory for marriage equality for same-sex couples, start calling for the obliteration of marriage altogther?

      •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

        The diaries may in fact be motivated by homophobia, but I did not see any homophobia expressed.  

        What bothers you about the diaries, the opinions themselves or the timing?  I have heard those views many times before by idle chatters.  I always thought they were kind of dumb in that libertarian way of ignoring how the real world works.  But I never thought they were particularly homphobic.  As for the timing, the issue of marriage is rather topical at the moment.  I don't see how it these sort of libertarian musings, however irrelevant, are homophobic.

        Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

        by johnny rotten on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:23:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The argument's been around longer than that. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi, Rosita

        Government doesn't belong in the business of sanctioning religious ceremonies.  It's not a new position, and it's not got anything to do with the Prop 8 ruling.  Whether that goal is accomplished by removing the sanctioning of certain favored relationships by the government, or by removing the ability of clergy to sanction relationships on behalf of the government (my preferred solution), it needs to end.

        Clearly, I need to find a witty sig line.

        by libdevil on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:50:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except that the argument as you state it (13+ / 0-)

          is 180 degrees backwards. The government is the one creating the relationships. It's the religious organizations that are doing the blessing. They can't create a marriage on their own, except when acting as agents of the state. And no one is required to have a religious wedding.

          •  "except when acting as agents of the state" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clues, Rosita

            You said it.  And that's exactly the problem.  Clergy should NOT be acting as agents of the state, or vice versa.  That's what needs to end.  If church and state weren't interfering with each other in this realm, it would greatly diminish the controversy over the rights of gay people to marry.  All of the counterarguments are based in religion.  And while DADT proves that bigots have power even in realms where religion doesn't interfere, the difference in polling on DADT vs. marriage equality should indicate how much ground can be gained by simply removing the religious component - which the Constitution requires anyway.

            Clearly, I need to find a witty sig line.

            by libdevil on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:12:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't have a problem with that (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clues, decca, vacantlook, Dunvegan, JesseCW

              It's how most other nations in the world deal with marriages--you go to whichever civil official is tasked with it, sign the papers, and you're married. If you wish, you may then have a religious ceremony to recognize and bless that union--but you are not required to do so. Moreover, the religious ceremony must come after the civil one, and it has no legal effect whatsoever.

              But that's not the same thing as getting government out of marriage. Nor is there any need to do away with the word "marriage," since we'd only be changing one element of the procedures.

              •  But that's exactly what most are talking about (0+ / 0-)

                What you've just described above is exactly what most people are talking about when they say they want to "get the government out of the marriage business".

                Believe me, I've been having this discussion for 20+ years. The people who advocate "getting the government out of the marriage business" who DON'T mean what you've described above are a small minority.

                •  Um, what? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vacantlook

                  Requiring couples who want to get married to go to a government office, fill out a government document, in front of a government official, and at the end of that process (and only that process) is somehow "getting government out of the marriage business"?

                  In what alternative universe is that?

                  •  It's just shorthand for... (0+ / 0-)

                    separating the governmental function from the religious function.

                    Believe me, I've been involved in this little subsection of the political wankery world for many, many, many years. That really is what most people mean when they say "get the government out of the marriage business". They mean, everybody (gay or straight) gets a government license that confers the government rights. Then, if they want to have some sort of ceremony elsewhere as well, they can, but that ceremony has nothing to do with the piece of paper you get from the government.

                    People who are against the whole idea of a government sanctioned partnership of any kind are a very small minority of those advocating for marriage reform.

                    Most people are, when you boil it down to its essence, simply objecting to the authorization of clergy to act as representatives of the state. One of the reasons I object so strongly to labeling these people homophobic is because I'd guess that about 80-90% of the people I've heard advocate for that position explicitly note their hope that, as a side benefit, it would make it much easier for gay couples to achieve real, substantive equality of rights, since it would make it a lot harder for stupid and/or homophobic people to conflate the governmental contract of marriage with their own religion's solemnization/covenant/whatever of marriage.

                    •  Not by any standard rule I know (0+ / 0-)

                      either of logic or English grammar. You can't get something out of something if it's still intimately connected to it.

                      What we would be doing by going to the model that everybody else in the world uses for marriages would be to get the churches out of the marriage business. They can still do weddings if they want, and if couples still want to have them. But they would no longer be deputized to act as agents of the state in performing marriages.

                      •  You can be pedantic about it. (0+ / 0-)

                        But that doesn't change the fact that that's the common usage. Language usage is often not strictly logical.

                        On a strictly logical basis, you are correct, and I completely agree. What you'd really be doing is getting the church out of the picture. But, I'm telling you, from 20+ years of experience in this little niche of politics, that's what most people mean when they say "get the government out of the marriage business".

                        The usage probably arose out of the traditional default conception of the word "marriage" that most of us grew up with: a ceremony in a church, with flowers, and a minister, and a big poofy dress. Yes, technically, that's a "wedding" not a "marriage". But the default connotation was the same. "Getting the government out of the marriage business" was just an easy shorthand way of saying the church, flowers, minister, and poofy dress should be a separate thing from the piece of paper the government gives you.

            •  Clergy aren't acting as agents of the State (4+ / 0-)

              anymore than Notary Publics do.

              Anyone, literally anyone, can get permission to perform a marriage (at least here in California).  No belief in any diety or dieties or anything of the sort required.

              It's simply witnessing a contract being agreed to.

              We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

              by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:38:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, they are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vacantlook

                They're deputized to perform certain acts on behalf of the state--exactly like notaries public. The officiant's role is different from that of the witnesses: there have to be at least two witnesses other than the officiant, to the best of my recollection. You have to register with the cognizant local authority before it will grant you the authority to sign marriage licenses on its behalf--merely possessing a valid ordination or a position in some religious body isn't enough.

                •  Here in California (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85

                  Anyone can pay a nominal fee at the county courthouse and get a "Deputy Marriage Commissioner for a day" card.  No Religion need be involved.

                  You're right that they are acting as agents of the state in the same way Notary Publics do.  

                  We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

                  by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 02:18:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  No one is required to have a wedding (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            or a marriage, although having a marriage does confer a few privileges and responsibilities that aren't conferred on those who aren't legally married. Some people don't like that. Personally, I'm not advocating abolishing legal marriage at this point, especially not as a response to this ruling. But my support of the ruling and opposition to Prop 8 are in spite of my lack of support for marriage in general.

            •  However, as long as the government is IN (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dunvegan, CKendall

              the business of marrying people who want to get married, it can't invidiously discriminate about whom it will let in. Which is the entire point of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. And this diary.

              •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW

                But holding the opinion that the government should not be in the business of marrying people, if removed from that issue, is not necessarily discriminatory. That was really my only point.

              •  the matter of timing ... (0+ / 0-)

                I don't know.  When marriage is reformed/improved by extending it to gay people, and I do feel that's an improvement which is long overdue, it seems not unreasonable to say "Hey!  While we're reforming it, why don't we get the government out of this business entirely?"

                Where I would agree with the diarist is that the timing can look bad, and that's because the defeat of prop 8 is the winning of a battle, not the war.

                When all 50 states have had gay marriage for a few decades and gay marriage opponents are recognized as isolated extremists instead of a viable bloc in our society, then let's reopen the "should government even do this" debate.

                For now, it makes the left look like complete loons and serves to confirm the wingnut claim that we want to destroy hetero marriage as well.

                "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." --Jefferson

                by sk4p on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 05:55:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Government is the only entity that has ever (0+ / 0-)

                  "done this." We would want to change that why, again?

                  •  There are certain inequities between (0+ / 0-)

                    those who are married and those who aren't. Also, there have traditionally been inequities between marriage partners. Allowing same sex marriage helps to resolve some of those inequities, but not all. I'm not really interested in researching or enumerating the various laws that treat married and unmarried people differently, so make of that what you will. I think In the larger scheme of things, there are many more important issues than reducing government involvement in marriage, and equality for LGBT individuals is one of those issues that is more important.

                    •  Why are they "inequities"? (0+ / 0-)

                      A married couple is more than just two individuals--it's a social unit. Different things should be treated differently--that's the principle of fairness in action, no?

                      Let's look at "next of kin" issues for a moment. When you're a minor child, your parents make decisions for you. When you're an adult and living on your own, they lose that authority. But when you get married, you form a different social unit, and one of the expectations is that the married partners have the right to make decisions for their spouses. Why would we want to stop making that presumption? What possible benefit could there be in doing so? And how is treating those two people differently under the law from any two random people that we picked off the street inequitable? They're not just two random people--they're two people who have agreed to spend their lives together in a covenanted bond. It would be inequitable not to treat them differently from those two random individuals plucked off the street.

                      •  A married couple as a social unit is not (0+ / 0-)

                        necessarily the same thing as a married couple as a legal unit. Are married couples legally required to live with each other, to love each other, to support each other? There may be people devoted to each other who are not married for one reason or another, yet they do not have the same benefits or responsibilities as a legally married couple who may not have that devotion. What about an unmarried couple, or single parent, with children, vs a married couple without children? Why should two single people who have lived together for many years be taxed differently than a married couple? There's also the question of relationships involving more than two people.

                        Marriage brings with it a host of rights and responsibilities, some of which may be right for some unmarried people or wrong for some married people. The social expectations usually can't be enforced by law. There are a wide variety of relationships people have, yet there are two legal boxes they are put in. I'm not sure that's always appropriate. Some states, such as California, have domestic partnerships in addition to marriage. If these are retained while marriage is opened up to same sex couples, that may be a good thing, but I don't know enough about those laws to say whether this is sufficient.

                        •  Yes, and? (0+ / 0-)

                          Married couples are not required to live with each other or to love each other, but they are absolutely required to support each other.

                          Nobody is required to get married. But they should be able to do so if they want to. And if they want to live together without the benefits of marriage, that's their right as well. It does not, however, argue that the government should have to deny those benefits to those people who have done what is legally required in order to get them.

                          Domestic partnerships are decidedly inferior to marriages. But if that's what people choose to engage in, then they should not gripe that they don't get the benefits that go with the status they could have had, but chose not to.

                          All gay and lesbian Americans want is the ability to make that choice--instead of being forced to accept the second-class, separate-and-not-equal status as the only crumb we're able to take from the table of the privileged.

        •  Marriage is not a "religious ceremony." (9+ / 0-)

          A wedding is a ceremony, and it's not even necessarily religious.

          A marriage is a governmentally recognized and legally beneficial relationship between two people.

        •  The timing of those diaries is what gave away the (3+ / 0-)

          intent of the authors.

          Am I cynical? Yes I am! - Bob the Builder's lesser known brother Pete the Politician

          by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:51:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't understand (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, GeeBee, Ezekial 23 20

    what you're trying to do here. what you cite here is not at all sufficient evidence to support such a charge, and I think you would do best to either re-phrase, or retract. this is inflammatory. not to say there aren't idiots out there writing idiotic stuff, and sometimes here. but this seems to be a sample of nearly unknown people with UIDs over 200,000 who I've never even seen comment before. in fact, it's not even 'people' they're both by the same person! and this ONE person represents "progressives"???? since when? why?

    fine to attack people like that for what they are, but way, way too broad a brush being used here. and who's the first person to agree with that first diary? take a look. he's not a progressive at all, one of the more conservative people here, with a known extreme conservative view about women's repro rights, just to begin with.

  •  I Say Congratulations. Period. (14+ / 0-)

    Some progressives are never happy.  The President disappoints them.  Harry Reid disappoints them.  Democrats disappoint them. They whine & threaten not to vote in the midterms.  They didn't get the public option, financial reform hasn't gone far enough.  Gitmo is still open.  Rove, Cheney & Bush are still walking around.  Boo Freaking Hoo!

    My kid is gay.  She & her wife married in California.  They live there.  When my kid is happy, I'm happy. She likes the ruling.  Do you mind?    

  •  Progressives support marriage equality by far (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deicide, ScottyUrb

    A few diaries on the recc list doesn't account for a diary title attacking progressives as a whole in the same way Glenn Beck might form the other end of the spectrum.

    In fact, prorgessives are willing to crticiize those dispicable comments made by Axelrod when Democrats will not.

    Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Please frame this in a more accurate way.

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

    by priceman on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:43:08 PM PDT

  •  Opinions (8+ / 0-)

    You're getting pissed off about people having opinions that don't match yours. I'm very happy about what happened this week with Prop 8 and hope that marriage equality will finally be here for good. But please don't paint the entire left or progressive side the same color because of one or two people's diaries or posts on Daily Kos or anywhere else.

    The Modern GOP: A holy pwned subsidiary of the Tea Party.

    by The Lone Apple on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:46:07 PM PDT

  •  Progressively vaguer (6+ / 0-)

    indiemcemopants,

    The reef you're crashing your boat on is the continued belief that there is such a thing as a "progressive." It's a meaningless term (and is popular precisely because it is so meaningless).

    You might as well say, "Gays win fight, do-gooders try to take it away." What's good in this context? What's "progressive" in yours?

    It's pointless to think that all progressives see progress the same as you, or as each other, or even think much about what progress even means. Stop trying to make progressive mean something good when it means nothing at all, and your life will be easier!

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:46:33 PM PDT

  •  i just spoke to a Stonewall Dem in Florida (6+ / 0-)

    tonight.  he is head a group in SW Florida; he's fighting the good fight!  

    he brought up a point -- when he talks to people of all ages, he finds that those who were born after The Stonewall riots, are more likely to support GLBT issues.  so, he thinks things will get so much better after the older folks aren't around to vote for homophobic candidates.

    your take?

  •  Good diary (and discussion) (10+ / 0-)

    Give yourself a Recommended tag!

  •  "There is no "problem" in need of addressing with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andydoubtless, codairem

    with this decision".

    The whole reaction reminds me a little of Democrats fixing to do what Pretzelnit Himself couldn't pull off, and kill social security. You know, the Hopey Changey Catfood Commission.

    There is no crisis. Just like there is no problem.

    It is amazing. It's like they under-think and over-think simultaneously.

    They must have a war room at the White House. I think they've got a sissy room too. - Ed Schultz, NN10

    by itswhatson on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:53:10 PM PDT

    •  .. adding, the night of the decision, I predictet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dunvegan

      exactly the reaction the White House gave us: Duck and cover. You could see it coming a mile away. Fuckers.

      I'd link to the comment ... but it's gone. Buried with HRs, in a matter of minutes.

      Protecting their own? Has to be a connection of some kind.

      They must have a war room at the White House. I think they've got a sissy room too. - Ed Schultz, NN10

      by itswhatson on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:58:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My perspective... (7+ / 0-)

    and, take it with a grain of salt because it's coming from a self-declared fiscal conservative/social libertarian.

    My perspective has always been that the final endgame should be the dissolution of the state-licensed/state-sanctioned marriage.  Period.  Return it to private hands, where it was since the beginning of time, and pretty much was for the most part until roughly the end of the nineteenth century.  

    The first state to license marriage didn't do it until 1839, and up until the 1890's, very few states licensed marriages.  The reason most states adopted a licensing system for marriages?  To ban interracial marriages.  By the time the Supreme Court struck down such bans in Loving (also one of the most apropos case names in history), the primary "state interest" of most states and the federal government with regards to marriage was the transfer of benefits (monetary or other) from the government to the individual.

    As a social libertarian, it's a completely perverse idea that the government should even have the power to regulate the most private of relationships.  If the state wishes to confer benefits, do it through a civil union--for both straight and gay couples.  Otherwise, "marriage", or whatever one wishes to call it, should be in private hands.  In fact, I would think that would be the progressive position--seeing as how many progressives and libertarians see eye-to-eye on keeping the government out of the private lives of individuals.

    This isn't me trying to take away your victory.  Trust me, it's well-fought and well-earned.  And, until such time as the above-described endgame happens, gays need to be given full access to the same covenant(s) that straights enjoy.  It's just my own personal perspective.  But thank you for a well-written and passionate diary.

    Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

    by ShowMe on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 09:54:12 PM PDT

    •  Your desired endgame... (15+ / 0-)

      ...is not going to happen.  It might be a pretty philosophical fantasy, but realistically there is never going to be a majority of people that are willing to give up having their opposite-sex marriages recognized and protected by the government.

      •  Dead on. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego, Matt Z

        You're right about it's likelihood of ever happening.  But it never hurts to bring it up and, at the very least, getting people thinking about it.  For me, it's pragmatic idealism--understanding that there is a much bigger endgame in sight, but being willing to accept even minute incremental changes towards that goal.

        Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

        by ShowMe on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:09:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Just a tiny problem with that fantasy (12+ / 0-)

      Marriage has never been in private hands. Since the beginning of time, marriage has been a civil contract enforced by the civil authorities. Still is, too.

      Go to the religious locality of your choice. Invite every clergyman, priest, shaman, minister, rabbi, imam, or other religious functionary you care to name to join you there. Have them all, individually and/or collectively, pray over you, every day. You still won't be married in any way that counts for much until you get a piece of paper signed by the cognizant government functionary.

      In the same way, try to get a divorce from your parish priest. He can't grant it.

      •  Not true. (0+ / 0-)

        In the past, it was simply a private contract between two people or two families.  The first suggestions that marriage should be recognized and ordained by local civil authorities was in the 1600's, but that was primarily in Europe and it still was until the 1700's or so before that happened in a great deal of European countries.  States (in America) might have made laws saying you couldn't do this or that, but they didn't require marriage licenses until the mid-1800's.  Hell, even cohabitation for X years would've given you a common-law marriage, although that's been done away with by all but 11 states and DC.

        And, as far as your religious paragraph, there has always been a minority of churches and clergy (at least in the Christian faith) that have advocated for couples not seeking recognition from the government (as they think it dilutes the religious aspect of marriage).

        Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

        by ShowMe on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:27:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And just whom do you suppose drew up (8+ / 0-)

          those contracts? Who enforced them? (Hint: It wasn't the families.)

          For the first generation (or two) after the Pilgrims came to Massachusetts Bay, marriage by clergy was legally proscribed. (The Puritans didn't think marriage was sufficiently biblical.)

          Did you perhaps fail to notice the term you were throwing around in there: common-law marriage?

          The churches can recognize (or not recognize), bless (or not bless) whatever they want. That recognition or blessing has no legal effect whatsoever. Nor can it create a marriage unless the officiant is deputized to act on behalf of the state and signs that pesky piece of paper.

          •  In addition to your excellent points... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emsprater, Matt Z

            I'll add this:

            Couples don't have to have the government involved.  They are perfectly free to have a ceremony of their own, religious or not, without obtaining a marriage license.  And they can call themselves married after that - it won't be recognized by the state or feds as a legal marriage, but they can certainly call themselves that.  And so the government's not involved and it's entirely a private matter between the two people in question.  And meanwhile couples who do want a civil marriage go and get the marriage license and have their civil marriage.  But no couple is being forced to legally marry.

            ShowMe, think about whether the above satisfies you, and if not, why not?  And that "why not" could be very illuminating.

            •  Correct (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pucknomad, Dunvegan, emsprater, st minutia

              But regardless of what they may feel in their hearts or their souls (or anyplace else), as long as they want the societal and legal benefits of marriage (which most people seem to do, exactly as Judge Walker's opinion pointed out the other day), they have to go to the government to get them.

              •  Yes, and that's what I'm trying to point out (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dunvegan, mdmslle

                to ShowMe.

                If what I posted isn't satisfactory to him/her, then why not?  And that "why not" very likely has to do with exactly what you said, the legal benefits that come from having a marriage recognized by the government.

                In which case, then what a person is really arguing is that religion should decide which couples get wholly civil benefits conferred on them for a (supposedly) wholly religious and private relationship.  So the government has to be involved.  And even if it can be claimed that the government's involvement can be purely as a matter of recognition, rather than regulation, well, real damn fast the various churches and denominations and so on will be arguing about which of each other's religious marriages should have governmental recognition.  Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, Reform Judaism - they all marry gays.  Through this scheme of "leaving marriage to religion," there would still be plenty of gay religiously married couples, which, no way the other religious factions could sit still for.  And still lots of disagreement about straight couples, too...I bet the Catholic Church wouldn't want recognition for a divorced Catholic man remarrying in a Lutheran church to a Lutheran, for instance, insisting only the original Catholic marriage is to be recognized.

                Nothing and nobody is stopping churches from marrying whoever they want to marry, or forcing them to marry people they don't wish to marry.  People are perfectly free to enter a religious marriage without involving the government, but other people still are free to involve the government and have a civil marriage if they want.  Everyone's free to have the sort of union they want (except of course gay couples in most states).  So what's the problem with that?  People who want the government out of marriage should be content enough.  Unless, of course, it turns out that they still want legal rights, rights that come from the government, to be bestowed on their otherwise wholly religious marriages.

                The whole argument just falls apart when one starts digging, as you and I know.

  •  I have something to thing to say (39+ / 0-)

    Haters will have to pry my wedding ring off my cold dead finger. I was once and forever will have been married in California. I'm one of the 18,000. I might not live to see full equality, but I was here when it started and I'll fight for it until the day I die.

  •  Whatever. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, icemilkcoffee, peacearena

    Many people have held that position long before any of this happened. There's no reason they should feel obligated to change it now, and it has nothing to do with the silly reasons you give.

  •  I think it's (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pasadena beggar, Dunvegan, rainmanjr

    over. Yeah the evil mormonians et al. will appeal it. The supreme conservatives might even overturn Walker's decision (I doubt that they will), but it's essentially over. Marriage is a legal contract. All of us have the right to enter into legal contracts. That's it. End of story. Everyone I know is planning to get married once Walker lifts the stay.

    "They had fangs. They were biting people. They had this look in their eyes,totally cold, animal. I think they were young Republicans."

    by slouching on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:03:58 PM PDT

  •  There's A(marriage) and B(marriage) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi

    When people speak of getting rid of A(marriage)(the legal institution) they are not speaking of getting rid of B(marriage) (the cultural institution).

    The whole problem is that when we say "marriage" we don't know if we mean A(marriage) or B(marriage).  Simplifying the situation by renaming one of the two components doesn't sound the least bit discriminatory, or like it's taking anything away.  It sounds like an interjection of sanity.  

    ---
    Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

    by VelvetElvis on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:10:45 PM PDT

    •  Did that make any sense? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rainmanjr

      The gist of it was that marriage has two different meanings so it would help clear up our discourse if we give one of the two meanings a different name.

      ---
      Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

      by VelvetElvis on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:18:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In reality when some people say "marriage" (7+ / 0-)

        what they are really referring to is a "wedding." A wedding is a ceremony, often but not always conducted by a member of the clergy, which may (or may not) take place in a house of worship.

        When people call the ceremony (and strictly speaking it does not have to be a religious one) a "marriage" they are misusing the word.

        The only part of a wedding ceremony that constitutes a marriage is the part that confers the recognition of the state on the happy couple (who, in fact, may or may not be all that happy). The confusion arises because of the willingness of most, if not all states, to confer upon people other than civil servants the ability to confer legal recognition to a couple. When a member of the clergy acts in that capacity he or she is ceasing, for a moment to be a religious figure and is acting as an agent of the state. Perhaps that is what should cease. The problem is that a) most people would not countenance such a thing and b) many if not all states delegate this authority to a wide variety of individuals, over and above members of the clergy. To withdraw this delegation specifically from members of the clergy would create innumerable legal and (possibly) constitutional issues.

        We are stuck with this lack of clarity, so we need to make sure that we are clear that there are two senses of the word "marriage" and that the law can only address the legal sense of the word.

        •  Since everyone has to have a license to marry, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hyperbolic pants explosion

          I'm in favor of that process being considered the actual legal joining of two people - you get a license and you're married in the eyes of the law. It should be solely a civil matter. If a couple wants to solemnize their vows with a religious ceremony, fine, but the clergy should not be acting as an agent for the state in this matter.

          I hope Judge Walker's ruling (wasn't it magnificent! I stayed up until 3 in the morning reading it) becomes the final push for marriage equality throughout the land. In any case, the haters won't win in the long run, I'm sure of that.

          "What's dictatorship by the majority called again??? Oh yeah -- DEMOCRACY!" ---Eclectablog's friend Abby

          by deha on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:33:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It isn't possible (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pucknomad, st minutia

        The legal and cultural meanings are merged.

        Just as there is a legal aspect to the relationship of parent and child, there is also a cultural one.

        It isn't a simple solution to try to adopt different meanings of the word "marriage".

        The simple solution is to just keep the concept of marriage as it is now, and then ensure that every adult who wants to participate in a marriage has the legal right to do so. People who don't approve of the institution don't have to get married.

        I really can't understand why so many people think that some change in the definition of marriage itself is going to happen. It isn't going to change. So the simple change is to stop the discriminatory aspects of it.

      •  People know the difference darn well (0+ / 0-)

        They're just conflating them on purpose.

        Everyone knows that whether a minister of priest signs the license, or if a justice of the peace signs the license, you're no more or less married.

  •  What? (0+ / 0-)

    I tried to read this, but it is too disjointed and rambling. Abridged version, please.

    Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

    by tomjones on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:13:25 PM PDT

  •  There are diaries I disagree with here all the (0+ / 0-)

    time. No reason to attribute a few bad diaries to everyone on the site or to all progressives. Suggestions that marriage should be taken out of the equation are not new and not always related to gay marriage. I sympathize with your criticism of the President. You don't get to order people what they should or shouldn't do.

  •  I agree. Not enough celebrating (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dunvegan, Matt Z, mdmslle

    Not enough about this victory.  Not enough about the health care victory.  Not enough about financial reform.

    We are progressives.  Not great at celebrating.  I think we need to work on this.

  •  You are one of the best and most (15+ / 0-)

    thoughtful writers at Daily Kos. Glad to see you made the rec list because there are some other good diaries floating around right now.

    I have to confess that I was one of the ones who thought that we should just let the churches handle marriages (and discriminate as they wish- they're doing that already) and give everyone something equivalent to a civil union license from the state.

    I was lucky enough to get married 32 years ago, before the marriage industrial complex really geared up, in a simple ceremony at my mother-in-law's house. My parents didn't approve of my Black husband so they didn't come to my wedding. I guess that is part of the reason why the occasion itself isn't that big of a deal to me, though my relationship is.

    Anyway, you've made me think about this whole marriage thing in a different way. It must be painful to achieve such a historic legal victory and feel that some people are trampling on the importance of the moment.

    Why can't they say that hate is 10 zillion light years away- Stevie Wonder

    by blindyone on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:28:03 PM PDT

  •  Well, there's an argument that the state (5+ / 0-)

    shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, that since the state is only interested in "civil" aspects of the union, then "civil unions" is the only thing that the state should recognize for anyone, regardless of whether the couple in question is homosexual, heterosexual, or Platonic.  So any couple of consenting adults could go to the state and have themselves declared as a state-recognized union.  Then if that couple wants to call their union a "marriage", then they can do that.  Or they can go to some non-government entity to have their union sanctioned as a "marriage" according to that entity.

    Note: I am not one of those that raised this issue since the court decision, nor rec'ed or tipped the diaries in question, so I don't consider myself as one of those attacked by the diarist.  I'm merely explaining one of the points of view that the diarist seems to attack.

    I think the above argument is valid, and I've favored it as an "ideal" solution (I put "ideal" in scare quotes to connote the both word's positive and negative connotations).  However I think it must be recognized that it has been customary for the the state to be in the marriage business, and there's little chance that that will change any time soon.  Therefore the easier method to achieve marriage equality is to have the state recognize same sex "marriages" as "marriages".  This also has the added benefit of the government officially sending a message to the public that same sex unions are equal in value to opposite sex unions, not just as far as government is concerned, but as far as society itself is concerned (which I think is the real reason for the opposition to the word "marriage" from those that are opposed to it).  That moral message is lacking with the "state only recognizes civil unions" system, because with that system the state is saying it doesn't give a damn who is unioned with whom; so the state would recognize all 2-person unions as equal, but it wouldn't be sending a societal message on the issue at all.

    Lastly, I think it's unfair to attack those that have called for the state to only recognize civil unions; that is a logically consistent position, achieves marriage equality, and gets government out of it so it can't be left up to the whim of  plebiscites or the reasoning ability of imperfect human beings known as judges.

    I'm glad Prop 8 was struck down, and hope that the decision will survive appeal or that the proponents have no standing to appeal (which is the premise of one of the diaries on the rec list).

  •  Well argued, but I think (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, sviscusi

    the position that government should not be involved in marriage generally can be a legitimate view without reference to gay rights or Prop 8. As a response to this victory, or as a way of side-stepping the issue, it is wrong, but not necessarily as a general position.

  •  Separate but equal (7+ / 0-)

    Need I say more?  

    Either you support marriage equality or not.

    I've argued for civil unions because I felt the Church has no place in a legal contract and that it should apply to all marriages, but that's it.  No one can force a Church to marry anyone.

    Ultimately, the debate should be held until we see the battle through the end and that means appeals, etc.

    Hope that makes some sense.

  •  Without 'marriage' we don't have a word... (8+ / 0-)

    ...in the testimony for the Prop H8 trial one of the plaintiffs testified, "without 'marriage' I don't have a word.." jpmassar posted a diary titled Marisa Tomei reprises plaintiff in Propostion 8 Trial. Here is the video from his diary. The part about "I don't have a word.." starts 12 minutes 45 seconds into the video. Its very powerful.

    Let me add, my husband and I were pretty blase about our marriage, thinking oh we can, so we will, we don't need this hetero institution to validate our relationship. Well let me say we were blase right up until the civil servant pronounced us spouses for life. WOW, all of a sudden we got it, let me tell you that we just erupted into tears. I don't remember any more powerful moment in my life.

    The word really does mean everything.

    •  I don't give a shit if you have a word (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Night Train, peacearena

      I also don't give a shit if my (heterosexual) parents have a word.  If you need a word, you can make one up, or find one that suits you.  What I care about is that the way marriage currently works (for straights, gays, or in-betweens) renders members of the clergy into agents of the government.  That's an unConstitutional mixing of church and state.  Your wanting a word shouldn't trump the First Amendment.  Cleave the two apart.  Which side of the wall the word 'marriage' ends up on doesn't matter one bit to me.  I suspect it matters quite a bit to others, but it needs to end up on one side or the other.  If it absolutely must remain on both sides it needs modifiers attached, such as "religious marriage" to denote a ceremony with no legal rights attached and "civil marriage" to denote a government recognition of a family structure with no religious significance attached.

      Clearly, I need to find a witty sig line.

      by libdevil on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:05:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  well, with obama you get what you get (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CoolOnion, Dunvegan

    said he wasn't in favor of gay marriage during the primaries. there were candidates who were.
    said he wouldn't get us out of iraq before his first term was up & that afghanistan was the good war. there were candidates who were for an immediate withdrawal.
    never supported single payer & was pretty nebulous about what his health care plan was. there were candidates committed to single payer.
    when we compromise our beliefs on the altar of pragmatic politics, we end up electing compromised & compromising officials.
    enjoy your victory, it is a victory for fairness & you should know that eventually fairness will prevail.

    Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues. The Gita 3.21

    by rasbobbo on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:46:49 PM PDT

    •  Fact is I voted for Obama despite all the above (9+ / 0-)

      Not because of it. It was important for him to win. And now it's important for us to keep putting pressure on him to be president of all of Americans, not just the ones who hold power.

    •  Please demonstrate that he ever said (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, rainmanjr

      said he wouldn't get us out of iraq before his first term was up

      prior to the general election.

      We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

      by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:51:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, that's completely wrong. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NearlyNormal, JesseCW

        Candidate Obama pledged to get us out of Iraq about 3 months ago but extended the projection in order to keep the peace during Iraq's elections.  That's why he states that, just as promised, we will be withdrawn (except for 50,000 to maintain training and such) by the end of this month.
        As for this diary; I don't believe a true Progressive is for eliminating marriage as a way to deal with this victory.  Nor do I believe such a plan is even worth thinking about because it won't happen--EVER.

        "There's really nothing I want out of the past except history." - Autoegocrat

        by rainmanjr on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:23:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  it was a question during the primary debates (0+ / 0-)

        to all the candidates, will you pledge to have all u.s. military out of iraq by january 2013? clinton - no, obama- no, edwards - no. gravel & kucinich - yes.
        from the democratic candidates debate at dartmouth college:

        Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?

        A: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.

        Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues. The Gita 3.21

        by rasbobbo on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:04:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He didn't say he planned to wait (0+ / 0-)

          untill 2013 to have all our troops out.

          It's the questioner who brought up that particular time.

          We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

          by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 02:09:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  What I keep wanting some gusty politico to say... (0+ / 0-)

      ...is something like, "gays are already getting married in churches all over the U.S.  They're buying houses, raising children together; now all we need is for the state to recognize those marriages, instead of saying some marriages are more equal than others."

      I'm hoping this ruling does just that, making the government recognize that all marriages are equal under the law.

      Change TX-32, Change the Nation. Send Democrat Grier Raggio to Congress.

      by CoolOnion on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 08:54:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This diary is strange (7+ / 0-)

    Are you really ascribing the views you are complaining about to the left or progressives generally?  If the two pieces you link to are the only examples you have, this is thin gruel.  Neither even hit the rec list, and both tip jars are pretty empty.

    Yes, there are cranks here.  Liberals/progressives are on the side of gays and equality like we always were and always are for everyone.  Daily Kos is a big place and not everyone here is really on the left of anything.  

    Help build the Progressive Governing Majority at Open Left

    by Scientician on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:49:22 PM PDT

    •  It is far from strange (10+ / 0-)

      And the two diaries indie linked are just the latest in a long line of similar bilge. Not to mention that this is the last place on earth that anyone should expect to run into that kind of crap in the first place.

      •  OMG are you serious (0+ / 0-)

        Text from offending diary. Please... This is good stuff and belongs here.  What this diarist is talking about is self-determination of family.  That's not some horrible anti-progressive sentiment...

        For myself, as someone in a same-sex couple, the official endorsement of my relationship’s equality is an important and lovely engagement in the event that I ever opt for state recognition of my romantic life.  But the fact is that for millions of Americans like me—both gay, straight and in the vast hinterlands in between—the little box of traditional marriage is too constricting for our evolving notions of love and partnership. Judge Walker had it half right.  Modern heterosexual couples are indeed pushing the traditional boundaries of marriage.  But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships.

        No, that doesn’t mean I want to marry three women at the same time or a goat.  It means that I think I should be able to decide what constitutes my family—whether it’s me and my same-sex partner and our toddler, or me and my elderly mother and father, or me and my best friend who want to care for and love each other but not necessarily be intimate.  

        and it doesnt say abolish marriage, it says abolish the false distinction.

      •  To quote last guy, OMG are you serious? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater, angstall

        Not to mention that this is the last place on earth that anyone should expect to run into that kind of crap in the first place.

        Do you not read the crap that's published here continuously?

        We always have a troll diary or two floating around, and leading up to any major event and immediately after, the troll diaries crank up.  Indie has a valid point overall, but is blaming 'progressives' for the work of wingnut trolls and libertarians who are hanging around the site.

        Am I cynical? Yes I am! - Bob the Builder's lesser known brother Pete the Politician

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 05:00:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped and recs (10+ / 0-)

    And thank you for this extraordinarily righteous rant. I don't think I'm capable of staying so angry, yet so coherent, for so long.

  •  If I could rec this one trillion times... (13+ / 0-)

    ...I would do so. At the speed of light.

    I've made my share of enemies here because my primary issue is US foreign policy and the deliberate state terrorism which for decades has flowed like a river of sewage from the Oval Office. It continues today, under a president who might be the first one to actually know better. And I don't give a shit about my enemies. As someone once said, "I welcome their hatred".

    Just to be clear: I've been involved in the anti-war movement since '66. I've done jail time in 8 countries protesting US military policy. I've worked with hundreds of anti-war people and over two dozen anti-war organizations from Nicaragua to The Netherlands and from Mexico to Mozambique. And to this day I have yet to meet a single serious peace activist who didn't believe that the homophobia, discrimination, and violence inflicted on their queer brothers and sisters was anything but another manifestation of war. Yes, I am including the many profoundly religious activists who look to Dorothy Day, Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the Berrigan brothers for inspiration. I myself am not a believer, but the most uncompromising advocates of full GLBT equality I have ever known were the anti-war Christians who worked with the tortured and brutalized peoples of Central America during Reagan's terrorist assault in the 80's.      

    Some people are willing to compromise on any issue. Some of us are willing to compromise, but we also assert that some issues are deal-breakers. Some of us draw the line. Military aggression and equal rights for all our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters IS THAT LINE.

    indiemcemopants: A small but hellraising anti-war crew in the US Pacific Northwest stands with you. We always will.        

    Illegal Alien: Term used by the descendents of foreign colonizers to refer to the descendents of indigenous people

    by mojada on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:55:56 PM PDT

  •  Separate but UNequal (11+ / 0-)

    Without the word marriage being universal (i.e. covering both gay and straight people), we are back to the separate but equal M.O. that has always been a failure.

    Those touting Civil Unions have not studied up on what they entail.

    Do you know that you have to meet a residency requirement to have a CU?

    Do you know that you have to share a domicile to have a CU?

    Do you know that you have to demonstrate to the government financial interdependence in order to get a CU?

    I am dying to know of one single state in America that requires those things of anyone applying for a marriage license.

    NARAL and HRC endorsed Lieberman. Therefore, I can no longer endorse them.

    by LeftofArizona on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:03:57 PM PDT

  •  I thought SallyKohn's diary was fairly persuasive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, fearisthemindkiller

    I hardly think it's a case of "snatching the football and running home". She was right to point out that gay couples are by no means the only nontraditional family arrangement.

    So using your own inflamatory race-baiting. Suppose back when Virginia vs Loving was decided- suppose the court said that it's OK for whites and blacks to marry. But asians? No way! So how would you feel about that? If somebody complained about the fact that asians are still on the outside looking in- would you say they were pissing on the parade? or trying to deny the hard fought victory that african americans had won?

    •  I also didnt find that diary offensive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      codairem

      It was about broader right to self define ones family.  

      You know why shouldn't you have the right to have your best friend or your neighbor see you in the hospital?  A right typically restricted to family members.  Just an example.

      This by the way was the ploy of a very good Golden Girls episode...

  •  Marriage is just a contract that... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe

    joins two families together legally and socially. The wedding is the religious ceremony. When the hell did we let the Christian Right conflate the two and define marriage as a moral and religious issue?  It seems we lose when we let them pick the definitions of the words we argue with. Perhaps the fight we need to be fighting is not the one that gets our marriage out of their religion, but the one that gets their religion out of our marriage, gay or straight.

    •  I agree with your point about conflation (5+ / 0-)

      but you're inadvertently doing it also.

      A wedding can be a religious ceremony.  Many weddings are not, and the people participating in wholly civil ceremonies take them every bit as seriously as religious couples take their church weddings.  In many European countries, couples have two ceremonies if they want a religious marriage in addition to a civil marriage - they have a civil wedding and a religious wedding.

  •  Dude I'm not pissing on your parade (6+ / 0-)

    But I wish the government would get out of the church business by not marrying anyone. Civil unions for all. And I've been saying that for 30 years now. It has nothing to do with 'gays ruining marriage' and has everything to do with wanting to separate church and state. I haven't been reading all the diaries but I didn't bother to bring it up when Prop 8 was overturned because I was just glad to see a glimmer of equity coming.

    Doesn't mean I'm going to sit by and not say that I want the government and churches further separated now that you bring it up.

    President Obama is the best moderate Republican president in my lifetime. kasandra.us

    by KS Rose on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:16:19 PM PDT

    •  I meant my comment for you (0+ / 0-)

      downthread... anyway... its not important.  I agree with you, but maybe since Marriage is already a State term the Chruch should get out of the marriage biz instead and invent their own new thing. Call them Holy Unions or something...

      •  No, it's not the (0+ / 0-)

        same to say that marriage should be a state law and the church should get out of the business. Anyone can be a church. We all have to share the government. Having the state define marriage will inevitably result in somebody's rights being curtailed, and the expansion of government authority where there is no need for it. You are arguing for more intrusion into private life. Granted, the government does currently control marriage, and if it is going to continue, then the ruling is correct. The point is that the whole idea is flawed and amounts to intrusions we are protected from by the first amendment.

        Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
        Mark Twain

        by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:11:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to admit I a bit confused right now (0+ / 0-)

          cause sometimes this medication I am on kicks my ass in a kind of fun way...  but here is what I think...  I think we should be able to enter into any kind of union we want, leave that union when we want to, and that sometimes our primary and most important union is with someone we have no intimate feelings for at all and will never have sex with.  

          there are issues that do involve the state and the courts, like custody of children, mutual property division, so some intrusion seems necessary to solve some problems.

          •  You are right, (0+ / 0-)

            and that is my point. If marriage involves "privileges", then there are many types of relationships due those "privileges" which are not of the traditional "romantic love" sort which is the current American concept of marriage. Parenthood and parental legal responsibilities and ties of consanguity are already handled quite well without any need for a "marriage" concept. Civil unions handle property just fine. I know I am not the coolest thing in the current debate, but I can envision a time, not far off, when the current "romantic love" concept of civil partnership and family will be so quaint as to be laughable.

            Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
            Mark Twain

            by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:34:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am in a very stable same sex relationship (0+ / 0-)

              last week I feel in love with some hot young thing for a weekend.... sigh... I know the difference.  you are right, our hearts runaway sometimes and come back.. its complicated -- Romantic Love.

              I think whats going to happen is that Gay Men and Lesbians will start to marry, and that's a great thing, but they will find the values of traditional marriage, and maybe even monogamy, are insufficient to provide them with a fully human experience of the countless types of partnerships we are capable of.

      •  The church that I was baptized in calls it... (0+ / 0-)

        ...the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

        My state government (Iowa) calls theirs Civil Marriage.

        This works for me.

        The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics. They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

        by banach tarski paradox on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:02:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I, too, have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rosita, fearisthemindkiller

      been saying this for longer than there has been a marriage equality movement. I am not a homophobe and I do not wish for anyone denied equal treatment. If the state is going to remain in the business of defining personal relationships, then I support equality as much as anyone else.

      The problem is that you are right. It is an important separation issue. We do have it wrong. I guess it is just that we are not supposed to be saying it just now because it is interpreted as being a wet blanket. Cheering any state interpretation of marriage, even those which are improvements over traditional definitions, is going to lead us deeper into the state controlling and regulating family relationships.

      And my argument is not to "do away with marriage." It is to get the government out of it. It is a religious institution. If it were removed from government control, then LGBT persons could not be discriminated against, because all marriages would be civil unions in the eyes of the state, and would be privately defined. It would be a religious matter, and all people could define it for themselves.

      Pretend that there is a social institution called slavery, and only white men can own slaves. Along comes another group and argues that they, too, have the right to own slaves. They win in court. Rejoicing in their victory, some claim those who say slavery is wrong are personally attacking the group with newly won slave ownership rights, and begin shouting that they are bigots.

      I don't think so.

      I say you should speak up for what is ultimately justice. Although I have been making this argument about marriage for a long time, I guess the message the diarist is promoting is that I should STFU until the party is over. My question is how long am I supposed to be quiet before I can begin to express a rational, logical and basically constitutionally correct opinion on the matter? I don't know.

      Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
      Mark Twain

      by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:00:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well said, phaktor. nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  Sorry, marriage is a civil institution (8+ / 0-)

        It was a civil institution first, and it's a civil institution first and foremost.  Its origins were for legal reasons, and governments have always been in the business of recognizing legal marriages, whether they took place in a church or not, as they very often didn't and don't.

        Religion doesn't get to take the institution of marriage away and claim it's now wholly theirs to define, regulate, and grant.  The individual churches are free to decide which marriages they want to recognize within their churches, but not free to tell the government which marriages are and aren't to be recognized by the government.

        •  Its status as a (0+ / 0-)

          civil institution is as outdated as the heterosexist concept of it. It was originally property ownership rights for women to be owned by men, and it evolved to be a little more civil after women were recognized as being partially human. It is an outdated institution.

          You are mistaking my argument as being that churches should define marriage for the government. That isn't my position. In this country, according to our own true constitutional values, churches can't define anything for anyone except those who voluntarily submit to their authority. Specifically, the government shouldn't define marriage for anyone. In fact, any argument that they should suggests people are somehow unequal.

          Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
          Mark Twain

          by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:27:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, but think about this... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, banach tarski paradox

            People are perfectly free to have a religious wedding without a marriage license.  They can call themselves married and be seen as married in the eyes of their church and god, with no governmental recognition or regulation whatsoever.

            Other people, though, are also perfectly free to have a civil wedding and obtain government recognition if that's what they want to do.

            So, what's the problem?  Everyone's free to do what they want and have the government involved or not (except of course for gay couples in most states).

            •  Again, you are putting (0+ / 0-)

              words in my mouth if you interpret my position as saying the state should continue to regulate marriage and then deny the right to some people. That is not my argument. As long as the state stays involved in marriage, then anyone (not just LGBT people) should be able to make use of the institution.

              If somebody values the concept of marriage, then let them do it. Why does the government need to be involved? Why do my tax dollars have to go to it? What is the government's legitimate interest? Remember, our idea of government in this country is that the government doesn't get involved in things it does not need to be involved in for some reason. The desire of any couple to be publicly recognized as committed to each other may not be something there is any need for the government acknowledge. There are many things in life which are important to people, but we can't require the government to put some stamp on those things because they think it is a big deal. What, exactly, does the government need to be involved for? That is a legitimate question under our constitution. If there is no purpose, then we don't need the laws. The United States is not supposed to be in the business of making unnecessary laws, or laws that just amount to someone wanting to be recognized.

              Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
              Mark Twain

              by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:44:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not exactly... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dunvegan

                I don't think at all that you're arguing that the state should deny the right of marriage to some couples, if the state is going to be in the business of regulating it.

                I'm just pointing out where the holes are.  You started off saying that marriage is a religious institution, as if it were that first and only and always.  I pointed out that marriage started as a civil institution and remains a civil institution now.  You admitted that, but tried to get around it by saying it's an outdated civil institution.

                First, you don't get to make that decision for everyone else.  Previous versions of civil marriage are quite outdated, yes.  The institution itself can and has evolved.  As Walker pointed out in his opinion, marriage has already evolved to the point that gender distinctions have been removed.  And it's increasingly outdated to talk about heterosexism in regards to an institution that now in some states and countries, and eventually will be all of America, is open to gay couples.  Many of my friends, straight and gay, are in civil marriages in which they are equal partners.  It's somewhat patronizing, every bit as patronizing as those "traditional" marriages of yore where the wife was property, to basically decide that married couples today are participating in an institution that isn't still relevant.

                Civil marriages serve a very relevant purpose.  There are 1138 legal rights that come from governmental recognition, so yes, couples have a reason to want the government to be involved.  And what I was trying to point out in my previous post is that people don't have to involve the government if they don't want to, so what is the problem?  You are not making anyone more free by suggesting that the government get out of the business of marriage altogether and let it become a wholly religious institution - you're taking away people's freedom of choice, rights they want to have.  Religious marriage is already left up to religion.  All we are talking about, and fighting for, is civil marriage, because there's a host of legal rights and benefits that come with it that are not remotely approximated by anything else.  Marriage itself is not a bad thing.  Specific marriages can be a bad thing depending on the people involved, but marriage itself is at least neutral, and there are many benefits.  If it's not for you, that's fine.  You don't have to get married, civilly or religiously or whatever.  Meanwhile, many of us will have the marriages we want - religious marriages, civil marriages - or fight to have the marriages we want.  Everyone's free.  But those 1138 rights of civil marriage are important and an excellent reason for the government to be involved - it goes far, far beyond a simple "recognition" of a relationship.

                •  You were the (0+ / 0-)

                  one who brought up the origins of the institution as an argument to counter my argument, but now you are arguing based on some undefined "evolved" concept. I can live with that, if you can tell me what the "evolved" concept is. And that is my point. Is the government now going to tell us what it is?

                  Also, I do not begrudge the rights gained under this ruling. That is not my point either. I have repeatedly said that if the rights go to anybody, then they should go to everybody.

                  Decisions about family structure and family relationships are not for the government to define, though, in my opinion. The ruling so far is being interpreted to remove gender alone, but there must be some remaining underlying concept inherited from the "romantic love" idea (and ultimately the heterosexual procreation idea). As I have said, I think it is absolutely phenomenal that gay couples should be on the verge of attaining those 1138 rights. My argument is not against their having those rights.

                  I believe the structure of family life is going to evolve rapidly from now own, just like everything else, because of the profound changes brought on by technology and knowledge. If the ruling removes gender, then does it also remove number? That is, can more than two people be married? Please don't accuse me of the "marry your donkey" argument, either. I am for real, and I can see situations where that might be a very legitimate arrangement. The initial argument against that is probably due to the fact that the procreation concept has been inherited in your "evolved" form (married partners are "parents" or "parents to be").

                  Also, those 1138 rights are sorely needed for many people in this country whose "partner" or "partners" may not be of the traditional form at all, gay or straight. As has been argued by others, many people have family relationships, or would have such,  which would benefit from the 1138 rights. Should they be denied those because they are not traditional "marriage" type relationships based on the "romatic love" or "parents to be" metaphor?

                  It has been argued that heterosexual marriage laws constitute a privilege denied gays. Are we now in a position where marriage laws constitute a privilege for certain gays and straights, but still not everybody? Can you define who those 1138 rights are now limited to? Who is in and who is out? It is being heralded as a "gay victory".

                  Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
                  Mark Twain

                  by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:37:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  There are 1138 answers to this. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                esquimaux

                I can give one answer. I'll leave the other 1137 answers to others.

                What, exactly, does the government need to be involved for?

                In our own case it is to keep armed agents of the government from breaking down our door and kidnapping my wife.

                The government is already involved in our lives.

                For us, Civil Marriage is a means of limiting that governmental involvement, not enhancing it.

                The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics. They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

                by banach tarski paradox on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:15:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Please tell me how the state of Iowa... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emsprater

            ...is suggesting that people are unequal simply by allowing us all to marry?

            Specifically, the government shouldn't define marriage for anyone. In fact, any argument that they should suggests people are somehow unequal.

            We aren't forcing anybody to marry. People choose to marry of their own free will.

            The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics. They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

            by banach tarski paradox on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:08:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Um, what? (0+ / 0-)

            Government is the only entity that can perform marriages--either directly or indirectly. As long as it's in the business of doing that (and it has been since the beginning of time), it can't discriminate in whom it permits to marry, absent a compelling state interest (such as protection of children through setting ages of consent).

    •  Marrying people is not "church business" and (3+ / 0-)

      honestly never has been in this country.

      There is no violation of the seperation of church and state occuring when some people elect to use their priest or pastor or shaman as the witness when they make a civil marraige contract.

      If marriages solemnized before a Judge or Ships Captain or woman who bought a one day permit to marry folks for ten bucks come to be treated as somehow different before the law than marriages solemnized before a bishop, you'll have a case.

      We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

      by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:55:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have already (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rosita

        stated above how I view the institution as an outdated concept which hangs on through religion. You apparently disagree, and think it is a meaningful legal and civil concept which is needed for social order. You have that right! But my disagreement is not, under any circumstances, tantamount to bigotry, and I take strong offense to such claims.

        Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
        Mark Twain

        by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:00:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is just incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

        The priest is not acting as a "witness". He is acting as an agent of the state. That is a different thing.

        You can not, in most states, simply have witnesses sign your marriage certificate. You MUST also have a person in whom the state has vested the authority to act as its representative. One of the groups of people who are presumed by the law to possess the authority of the state is religious clergy.

        •  In most states, *anyone* can go register (0+ / 0-)

          at a local courthouse to get that authority for a nominal fee.

          Again, no different than a Notary Public.

          Yes, Clergy can also be Notaries.  That doesn't violate the seperation of Church and State.

          We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

          by JesseCW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 02:14:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't be otbuse. (0+ / 0-)

            No, clergy are not the ONLY people allowed to be the designated representative of the state. However, they are not required to jump through any extra hoops to do so. They are presumed to have that standing by virtue of their being clergy. Your uncle or your best friend from college or whatever does not have that power. If they want to be the officiant, they have to apply and be approved for that purpose. Your priest or minister does not. Your priest or minister, simply by virtue of being a clergy member, is already a representative of the state with the authority to grant its privileges. In other words, if you have a religious wedding ceremony, the state is granting you legal rights based on the presence of a clergy member's signature on that piece of paper. A religious clergy member should NEVER be a representative of the state by virtue of their being clergy. That's pretty fucking basic.

            No, it's not ever going to change. But, that doesn't make the people who observe and comment upon it wrong or homophobic.

          •  Don't be obtuse II (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, clergy can be notaries. That's apples and oranges. Nobody's saying that clergy can't ALSO serve in government or as governmental agents APART from their role as clergy members. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the government granting them the power to be governmental agents SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF AND AS A PART OF THEIR ROLE AS CLERGY MEMBERS.

            Not. Rocket. Science.

    •  Do you have a link to the term "Civil Union"... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emsprater

      ...being used in 1980, only 13 years after the US Supreme Court legalized marriages like my own?

      Civil unions for all. And I've been saying that for 30 years now.

      Sorry, but we've worked too hard to get the US Supreme Court to declare that "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man" to allow our marriage to be distroyed at this late date.

      The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics. They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

      by banach tarski paradox on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:59:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fine -- why do these arguments only and always (0+ / 0-)

      show up when GAY marriage is involved?

      If you want marriage to be civil unions for all, and you cannot do it without hitching your argument to the battle for marriage equality, it's a fair question to ask whether you can do it at all.

      But I have no problem with you trying.  It's not an issue that has anything to do with gay people per se.

      Try to make the argument that way, and stop using us as coathangers for your philosophy.

      "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

      by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:50:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can already hear it... (13+ / 0-)

    "You're not married for real! You have a civil union. Not the same!!". Let's not even start creating a two tiered system when there's a enough discrimination already that isn't legislated. All homophobes need is validation and "civil union" would be just the thing.

  •  See, this kind of broad generalization (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EvilPaula, NearlyNormal

    and unnecessry finger-pointing is exactly what's wrong here.

    I'm pretty happy about this ruling - and I'm pretty progressive! So why am I (and my fellow progressives) falsely accused of not wanting to celebrate it?

    "Virg Bernero is exactly the kind of candidate Democrats need to get in 2010." - Ed Schultz

    by ScottyUrb on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:31:19 PM PDT

  •  It's not homophobia... (6+ / 0-)

    ...to offer a different solution to the marriage question. It's not even homophobia to oppose gay marriage outright - my uncle and his partner both oppose gay marriage, not because they hate themselves, but because they believe it is a heterosexist institution that they don't feel the need to conform to.

    I disagree with them, and I support full marriage equality, but labeling everyone who disagrees with me "homophobic" is not only anti-intellectual, it's simply dishonest.

    •  It's not necessarily homophobic... (4+ / 0-)

      so much as it's just plain silly.  

      As I commented elsewhere, pushing for a system of civil unions now is like a football team quitting when they've got the ball in the other team's red zone.

      We're on the verge of winning the whole enchilada, for crying out loud.  The cases that will confer marriage equality across the nation are making their way through the federal court system as I type, to a justice who has probably long had the opinion that will secure his place in history for all time mostly written out in his head.  Meanwhile, the general population's support of marriage equality increases every year, as older people change their minds and/or die off and young people reach the age at which they get polled.  And once marriage equality becomes the law of the land, it's going to be a lot like up in Canada, where after a few years everyone except the minority of extremists got used to it, saw nothing bad had happened, and wondered what on earth all the fuss had ever been about.

      So, you know, talking about implementing this completely different system of nomenclature is silly.  I have to wonder if a lot of the people advocating it are simply older people (and yes, many older people are in favor of marriage equality, I know, but at the same time, the majority of anti-equality people are older) who really just have a way of assuming that their view of "civil unions are okay, just not 'marriage!'" will always be the majority, not really thinking about the fact that the younger generations are hugely in favor of equality and so status quo ain't staying status quo.

      •  Well yes, I agree, and your point was well taken (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Black Knight

        ...and I do understand now the absurdity of the civil unions argument. But I was just commenting here in response to the poster's claim that it is homophobia to oppose gay marriage, or that the progressives who want to eliminate marriage as an institution are motivated by homophobia.

    •  Thanks for bringing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rosita, Night Train

      up the very important position that marriage is a heterosexist institution to begin with. For some people the demand for marriage equality is demand to be "acculturated", or to endorse and comply with the values of the oppressor. Marriage as it is currently understood has deep ties to heterosexuality and heterosexist values and interests on many levels. That is what my slave ownership example is all about:

      Pretend that there is a social institution called slavery, and only white men can own slaves. Along comes another group and argues that they, too, have the right to own slaves. They win in court. Rejoicing in their victory, some claim those who say slavery is wrong are personally attacking the group with newly won slave ownership rights, and begin shouting that they are bigots.

      I don't think so.

      Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
      Mark Twain

      by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:19:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My HETEROsexual partners refused to marry (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rosita

      because they objected to it as an institution.

  •  How about the Church gets out of the marriage biz (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rosita

    If religious groups need to have a special way of unionizing couples they can invent a new one that will not have anything to do with rights and responsibilities as citizens.   Then they can deny that to anyone they choose under the laws the give them those religious freedoms.  

    I'm cool with that, but Marriage should be open to everyone gay or straight.

    •  Well the church bit (10+ / 0-)

      is always optional. It cam be performed by a church or not but no one is married without a government sanctioned marriage license.

      'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

      by indiemcemopants on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:47:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That wasn't really my point (0+ / 0-)

        I meant if getting the State out of the Marriage business was offensive, then maybe rather than suggest everyone should get a civil union and yield the term marriage to the Church union, force the church to create a new kind of union instead.   Holy Unions.  But whatever... its late and I am not articulate.

        •  I know what you're getting at... (9+ / 0-)

          but what churches do is essentially a private matter.  The government can't force them to call marriage by another name.

          But think about this:  There are hordes of heterosexual, often religious, marriages and divorces that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize.  But the Catholic Church doesn't campaign to have government recognition parallel or be contingent on the Catholic Church's recognition of such.

          It's only when it's a same-sex pair that the Catholic Church suddenly has a problem with government recognition of a wedding that may have been conducted in City Hall or by United Church of Christ or by Reform Jews.

          •  yeah good point (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dunvegan, Black Knight, LynneK

            same sex marriage really fucks with religion in a big way because religion has been so interested in defining the genders and the power dynamics between them.

            Why do you think the church cares so much about gays?  Seems God made gays, so he wants us here.

            •  I'm sure there are many reasons (3+ / 0-)

              when drilling down to individual clergy, but for the Church, I think it boils down to this:  Gay couples cannot procreate via their sexual activity with each other, so their sexual activity is entirely about pleasure.  Straight couples, on the other hand, are directed that contraception is sinful, so the act of sex always has the chance of resulting in pregnancy and therefore can be considered to be motivated by the desire to procreate.  Sex is otherwise sinful and dirty.

              So to accept gay couples, the Church would have to deal with all the ways it is so messed up about sex.

    •  WTF??? (0+ / 0-)

      We can't get God out of political dealings and you think we can get this invisible guy-in-the-sky out of marriage?  Hahahahahaha.

      "There's really nothing I want out of the past except history." - Autoegocrat

      by rainmanjr on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:55:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Churches could call it something like... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LynneK

      ...the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

      Leave Civil Marriage to the government.

      Kinda' like how things are right now.

      The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics. They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

      by banach tarski paradox on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:28:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm (2+ / 0-)

        I'm a minister. We generally call them weddings.

      •  I think this is how Germany does it (0+ / 0-)

        You can be married in a church, but that does not formalize a religious arrangement.  It still must be done at the town hall.

        I wonder if the nature of looseness of the officient will be the undoing of this.  Recently attended a wedding where the brother of the bride officiated.  His qualifications were that he had been ordained along with the rest of his house with an online organization.  It was all intended as a joke--so they could all be ministers.  The ceremony was actually quite lovely and there was nothing cheap about it.  But, this has to just rankle Christian conservatives, that anyone can perform a wedding--and then it's legal.

        •  I would simply allow the couple (for whome... (0+ / 0-)

          ...the occaision actually is a "sacred" one) to choose whoever they want to officiate.

          I don't care if they choose a judge, a preist, or a cousin.

          I don't see much interest for the state in caring who officiates, either.

          I do see reason why the couple might care.

          So let them decide.

          The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics. They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

          by banach tarski paradox on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:47:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Do you consider Obama a progressive? (7+ / 1-)

    If so, you could write a headline that says "Progressive president never supported gay marriage in the first place". WTF is this attack on progressives about? I am willing to admit that I’ve expressed irritation at republican judges (and republican-controlled courts) who seem to schedule controversial cases (i.e. in which constitutionality and public opinion differ) during election cycles (which really shouldn’t be allowed because it allows the judicial branch to effect election outcomes by giving political parties opportunities to put conveniently-timed constitutional amendment initiatives on ballots). I’ll admit that I expressed irritation in 2004 at the political timing of the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s (7 out of 9 republican justices) gay marriage ruling, which allowed Rove and company to shanghai the 2004 election with a anti-gay marriage ballot initiative in favor of George Bush, but that irritation is due to republican judges trying to use controversial issues to swing elections. That’s a long way from being anti-gay marriage and a long way from wanting to take it away. There’s an old saying, "timing is everything" and it does count.
    I really think you should cut progressive some slack. We have a president (who many consider progressive) who is an opponent of gay marriage, while most of the progressive like myself support gay marriage. Any criticism on my part has been against what looks like republican/Rove-type judicial-political hackery trying use the issue to swing elections.

  •  Um, y'all won, & I think we ALL won for it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dunvegan, 4Freedom

    Unless SCOTUS does handstands to undo this, not much anyone can do or say to remove the victory.  

    "Now that I have a disease that doesn't exist, nothing surprises me." --John commenting on LymePolicyWonk 8/4/10

    by MsGrin on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:02:41 AM PDT

  •  Progressives? (5+ / 0-)

    No progressives I know want what you suggested.

    I would assume this backpeddling comes from DLC types and centrists who are afraid granting gay Americans the right to marry like everyone else will pull the homophobe voters to the polls to vote for Repubs.

    No one calling themselves truly progressive would be for this.

    Maybe the title should be:
    Gays win fight, centrist Dems afraid to rock the boat/see their own shadows, try to take it away

    Dean would, of course, become DNC Chair over Rahmbo's dead body. I guess it would be a two-fer.

    by EvilPaula on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:19:53 AM PDT

  •  It's absolutely about the word marriage (6+ / 0-)

    Great diary indiemcemopants.  Tipped and rec'd.

    "There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet." --Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot

    by farrelad on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:20:41 AM PDT

  •  Go Celebrate the Victory (0+ / 0-)

    We can get rid of marriage later, after everyone has the same rights to it.

  •  Sorry, I think the connection is silly (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten, Iberian, mdmslle

    and paranoid. Someone upthread (was it you?) said that the DNC/Dems might be convinced to abolish marriage? wtf? ain't gonna happen? Someone saying marriage should be banned altogether does not sound homophobic to me - unless you can find a quote from that diarist saying he/she is against homosexuality, he/she is not homophobic.

    On the Obama issue? seriously, when will activists learn? do. not. make. gay marriage. a campaign issue. The GOP would love for the mid-terms and the presidential election to be about 'gays, guns, god, blacks on welfare and illegal wet backs with their anchor babies' instead of how they have done nothing but obstruct the recovery of the economy.

    what the gay marriage movement DOES NOT need are gay marriage opponents coming out in droves to vote for anti-gay candidates. Do you want to see their type of congress when and if Obama gets to choose a third justice? A third justice who would be your best chance to make gay marriage legal? What does it matter that the president dodged the question? what purpose would it serve if he said what you wanted to hear? do you think if Obama says he's for gay marriage that suddenly the rest of America will come around? not gonna happen that way.

    I don't mean to sound cold, but activists need to start thinking like politicians. Start thinking about the long term goal instead of fussing over validation from the president. Keep plugging at it, but a speech or statement from Obama will not make anything go faster and will only bring out the worst bigots in this country to fight you. And you know your opponents have more money and more power than the gay marriage movement. AND NO I am not telling you to do nothing and wait, but you all need to be smart about this.

    •  There are a bunch of problems with this: (8+ / 0-)

      Sorry, I think the connection is silly

      and paranoid. Someone upthread (was it you?) said that the DNC/Dems might be convinced to abolish marriage? wtf? ain't gonna happen?

      Read the history of DOMA. Gays won a Hawaii court case on marriage. Then shortly after, everyone wanted to eliminate same sex marriage and the Democratic Congress and President got involved, and passed and signed DOMA.

      Fast forward to now, gays win another marriage court battle. Activist Dems want to eliminate marriage completely because now gays can do it. It's similar to canceling that prom in MS because a lesbian was allowed to attend.

      They have the institutional power to do it and they have done it before.

      Someone saying marriage should be banned altogether does not sound homophobic to me

      We just, three days ago, won a court case solely about the word marriage and how gay people have a right to the word marriage. Now, people want to end that. It is very homophobic.

      Why do these discussions about eliminating marriage only seem to come up when gays win at the courts or at state levels on the marriage issue? Just a weird coincidence?

      On the Obama issue? seriously, when will activists learn? do. not. make. gay marriage. a campaign issue.

      My freedom to marry is certainly worth discussions in national campaigns. Telling gays to shut up about marriage during a campaign is treating us like second class people who are not valid and do not deserve fundamental rights.

      The GOP would love

      We are the Democratic party. We are supposed to be on the correct side of history. If we pee our pants about the GOP every day and fold at the expense of gay people's lives - well that is homophobia.

      What does it matter that the president dodged the question? what purpose would it serve if he said what you wanted to hear?

      He did not dodge it. Axelrod said that the president OPPOSES it. Hell, I'd be very happy if he'd just shut up about his bigoted opinion on marriage (note that I think any politician who holds that position is a bigot, including all of the presidential candidates from 2008. I am in no way singling him out. It's a shitty position to take.)

      Try to understand where I'm coming from.

      'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

      by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:04:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I think your (4+ / 0-)

        point below is begging the question:

        Why do these discussions about eliminating marriage only seem to come up when gays win at the courts or at state levels on the marriage issue? Just a weird coincidence?

        No, it is not a coincidence. It is the fact that you bring attention to the issue when rulings are made. I am not targeting gays or responding to the ruling because gays were the plaintiffs. It is just that gays are the only people tinkering with the legal concept of marriage at the time, and as I have said, my opinion predates the popular equal marriage rights movement.

        You shouldn't be surprised when all opinions regarding marriage come up at significant rulings. When you make a splash, everyone in that area of the pond has a point of view. You can't expect all points of view to correspond 100% with advancement of the personal causes you see as most important. Not all opinions which are not completely and entirely dedicated to advancing all gay rights, at all and any costs to anyone, are the incoherent ramblings of bigots. Some things in the world are more important than others. Many people suffer injustice. Some people see those injustices as originating in things other than homophobia and heterosexism. It is not the only evil in the world.

        I, for one, am not raining on your parade. I am happy for the rights gained by all couples who want to marry. But my opinions on marriage are not based in bigotry, and I won't be silent when it is suggested they are. When you call people names, they fight back.

        Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
        Mark Twain

        by phaktor on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 02:10:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Reminds me of the Whites only private proms... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that pop up in the news year after year because the schools decided that there should be no official school prom to avoid integration.

      Saying that there should be no official prom isn't racist, is it?

      Someone saying marriage should be banned altogether does not sound homophobic to me - unless you can find a quote from that diarist saying he/she is against homosexuality, he/she is not homophobic.

      Enough of this scorched earth politics!

      The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics. They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

      by banach tarski paradox on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:48:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cool (5+ / 0-)

    More "if you disagree with me you're a bigot". Hooray

    Yes this is a big deal. Yes I personally campaigned for this day multiple times

    No I don't hold with denigrating those who have held that the institution of marriage is kind of discriminatory itself in law.  It is. It has a not very savory history. Continuing to assert these thing is in no way homophobic. So please save the misplaced and divisive faux outrage and get back to work on solving the real issues and injustices acing people in this country straight gay or otherwise

    I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

    by Guinho on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:59:50 AM PDT

  •  Indiem, you can't really blame progressives (0+ / 0-)

    for wanting to take credit for this ... after all, they haven't had much to cheer about these last couple of years.  

    Of course, we usually support all the progressive issues, just as they sometimes support ours.  Maybe we ought let those who really supported us to stand in a little of our sunshine.  

    (snarky, just kidding guys -- but for all the progressives who thought we were wrong, wasteful, selfish, etc. ....  there won't any WH leaks about campaign cash being flushed under the toilet!)  

    Planning a vacation or convention in Arizona? Come to Palm Springs instead! Same desert weather, none of the bigotry.

    by grey skies turning to blue on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:15:04 AM PDT

  •  Obama afraid of election backslash (6+ / 0-)

    Fuck him and the others afraid to say "marriage". You had the right and a judge has just confirmed it.

    The Reagan Revolution Is Washing Ashore in the Gulf of Mexico

    by lawnorder on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:25:32 AM PDT

  •  I'm all over the place rationalizing (5+ / 0-)

    how maybe we should end "marriage".  But as I've written elsewhere I have a good "marriage", why wouldn't I want to allow more people to have one of those?  Even if they are rare, shouldn't everyone have the shot at having one?

    Plus, I know all too well what happens when women sit by calmly and allow the not women to decide what exactly they need for reproductive rights in order to better some sort of political agenda that only exists in their own not women minds.  And look what that has done to the right to choose debate and how much women have lost.

    So don't fucking "settle" and I'll support you in finding the real thing for yourself :)  Happy people with full rights create successful community.

    I'm the Left that Rahm's mother warned him about

    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 03:32:11 AM PDT

  •  Thanks indie! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, 4Freedom, emsprater, LynneK

    I'm glad you're out there, writing what you write.

    http://www.storyofstuff.com/ When it gets harder to love, love harder! - Van Jones

    by bluesheep on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 03:38:50 AM PDT

  •  Another good article (6+ / 0-)

    You're part of my "rec before reading" group.  I haven't regretted it yet.

    We all differ in ways that matter. But we're all the same in the ways that matter most.

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 03:51:31 AM PDT

  •  This is what Pres. Obama and progressives can say (5+ / 0-)

    Congratulations.

    In another diary, people kept asking, "Well what did you want Obama to say!?!?!"  That's it.  "Congratulations."  Is that so difficult?  Now is not the time for President Obama or his advisers to reiterate his rhetorical (but not quite believable) opposition to same-sex marriage, nor is it the time for "progressives" to campaign to end marriage.  It's the time to celebrate a victory.

    I'm sorry, is my demand for equality inconveniencing you?

    by Chrislove on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:05:44 AM PDT

  •  Who cares what some random diarist thinks? (3+ / 0-)

    It is always odd to me when someone takes the time to make a point of saying that some unknown diarist a few days ago said something stupid.  Yes, eliminating all marriages is a stupid idea.  Haven't you noticed yet how many diaries are chock full of stupid ideas?  If everyone wrote a diary complaining every time some semi-anonymous diarist proposed something stupid, this site would quickly be nothing but meta-diaries.  Please, don't let that happen.

  •  please link to the "white dem women are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian

    out in droves" against gay marriage evidence.  also, please link to the two other diaries you are discussing.

    good diary.  no one's civil rights should be up for popular vote.  that is what the courts are FOR.  

    I usually avoid volokh,  but I'm gonna have to go over and see how he is justifying a marriage amendment.

  •  Do not confuse this blog... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, Ezekial 23 20

    with progressives.  There have been enough attacks on progressives coming from this site it should be easy to separate the two.

  •  An one more thing... (3+ / 0-)

    you may see this as a victory for gay people, and it certainly is, but I view this as a victory for America.

  •  It's scorched earth politics (nt) (0+ / 0-)

    Better unemployed than imprisoned: Vote Democrat 2010

    by banach tarski paradox on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:42:46 AM PDT

  •  Those aren't progressives. Those are trolls. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    temptxan, angstall

    I saw that last one.  It was a hit and run diarist with one whole diary to his name.  There may be one or two homophobic progressives out there, but I'd bet 95%+ of actual progressives are happy about the Prop 8 decision.

    So while I agree with your overall sentiments, I think you're libeling a lot of progressives with your diary title.

    Am I cynical? Yes I am! - Bob the Builder's lesser known brother Pete the Politician

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:48:02 AM PDT

  •  What you think some wingnut (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ezekial 23 20

    from the right can't post here. There nothing to stop them, and they post from any number of subjects.
    just move on.

  •  Sad (7+ / 0-)

    This decision was a great victory.  I celebrate with you.  I didn't realize all these other things were going on.  But I can't say I'm shocked that you're seeing strange and contradictory (and destructive) things coming from the left.  A lot of people on the left have lost their way, IMHO.  There is not a day that goes by that I don't feel kicked in the gut by something the Democratic leadership, or the president and/or admin., or trends/events at this site.

    But this was a victory.  A great victory.  Don't let anyone take that away from you.

    P.S. I missed the news about female Democrats coming out against this in droves.  WTF? What happened?  Any links or background info?  I would like to know more about this.

  •  As one of the people who wanted (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, Rosita, indiemcemopants, sk4p
    to call all "marriages" civil unions, I apologize for inadvertently making you feel that I want to take away your victory. I do not. I see your point.

    I do still feel that marriage has some sort of religious context in people's minds and that the government has no business legalizing a religious ceremony. However, since marriage is not really necessarily a religious word, perhaps you are right that advocating civil unions (with the proviso that they confer all the rights of "marriage" including all governmental benefits) is comparable to separate but equal. That is not acceptable to me.

    Thank you for your diary.

    •  I perform marriages (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85

      In my state you are required by law to be either a specific govt. official or an ordained minister/reverend of a church, I'm ordained on teh toobs by the Universal Life Church.

      All marriages are civil unions in the eyes of the govt. I can perform your ceremony and pronounce you married, but you aren't until I send in zee papers and the county clerk stamps them.

      Those are the cold facts, but the emotional part is something completely different. To have the right to call yourself married, to introduce your husband or wife to others, to be able to say "we've been married for 36yrs!" all that stuff that seems mundane to those who enjoy that right is vital. It is a right and there is no reason to deny it to our brothers and sisters because of prejudice.

      I don't mean to imply prejudice to you, sewaneepat. I'm talking about our greater society and why it is so damn important. It is about civil rights and we can never defer doing what is right because it might be politically inconvenient.

      "Take it back, take it back. Oh no you can't say that. All of my friends are not dead or in jail." John Prine

      by high uintas on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 08:14:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am a progressive and dont care who the fuck won (0+ / 0-)

    I only care that some sense of equity has occured. Its still a batle and will be for some time. Marrage is a label. Its a term. It does have relgious connotation for both gay and straight people. I do think it should be taken out of the euqation. I think Marrage should be left to the religous. The state should only reckognize the civil act of the union of two parties. Call it whatever you want but the state should only reckognize the civil aspects of said unions weather you call them marrage, handfasting, or whatever.

    It is a great victory that some parity has been reckognized and people will no longer be oppressed. However I think the term Marrage is one I iwll never reckognize weather gay or straight.  Only the local civil athorities can reckognize a contaract however the two parties must also.. And now they can call it whatever they fing want. I am happy about that. And I am a progressive. So quit painitng us all in such broad strokes.

  •  Tricky issues. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten, stevej, Iberian, Kiku

    First, I agree with you - marriage has a tapestry of meanings that encompass love, property, decision making, etc.  It's a mental headspace I think that really is individual in its meaning to every person based on their experiences, definitions and perceptions.  

    I don't necessarily think that everyone who is suggesting "civil unions" is a homophobe, however.  I can see part of their point of view because it's one I held until recently: if you call it "civil union", you get the rabid fundies out of the way. You get them to stop pushing these ballot initiatives (which, so far - and sadly - have been successful) for the most part and you cool the whole crazy right down to an extent.  It helps progressives overall in that it doesn't give the right an incendiary item to drive people to the polls.  It could help marriage equality in that it could be accomplish more quickly than if you use the word "marriage".  As I said - I don't advocate for that any longer and decided that the issue of marriage equality needed to be "all in" - this is a basic set of rights that should never have been denied in the first place, let alone put up for a vote.

    Just wanted to add my perspective - it doesn't have to be homophobia and even if you don't like some of the suggestions, some of them may genuinely be being made with the intent of getting things done.

  •  I'm overjoyed about prop 8 being (5+ / 0-)

    overturned.

    This is your victory. I don't wanna take it away from you guys. I just wanna celebrate with you.

    You're watching Fox News. OH MY GOD--LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU

    by rexymeteorite on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 05:46:34 AM PDT

  •  Wanting the Gov to scrap marriage is not anti gay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten, Kiku

    Because of marriage the govt confers certain benefits on it's citizens but  the rules that define  who can get married arbitrarily exclude certain groups of people.  Moving LGBT couples from the list of those who can't legally get married to the list of those who can  is a huge step forward and undoubtedly will drastically reduce the number of people excluded by the arbitrary nature of these marriage laws,  but it doesn't change the inherently flawed nature of those laws. Ditto for Loving vs Virginia, a giant leap forward but it certainly didn't change the fact that  gay couples were still arbitrarily excluded after that ruling. I personally know people that are of the view   that the Govt should not be in the marriage/social engineering business and they have held these views long before the issue of gay marriage was even on the legislative/legal radar screens. In fact some of these people have refused to get legally married because of these views but  have been in long term monogamous relationships and have raised families. In other words they have been walking the walk and talking the talk for a long time. To say that opposition to Govt recognition of marriage is anti gay and is only a result of the Prop 8 ruling does these folks a great disservice.

  •  Democratic party playbook (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NearlyNormal

    I would like to comment on Obama's position regarding prop. 8. It is the classic democratic party position, and being surrounded by staff inherited from the Clinton administration is not helpful.  I still remember Clinton how he turned against gays when he became a president, and passed those odious DOMA and DADT and signed on them. When he left office, he suddenly became progay rights and calling for the repeal of DADT and DOMA. Laura Bush became progay marriage after her spouse left office, and her husband won the 2004 by using gay marriage as a wedge issue. I bet that Obama will become progay after leaving office as in the case of most of our loved democratic pols.  In my opinion, Obama is doing no better in trying to improve race relations in the country, and he avoids it like rabies.  It is a shame because he is not taking advantage of being a biracial president to promote equality and equal rights for everybody. When Obama was born, his parents marriage was not recognized in several states, and he out off all people should call for equality. His parents marriage would be illegitimate if Love vs Virginia was not approved by the supreme court. Sometimes one gains respect if they speak for their own convictions even though it might result in losing some votes. I gave Jerry Brown Kudos for standing against prop8, and I thought that was a rarity among Democratic party office holders to take a clear stance about something as waffling is the democratic party modus operandi.

  •  Tip'd, rec'd, agreed. (5+ / 0-)

    Go Indie!

    My mom wrote a great book on the church & gay marriage - buy it here! http://www.ermalouroller.com/

    by hpchicago on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:42:20 AM PDT

  •  No TRUE progressive (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, emsprater, Blueslide

    would bash or underplay this fabulous victory. The people making these claims are part of the Obama can do no wrong crowd. He dropped the ball with the LGT community, as well as many others. The impending defenses are unfortunatly inevitable these days at Kos....

    To all REAL progressives. This is a perfect example of continuing the fight and winning, even when our political leaders seem ineffectual, or simply don't care. Progressives have much to learn from the LGTC.

    Bravo.

    I did campaign on the public option, and I'm proud of it! Corporat Democrats will not get my vote, hence I will not vote.

    by Jazzenterprises on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 06:55:48 AM PDT

  •  All marriages should be civil (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, Blueslide

    Then, if you want a big ol' church wedding, you can do that too!
    I say congrats to all gay people, near and far, for your hard fought victory.
    You can get married.
    yes you can!
    And if you're not in a state that allows it, come on over to Massachusetts. We've had it for years now and "regular" marriages are just as they always were - some good, some bad (and some truly awful). Gay marriage didn't change a thing.

    And remember, there are lots of people here who THINK they are "progressives" but aren't really. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sick of the "progressive" tag. Being a Democrat is all about being LIBERAL. A progressive is simply a person who hates the liberal tag. And if you can't wear that proudly, you aren't a true Democrat. Ronald Reagan and the right did a grand job of making liberal a dirty word. And, unfortunately, too many on the left bought into it. Shame on them.

    People, liberals are pretty much the ONLY people to do anything good for the USA. We won the Revolution, and pretty much the rest of the wars. We've brought prosperity, we've fixed Republican messes, time after, time, and so on.

    I'm kind of tired of the "Big Tent" philosophy, where we have to invite all to join us. Nope. Sorry. I don[' want DINOs and Blue Dogs. I want dyed in the wool liberal Democrats. The way to get that is to show people that being liberal is a pretty good thing. Learn why and then join us. But if you want to be a Republican, but they've gone so far to the right they're practically off a cliff, well, then, find your own damn party.

    If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." - JFK

  •  "look forward to progression" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blueslide

    meh...

    I've been looking forward for 30 years.

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:08:06 AM PDT

  •  hmmm (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blueslide

    We shouldn't "chase" people off this site for disagreeing with you.  

    A lot of progressives (including me) think that marriage should not be something sanctioned (or not sanctioned) by government.  That being said, since government does sanction marriage - then of course any two people should have the right to have their marriage sanctioned.  

    I also don't like it when someone sees a couple of posts or diaries and then applies those diarists thoughts to the entire community.

  •  Big hugs to the diarist <<HUGS>> (5+ / 0-)

    It was a HUGE victory for gays yes and it also was a victory for our country and mankind.

    We are so close to equality that I can feel it, I can taste it and in my lifetime!!!!  We are so close.  Don't let some on this site get you down.  I have realized that some on here would rather complain about EVERYTHING then fight for SOMETHING.  They cannot even celebrate incremental progress and when there is a clear win, well they then say its not a win at all. For these folks nothing will ever be good enough. NOTHING. Its even more disturbing that they then call themselves  Progressives/Democrats.      

    Still, the fight is not over we have more to do and we must not get distracted until truly we can say the words "equality for all".

  •  Long before gay marriage was really on the radar (4+ / 0-)

    I've believed that the various religious "hooks" into our supposedly secular government are dangerous and should be eliminated. Some have been, in my lifetime, but others remain, including "under God", "In God We Trust", and so on; the special non-profit status of churches; and marriage. None of those things should be the purview of the government, in my view.

    One of the cleanest ways to get churches out of the marriage business is to use the existing dichotomy of "civil union" (with special civil status only) and "(church) marriage" (with special status within the church only). To me, this would be a tremendous step forward toward secularism. Let's call this the SOCAS (separation of church and state) approach to the problem. There is a specific use of vocabulary in this approach, but it is about much more than mere words.

    When gay marriage started gaining momentum, and when some of the earliest advances in that campaign involved civil union law, I am unapologetic for believing that if the goal is civil and social equality, then SOCAS would be a tremendous shortcut to the process. I think that to a certain extent, the movement was going in that direction.

    I also maintain that if you are a committed member of a church that will almost certainly never recognize gay marriage, then being in a same-sex marriage recognized by the state will be a very mixed experience, since according to your religion, there will still be no marriage. This is exactly as it is already in some places with civil unions and how it would be under the SOCAS approach.

    To me, the SOCAS approach is much, much cleaner. It neatly divides the issue of rights from the issue of sacraments. It would benefit the nation as a whole as well as same sex couples.

    But, if it offends some, then I regret that.

    Greg Shenaut

    P.S. It occurs to me that another way of viewing this issue is that we each have our own issues that are foremost. For me, it's wanting atheists to be fully equal in our society; for others, it's wanting gays to be fully equal. But it's all about seeking equality for everyone, and there is no denying that even if I feel a sense of loss that the movement seems to veered away from an approach that would have advanced my own issues, the recognition of gay marriage is an undeniable victory for the progressive movement as a whole.

    •  Ech. (0+ / 0-)

      One of the cleanest ways to get churches out of the marriage business is to use the existing dichotomy of "civil union" (with special civil status only) and "(church) marriage" (with special status within the church only).

      But that would simply lock atheists and other irreligious people out of marriage entirely. That's a terrible outcome.

      As plenty of experts pointed out in the California case, the institution of marriage has never actually been a religious one in the United States. Trying to solve the serious problems that religions cause when they deprive gays (or, previously, interracial couples, etc.) of marriage by depriving a different minority of marriage is not a good idea at all.

      I'm a married atheist. Please keep your hands off my marriage.


      Several experts testified that the State of California and California’s gay and lesbian population suffer because domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. Badgett explained that gays and lesbians are less likely to enter domestic partnerships than to marry, meaning fewer gays and lesbians have the protection of a state-recognized relationship. Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships. Meyer testified that domestic partnerships actually stigmatize gays and lesbians even when enacted for the purpose of providing rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Cott explained that domestic partnerships cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning. Peplau testified that little of the cultural esteem surrounding marriage adheres to domestic partnerships.

      To illustrate his opinion that domestic partnerships are viewed by society as different from marriage, Herek pointed to a letter sent by the California Secretary of State to registered domestic partners in 2004 informing them of upcoming changes to the law and suggesting dissolution of their partnership to avoid any unwanted financial effects. Tr 2047:15-2048:5, PX2265 (Letter from Kevin Shelley, California Secretary of State, to Registered Domestic Partners). Herek concluded that a similar letter to married couples would not have suggested divorce. Tr 2048:6-13.

      The experts’ testimony on domestic partnerships is consistent with the testimony of plaintiffs, who explained that domestic partnerships do not satisfy their desire to marry. Stier, who has a registered domestic partnership with Perry, explained that “there is certainly nothing about domestic partnership * * * that indicates the love and commitment that are inherent in marriage.” Tr 171:8-11. Proponents did not challenge plaintiffs’ experts on the point that marriage is a socially superior status to domestic partnership; indeed, proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.

      - Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No C 09-2292 VRW (D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010), slip op. at 18-20 (emphasis added).


      For me, it's wanting atheists to be fully equal in our society....

      Then it's very odd that you are suggesting we be excluded from marriage.

      •  If marriage is a sacrament (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        then atheists are excluded by choice.

        The important thing is (1) how one's relationship is viewed by one's peers, and (2) one's legal status in the society. Nonatheists also might include (3) having the blessing of the church.

        The law can only address one's legal status. It can't change how people will view things and it can't obtain or deny the church's blessings.

        The big problem, most of the uproar, is that for centuries, the churches claimed control over marriage as one of their sacraments. The movement toward secular marriage in and of itself has bothered many religious people. There are many people who today don't think that a non-church marriage is "real". There are people who have divorced who are still considered married in the church(es) and people who are married civilly who are not so considered by the church(es).

        My position on this for decades has been, given how intertwined the church has been with marriage, and how upset religious people get about letting certain people marry or divorce, why not simply give them the damn word? (At least as far as the law is concerned.) Let it be a religious sacrament and let the various churches interpret it as they like, but remove any special status for people who have solely a religious marriage from the civil society. That is, marriage would have the same civil significance as baptism: none. (It has not always been the case that baptism had no civil significance, btw.) Let the law deal solely with people's civil status.

        Under the law, you'd be in a civil union. In some churches, they'd probably recognize it as a marriage, in some they would not. If you wanted to call it "marriage", well, there'd be nothing to preventing it. You'd be free to use or to avoid "husband" and "wife". I'm not talking about changing any cultural traditions, I'm talking only about the universe of technical legal terminology. The traditional legal category of "married" would simply become inoperative.

        A useful comparison might be with the "godparent" relationship, which as far as I know, has no legal existence today in the US. It is a traditional relationship, which at one time and in some places may have had some relationship with civil law, and which stems from certain religious traditions. There are similar civil relationships (guardian, ward), and it is far from unknown for a godparent to become a legal guardian. Basically, I think the goal should be for godparenthood:marriage::guardianship:civil union.

        Greg Shenaut

        •  What? (0+ / 0-)

          If marriage is a sacrament then atheists are excluded by choice.

          That's nonsense. Marriage is a "sacrament" within various religious traditions. It also happens to be a civil institution, and--as the Northern District of California just held--it always has been, for the entire breadth of American history.

          Your argument is face-palmingly perverse: why in the world should atheists care whether some religion makes marriage a "sacrament"?


          The important thing is (1) how one's relationship is viewed by one's peers, and (2) one's legal status in the society.

          Indeed. The California court heard overwhelming testimony that no non-marriage construction approaches marriage in either (1) or (2). You conveniently ignore this.


          The law can only address one's legal status. It can't change how people will view things....

          Stuff and nonsense. You can't seriously believe that gay marriage law (the statute in New Hampshire, court decisions in other states, etc.) "can't change how people will view things." Again, all expert testimony is to the contrary.

          Legally recognized gay marriage does change "how people will view" gay marriage. That's the whole damn point.


          The big problem, most of the uproar, is that for centuries, the churches claimed control over marriage as one of their sacraments.

          Again, nonsense. Multiple religions include marriage as a sacrament. No religion holds "control over marriage" as a sacrament.

          Again, the perversity of an atheist advocating that we react to religions demanding control over marriage by giving them control over marriage is severe. Are you listening to yourself?


          My position on this for decades has been, given how intertwined the church has been with marriage, and how upset religious people get about letting certain people marry or divorce, why not simply give them the damn word?

          Read the California decision. Contemplate for a moment why gay people and those of us who support them are fighting so hard for that precise "damn word"!

          As was directly explained in the passage from the Perry decision I quoted for you above, the "damn word" has overwhelming consequences. Those consequences remain even if you insist on ignoring them.


          Under the law, you'd be in a civil union.

          Wake up. "Civil unions" are a disgusting attempt to render a despised group second-class citizens.

          You are advocating separate-but-equal treatment of atheists. Please think about the consequences of what you are suggesting.


          I'm talking only about the universe of technical legal terminology.

          That is precisely what drooling homophobes pushing civil unions on gay people whine. The problem is that reality testifies otherwise. "Technical legal terminology" has consequences, and the California court explained that (as had the California Supreme Court, Iowa Supreme Court, and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in earlier rulings).

          Marriage is a secular institution. Anyone who thinks he can change that without visiting severe consequences on irreligious people is simply not paying attention.


          Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

          The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

          Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

          Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.

          Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

          Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.

          Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and
          legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians.

          - Perry, slip op. at 80-103 (Findings of Fact 52, 54, 58, 60, 67, 68, and 78).

          Please, please read the Perry decision and notice how uncannily similar your proposal is to Proposition 8.


          If it's "technical legal terminology" you're interested in, possibly you'd be interested in knowing that your proposal is what's known as unconstitutional. Turner v. Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”).

          More to the point, though, your proposal is unconscionable. You will not shove atheists into the hole that gays and lesbians have been fighting brutally hard for decades to climb out of. We will not sit quietly if you help others destroy the relationships, and reinforce the second-class status, of atheists.

          As I said, keep your goddamn hands off of my marriage. Please.

          •  I guess I'll just have to classify this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego

            as yet another of those things I'll never understand.

            Cheers,
            Greg Shenaut

            •  I didn't ask you to (0+ / 0-)

              "understand" why millions of married atheists might not appreciate having their marriages ripped away from them. (Though it's a bit shocking that you don't.)

              I just asked you to keep your damn hands off of my marriage. Your blissful disregard for the realities of how marriage works in society does nothing to protect nonbelievers from the brutal consequences of the policy you advocate. Gays and lesbians in California are very lucky that Judge Walker didn't share your apathy.

  •  Gee, I always thought I supported equal rights (2+ / 0-)

    But I guess that since I have objected, for many years now, the idea that a priest or minister of Rabbi should have a key governmental function such as declaring people officially married, I guess I must hate gays after all.
    I thought I simply objected to having a justice of the peace have to invoke god and have a little ceremony when he declared my wife and I married, even though neither of us is at all religious and would have been quite fine with just paying a fee and filling out some forms. Sadly at least here, that wasn't an option and we had to go through what was to us, an annoying quazi-religious ceremony just to secure basic civil rights.
    Even though I fully support the rights of gay folks to do the same, and in fact fully support their right to marry, since that is in fact required now to get full rights, apparently the fact that I question the legitimacy of this church/state fusion makes me a bigot. Nice to know.

  •  I am not convinced by the diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beelzebud, fat old man, NearlyNormal

    I like to think of myself as a progressive. So naturally when someone is saying progressives are trying to take new found gay rights away, it catches my eye.

    It seems the keys to your argument are:
    Dkos is strictly a progressive web community.
    The President is a progressive and follows progressive policy.

    I think Dkos has a strong contingent of progressives and the President is more sympathetic to progressives than the last few Presidents we have had. Neither meets the threshold you seem to be espousing.

    I will admit I have not followed this Prop 8 discussion closely. If progressives are saying things such as "marriage is now meaningless because gays have the right", well that is just absurd to say.

    I can tell you that as a progressive, I have ALWAYS thought the government should not be in the marrying industry. Marriage should be privatized. Legal contracts of union between two people should be authorized and monitored by the government as part of the judicial/litigation process.

    My reasoning? I am an absolutist on the separation of church and state. Prop 8 was instituted by people that want the government to enforce their religion. The right often tries imposing their religious values while hypocritically hating on the muslim faith for allegedly doing the same thing.

    The role of government should never be about the sanctity of anything. Legislators don't sanctify, preachers do.

    -7.5 -7.28, Democratic Socialism...It's not just for Europeans.

    by Blueslide on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:34:24 AM PDT

    •  Many posted the same sentiments... (0+ / 0-)

      while I was ploddingly typing out my semi-scattered and un-caffeinated thoughts. That is why I come to Kos...I get both the reflection of differing views and the support of my own.

      -7.5 -7.28, Democratic Socialism...It's not just for Europeans.

      by Blueslide on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:39:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Civil Marriage (0+ / 0-)

      Civil marriage and religious marriage are already different things. Civil marriage is a legal contract that is authorized and monitored by the government. Civil marriage is secular and independent of church definition. This ruling just emphasized that fact and didn't even bring up religion except to say religion is the primary source of discrimination against gays.

      If we were to completely privatize marriage, gays would still be discriminated against by private institutions even moreso as our marriages would only be valid at participating establishments.

      Marriages are what make people a family...legally. It's in the realm of adoption. It's a contract for the specific purpose of making two people legally related to each other and to their children if they're not biological.

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        At one point in time I married a woman from Paris and there were no religious symbols and our witnesses were two Vietnamese immigrants in the same court building. It was all about legal rights and culminated in my ex-wife having gained a permanent resident alien status, among many other rights.

        At this point in time, in a "reality-based" community, it's important to understand the word "marriage" cannot be separated from state, but it certainly can be separated from religion. indiemcemopants' argument stands.

        In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects. J. William Fulbright

        by crescentdave on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:34:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The fight was about much more than a word (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, high uintas, 4Freedom

    The fight was about rights, plain and simple. Every one should have an equal right to get married. No more, no less.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:51:56 AM PDT

  •  Those two diaries that you linked to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Psyche, lirtydies

    provided my first laugh of the day at their cluelessness: one for its pseudo-academic buffoonery and the other for its adolescent naivete about the value of marriage.

    And I noted that few people read them and fewer still recommended them.

    I might be older than you and have been around the block a few more times. I was in NYC in the early 80s when really serious shit tragedy "hit the fan" in the gay community. So I am much more sanguine, if no less happy, than you are about this week's ruling.

    It just another phase of the tide coming in: full marriage rights for same-sex couple will happen.  It's just a matter of time. My advice is to ignore the clueless noise from these fake "progressives" and hit the RW propaganda machine with the full force of your energy.

    Might I suggest something like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    "Americans...Deserve More than Obstruction and Partisan Game-Playing"

    by Glinda on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:53:47 AM PDT

  •  Anyone who says that the court ruling (5+ / 0-)

    was NOT a big victory for gay people is out of their minds. How anyone could say that the ruling was a win for women boggles the mind. The only women who benefited from this ruling were lesbians, just as the only men who benefited were gays. This recent ruling was a HUGE step toward marriage equality for ALL, not just for those who are attracted to the opposite sex.

    I guess that, even among progressives, the "ick factor" of homosexuality still runs strong. Personally, I celebrate this victory with my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. The only thing that could be better, in my opinion, would be if this ruling could be made the law of the land, and EVERYONE was able to marry the person he/she loved.

    "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi -9.38/-6.26

    by LynneK on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:55:38 AM PDT

  •  welcome to the civil rights struggle (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CoolOnion, m00finsan

    where everyone wants to take credit for everything.

    With Sarah Palin paying so much attention to Obama's balls, will Todd Palin begin to feel left out?

    by mim5677 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:55:53 AM PDT

  •  Indie, you're absolutely correct. (7+ / 0-)

    And for those who feel that marriage equality somehow cheapens their heterosexual marriage, I would suggest that what really cheapens marriage is the availability of inexpensive and quick no-fault divorce. No one wants to talk about banning that, you'll notice.

    Thanks for the diary. EQUALITY NOW!

    Commonmass is able to receive a gift subscription.

    by commonmass on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 08:44:17 AM PDT

  •  Why don't people try to understand what they're (5+ / 0-)

    talking about before they opine on the matter -- that's what I want to know.  Or even just THINK about it?  I support the diarist completely.

    1.  Marriage is already a civil institution.  Marriage is NOT religious in the United States except in the eyes of the religiously married -- having a religious marriage is OPTIONAL, but makes no difference as far as the state or federal government sees marriage.  To differentiate between civil marriage and religious marriage or to try is meaningless.
    1.  Do people truly understand what they're proposing when they want to "get government out of the marriage business"?  While we're at it, why don't we build a stargate to Alpha Centauri out of toothpicks?!  Married versus non-married status is essential for thousands and thousands of functions, to change every one of those functions is a ridiculous proposal.  What about just one example -- custody of children.  Should everyone involved with the parents of children in any way have to understand, with a waiver or something, just who has custody of those children?  What about schools?  What about hospitals?  What about airplane rides for unaccompanied minors?  And that's just one thing.  People understand societal duties and rights between spouses within the context of marriage.  What are you going to do .. brainwash millions of people who have understood relationships within a certain context their entire lives?

    "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 08:48:40 AM PDT

  •  The word IS IMPORTANT, because it provides (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies

    legal, cultural, and emotional support ... it provides legitimacy and validtion for the sanctity of the union ... and to deny ANY HUMANS this sanctity, is a denial of ther basic human rights, no less than chains of slavery.

    Words have power ... and a singular word ~ MARRIAGE ~ can transform, over time, the very nature of how LGTB relations are respected on our planet.

    So, yeah, this war is that important.

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 08:49:26 AM PDT

  •  Amen. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies

    This whole fight is over the word marriage and I'm getting so tired of my so-called progressive allies wanting to take this victory from us. So, just stop it. We will not allow this campaign that reeks of "now that gays are allowed to get married, marriage is essentially meaningless and should be eliminated" to keep going or to get rid of the significant fight we've just won.

    I couldn't agree more.  My partner and I felt like we were married all over again when Prop. 8 was overturned. So fuck all of you who can't or won't recognize the colossal significance of this victory for the LGBT community.  This is our Loving v. Virginia, and just as before, love wins.

    Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

    by fou on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 08:55:22 AM PDT

  •  In Canada, we've had same sex marriages for (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Psyche, LeftofArizona, lirtydies

    five years now.  We're doing just fine, thank you very much.  

    Chill out.  Instead of trying to concoct elaborate workarounds just apply Occam's Razor (the simplest answer is often the correct answer).  Call it marriage and move on to serious stuff.  

    "It's a sight to see." Pres. Obama - Dec 8/09 and Jan 16/10

    by Observerinvancouver on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 08:59:35 AM PDT

  •  And, to the people who just won't stop this, (5+ / 0-)

    PLEASE stop hitching your anti-government-in-marriage argument to gay people wanting the same rights as everyone else.

    I get it.  You think marriage is an archaic institution.  You don't want the government involved in it.

    Fine.

    You want to get rid of marriage as a government function -- fucking start your own movement.  Stop interfering with and hitching your crusade to the gay rights movement.

    I think it's ridiculous, you do not -- fine.  You'll never succeed because of how integrated marital status is in our society.  But have it your own way.  Write your own diaries.  Have your own marches.  Just don't try to USE us to get your way.

    It's disrepectful to the millions of gay people who just want to be included to hijack the ENTIRE QUEST FOR OUR EQUAL TREATMENT on these grounds.  We are not fighting this so that you can have a hissy fit about government and religion.  We are fighting this so that we can be treated just like everyone else.

    And, I will point out -- the people who argue that it's a religious intrusion into society have many other things to talk about.  What about the Office of Faith Based Initiatives?  If your gig is that religion is too deeply embedded in government -- I am sympathetic to that point of view.  But there are a hundred other things, if you really care about religion in government, you could be doing, and there's a mysterious silence or at least lack of outrage about those things.  It seems a little disingenuous as an argument given the relative silence on real, pressing unarguably important issues on the matter of government and religious intertwining.

    "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:02:42 AM PDT

    •  Andy, the woman who wrote the diary arguing (0+ / 0-)

      that government has no business in marriage identified herself as a lesbian. Can we please stop with the ridiculous claim that this is an either/or argument?

      From the diary that this diarist is labeling homophobic:

      Most Americans of all orientations and ages have, for a long time, been redefining marriage on our own.  It’s about time the law catches up.

      Judge Vaughn Walker eloquently wrote that “Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”  This, like much of the ruling, brought tears to my eyes—a long-awaited herald of justice in a nation too often haunted by narrow intolerance.

      For myself, as someone in a same-sex couple, the official endorsement of my relationship’s equality is an important and lovely engagement in the event that I ever opt for state recognition of my romantic life.

      You can be pro-gay rights and think that governments should not be sanctioning marriage. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

      "I will fight for my country, but I will not lie for her. " -- Zora Neale Hurston

      by blueintheface on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:49:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The argument has nothing to do with gay people. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4kedtongue

        The entire argument is hijacking.  It is diary hijacking in the gay rights sense, and issue hijacking in the movement sense.

        The entire argument has nothing whatsoever to do with gay rights, whether government involvement in marriage is an issue raised by gay people or NOT.

        I find your entire response illogical.  

        Beyond this, attempting to sidetrack the issue of gay rights to something else is something I find suspicious.  The fact that it gets done so often, and almost never on its own, doubly so.

        "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

        by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:59:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "The argument has nothing to do w/ gay people?" (0+ / 0-)

          That is the whole point of this diary- that no one has the right to be pro-gay marriage, but anti-government involvement in marriage. The diarist even goes on to label that belief homophobic.

          I understand that the diarist is angry that some people are trying to cheapen the judicial victory by marriage equality advocates. I think he is right to be pissed off by the diaries he cited. But the argument that he is railing against was that expanding marriage doesn't provide inclusion for gay people. While I think it's a stupid argument, the original diarist was talking about securing gay rights. And to claim that someone who was talking about how to expand the rights of gays is homophobic because her argument is wrong is also wrong.

          "I will fight for my country, but I will not lie for her. " -- Zora Neale Hurston

          by blueintheface on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:01:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes - the role of government IN marriage has (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4kedtongue

            nothing whatsoever to do with gay people's inclusion in the existing institution.

            They are WHOLLY SEPARATE ARGUMENTS -- no matter who argues it.  Whether government should or should not "get out of the marriage business" (a stupidity in my view, but, whatever) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether GLBT people ought to be included in the existing institution, which, in whatever case, is not going away soon.

            It's the continuous bringing up of a total irrelevancy that smacks of homophobia, but that part is just the diarist's opinion, and one I happen to share.  

            However, what it is on its face and hard to make a matter of opinion is it's hijacking the argument to bring up something completely different when marriage equality is being argued -- at best.

            To link them is illogical, and to continue to insist on linking two separate subjects is an offensively illogical diversion.

            If one wants to argue for "getting the government out of the marriage business" this is not intrinsically linked to gay people, and it's only the battle for same sex equality that causes people to link it in the first place.  But marriage itself has nothing to do with gay people -- it has to do with people, period.

            In diaries that solely discuss marriage equality, to bring up the government's overall role in marriage is diary hijacking.  I can understand discussing it in this diary, since the diarist "opened the door", but it has nothing to do with gay marriage per se.

            "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

            by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 04:55:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a pretty fierce progressive. During the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pucknomad, m00finsan

    election, I phone-banked and canvassed for Obama. When it looked like Obama had things clinched, I switched to phone-banking and canvassing against prop 8 here in southern California. I consider the issue one of human rights, and like marriage. I was married once and liked it. I would do it again. If I have the right, and it is a right, then everybody should have the right, too. Or else it is not a right, it is a privilege. People who want to "do away with marriage" have their own axe to grind, and should back off of the people who have worked so hard for this basic human right. If somebody doesn't want to call what they have "marriage," fine, but that's where your rights stop and everybody else's start.

  •  Seems like you want a fight (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Psyche

    with a few people who have a different opinion, and maybe less of an understanding of the issue. That's your prerogative- but you might just want to ignore them if you consider the pros and cons of having an internecine quarrel at this point in time.

    I feel that sometimes the gay rights movement gets a little too focused on their one battle. That's justified of course- this is a huge civil rights issue, and this country treats its gay population inhumanely. When I put myself in their (fabulous) shoes, I can appreciate the stakes.

    But I also feel like the progressive movement is the best hope for gay rights...maybe not going about it the way you'd like, but its on your side (with a few confused exceptions). And remember, within the spectrum of the progressive coalition, there is a lot of other stuff on the table, and from my perspective we can't afford to go one issue at a time. You believe gay rights should be the highest priority; I happen to believe its climate change. What's key is having the meta conversation about what is the smartest strategy, without getting all bitchy about it.

    If you follow a strategy that wins court battles regarding gay rights, and if that jeopardizes our ability to move a climate bill through the Senate in our lifetime, I would kindly ask that you consider your actions in context. After all, there's no gay marriage on a dead planet. The point is, I like to think of the progressive movement as one that can walk and chew gum at the same time- we just need to be strategic about how getting several agenda items across the finish line simultaneously. So carry on, queer friends, and let's work together so that every tent in the progressive camp has a reason to celebrate some day soon.

    "I went down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon the son of Ariston..." -Socrates

    by polnorth on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:17:46 AM PDT

    •  I have never been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85

      a one issue person..not by any measure.

      But here is the one thing I know...if we are  not the absolutely fiercest advocates for our cause making it one of our primary focuses...no one else will do that for us. We will be on the back burner forever.

  •  why are we fighting over winning avictory? (4+ / 0-)

    Sorry, I just don't get it. I persoanlly didn't bother to read any dissenting voices on this issue, why do i need to be against something before I decide to be for it?

    And frankly I just don't get the whinge that its all about women? are women equal? has the ERA been passed? how long did it take for the Lily Ledbetter law to pass?

    why do we need to celebrate a HUGE victory by dissecting whether one group is more or less equal than another?

    This is a massive vitory. Celebrate it and if some don't feel it is, so be it. We ALL won.

  •  Hey I'm still celebrating (0+ / 0-)

    and the last thing that will divert me from civil rights issues is a crackpot diary about "Getting rid of all marriages".

    But you are also misunderstanding the President's position.  He supports equal rights for everyone but believes the term "marriage" should be reserved for man-woman unions.  And to him laws attempting to address these need to take on both parts of that and not just one side.

    I think you could do better by rewriting this:

    Even the President, the leader of the Democratic party and our mission, is unclear on this. His position seems to be that he "opposes same sex marriage" but "is for equality" but "wants gay people to call their marriages something else, but "wants them to have all the same rights as married couples."

    The problem is, that is what voters of Prop. 8 were voting for. That is what Prop. 8 did (well except for the fact that domestic partnerships are not "all the same rights" as married couples, but even then, there's no assurance that civil unions would have all the same rights, especially not with this conciliatory President and Congress. God knows what they'd decide to give up to Republicans who hate us.) So the president opposes Prop. 8, but holds the position that would lead someone to vote for it. But he's for equality. But equality under a different name.

    It seems to me that the reason he opposes Prop 8 is not so much for what is in it but what is NOT in it.  The only text of Prop 8 is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.".  It does nothing to recognize the civil rights of same sex unions and that is one reason the President says it is mean spirited.

    I don't see why his position - including the opposition to Prop 8 - are so hard to understand.

  •  My friend Curtis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Psyche, indiemcemopants

    who married his husband right before Prop Hate passed wrote very eloquently about why the word marriage is so important:

    Jeff and I have been together for 16 years now. And we’re not going to let this set back stop us from living the best life possible. We’re committed to each other, regardless of what strangers or the government says.

    Still the term "marriage" matters and I will tell you why.

    At the time of our wedding, Jeff and I had been together over 14 years, but his parents, who are conservative Christians, had never fully accepted our relationship. While this frustrated us, we did the best we could to deal with it.

    That fall, his parents came out from Chicago for their annual Thanksgiving pilgrimage. They invited us to spend the weekend with them at their desert home. In previous years, we would have said yes and put up with his crazy extended family, visits to Pechanga and cleaning their house.

    However, this year was different. It was just a few weeks after the passage of Prop 8. His parents had heard from his sister that we had gotten married. But not once did they send congratulations. Not a card. Not a phone call. Nothing.

    I felt that we needed to put our foot down, so we said that if they could not even acknowledge our relationship, then we would not be spending Thanksgiving with them.

    They then begged us to come. We compromised and agreed to go for one night. When we got there, they did pat us on the back and said a few thank you’s. (It was still nothing compared to the big wedding they threw for their daughter, but it would have to do.)

    Anyway, the next morning, as we were preparing to leave, his parents asked us to sit down, just the four of us. They wanted to talk. I wasn’t sure what to expect. After all, they had been saying crazy things for years.

    Well, the first thing they said was, "we wish you had told us about your wedding..." Not a bad statement. Then they added... "We wish you had told us so we could have stopped you." Okay. Where are the car keys? But before we could get up to leave, they turned to me, "But since you went ahead and did this, we have no choice but to accept you as our son."

    Whoa! What just happened? A full 180-degree turn. All because of a simple word?

    Maybe that’s why the term "marriage" does matter. Because people get it. It’s no longer "roommates" or "special friend" or whatever. For my husband’s parents (notice I still can’t quite call them my in-laws), now that we were married, they finally got it. It was about forming our own family and building a life together and spending holidays together.

  •  Prediction: Gay marriage will be legal everywhere (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Psyche

    ... in five years, and in 10 years (or less) people will all be wondering what the fuss was about anyway.

    FWIW, I see a major generational divide on this issue. Folks my age and younger, with few exceptions, just don't see why gays and lesbians shouldn't have the same equal rights as any other citizen. (Sorry about the double-negative in that last sentence, but you know what I mean.) Generally speaking, it's only the oldest and least educated among us who still oppose gay marriage, and most homophobes with that mind-set are dying off every day.

    Peace. And good luck with the inevitable Supreme Court appeal. With John Roberts as Chief Justice, I am nervous about how that ruling will go, but am also confident that equal rights will win in the end. As one of our great leaders said, the arc of progress is sometimes long, but it bends toward justice.

  •  Thank you Indie (0+ / 0-)

    When you're hot, you're on fire!

    I'm as disgusted as you are with our so called friends.

    not another dime to the dnc, dscc, dccc until i have my civil rights.

    by scooter in brooklyn on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:00:47 AM PDT

  •  I am celebrating (2+ / 0-)

    the prop 8 decision as a victory.
    I have been active in fighting for same-sex marriages.

    But, I actually do believe, and have believed for a very long time, that the government has no business deputizing priests, rabbi's and ministers to conduct government business.

    I think everyone should get civil unions.  That said, I know that will never happen, so I support equality in marriage instead.

    Phrased more simply, my first priority is marriage equality, my second priority is the separation of church and state.  I find it sad that our country cannot separate religious and governmental functions, but never-the-less I celebrate the ability for gays to marry.

    Feel free to disagree with me, but do not call me homophobic for believing that marriage isn't the business of government.

     

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:10:44 AM PDT

  •  If Anyone Had Any Doubt That The New Mantra (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indiemcemopants

    here at Dkos is to "eliminate marriage now that those gays had a ruling for marriage in their favor" take a look at the comments in today's Dkos front page story.  It vindicates the premise of this diary.  One commenter even suggested that gays and lesbians wouldn't be happy if everyone (gay and straight) had to have a civil union because the gays need the "emotional" factor of marriage.

    I think civil unions should afford gays all the rights that marriage affords.  The hope is that that would put this issue to bed.

    However, something tells me it wouldn't be the end of it.  Soemthing tells me gays want the emotional affects that being "married" brings.  Even though it's said that this is about rights, I think it would be proven that even if all rights were afforded by civil unions, that still wouldn't be enough.

    Just as gay marriage opponents may need to be more open and honest, so too should gay marriage proponents.

    by PalmG on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:15:21 AM PDT

    The same commenter then continues:

    I am not opposed to "gays experiencing th same emotional joy."  I just think they can experience that joy through the life-long vows civil uinons provide, just as straights do from marriage.

    My point is, you can't on one hand say you want in on this historical staple of society, then on the other not accept its history.  The HISTORY is that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Why then can't that remain in tact, and allow gays to have that same "joy" with the more modern "civil union?"

    I don't understand why that is not possible.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  So one commenter makes that the mantra here? (0+ / 0-)

      The idea that the entire population of this site has a mantra of "eliminate marriage now that those gays had a ruling for marriage in their favor" is completely bullshit.  

      New mantra, my ass....

      This type of shit reminds me of when Bill O'Rielly would find one inflammatory comment here, and then declare that the entire site is extremist.

      The United States: A wholly owned subsidiary of British Petroleum.

      by Beelzebud on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:37:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If You Had Read This Diary (0+ / 0-)

        the diarist includes many referencing to this mantra.  

        My point is that even more examples are appearing.

        But hey you can stick with your mantra about your ass.

        250 is the new 180

        by kerplunk on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:45:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh ok, I guess you're right. (0+ / 0-)

          Let's just paint with a broad brush, and label the entire site based on a tiny minority of the people here.

          Be my guest.  

          Even though the front page story was in full support of marriage equality, and a large majority of the people posting support it.  

          Yep, the new mantra here is "eliminate marriage now that those gays had a ruling for marriage in their favor".   Might want to let AngryMouse know, so she can get with the program for the next front page post about the issue...

          The United States: A wholly owned subsidiary of British Petroleum.

          by Beelzebud on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:48:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  A modest suggestion... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego

    if it hasn't been done already.

    Some debate is good. It provides a way for people to air (and perhaps reexamine and sharpen their views) and it can serve an educational purpose. OTOH, it may also contribute to divisiveness in the community by causing people to become defensive, dig in their heels and become more intransigent about their own view being the correct one. It also seems that assumptions are being made about what views are held and how many hold them. Obviously, we're not likely to all be on the same page.

    Sorry, but I didn't have time to wade through all the comments in this diary, so perhaps the suggestion has been made already. If so, please forgive me. What I suggest is that all the major alternative opinions and semantic labels be gathered up and proffered as options in a poll, with every attempt made to get as many Kossaks as possible to vote for the view they hold. One of the reasons I'm suggesting this now is that, unless I'm wrong, the Walker ruling may have a big impact on people's perceptions and opinions. Although it's already a bit late for a baseline poll, at least we could get an early read and then repeat the poll in a few months to see if there is any shift in community opinion. We also wouldn't have to be guessing about the prevalence of various views.

    If you're up for it Indie, I'd be happy to help you pull it together. You've invested a lot of time and energy in this project and it would be really helpful to at least get some community "snapshots" out of it and see if there are trends. Sorry also if this verges on meta.

    The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking. John Kenneth Galbraith

    by Psyche on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:17:32 AM PDT

  •  I have to admit that I've missed (0+ / 0-)

    those diaries you referred to.  If that's really what's being said in the Progressive community, shame on us.

    I also wasn't aware that the president had weighed in on this again.  I'll write again.  Although I consider myself to be a strong supporter of President Obama, this is one of those areas where I'm unabashedly critical of his position, and I write to the WH every time I hear him say he's in the "1 man and 1 woman" marriage club.

    I hope that what you're reading and experiencing is a temporary aberration.  It really is hard for me to believe that large numbers of progressives are unsympathetic to your position.  

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:53:41 AM PDT

  •  Where are the diary police? (0+ / 0-)

    How can this diary exist without the diary police flaming the crap out of it for failing to provide links to those being excoriated and for chastising a huge portion of the US population based on the writings of a handful of people, none of which really have self identified as Progressives in the writings complained of?

    Oh, that's right, the diary police are really just the cheerleaders who use their diary police tactics to shout down Progressive voices, and this diary bitches about baselessly bitches about Progressives, so it's all good with the diary police.

    For a second there I forgot how this hell hole works these days.  

  •  And yet those diaries dropped off the rec list (0+ / 0-)

    and as of now the rec list has 2 diaries that support it, and the front page has a great post in support of marriage equality.

    Yep, that progressive movement is surly full of homophobic bigots!  Especially here!

    The United States: A wholly owned subsidiary of British Petroleum.

    by Beelzebud on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:14:15 PM PDT

Pat K California, norm, Renee, JekyllnHyde, KySeattle, Danny Boy, Marc in CA, From the choir, raboof, LeislerNYC, pucknomad, grollen, slinkerwink, AaronInSanDiego, gustafgrapple, SaveDemocracy, musing85, Robert Ullmann, mattman, newjeffct, tnichlsn, LEP, adkay, KateG, mslat27, celdd, denniswine, azale, Rachael7, recentdemocrat, lawnorder, theran, Rieux, Matilda, mataliandy, expatjourno, linc, erinmblair, rasbobbo, opinionated, cfm, concernedamerican, bronte17, Silvan Elf, medaka, rktect, wonkydonkey, understandinglife, DaleA, CoolOnion, LeftofArizona, Larry Bailey, nargel, redux, Fe, Random Excess, lirtydies, KathleenM1, Texknight, danthrax, texasmom, peterborocanuck, Steven Payne, RenaRF, lcrp, porsupah, DMiller, outragedinSF, Oaktown Girl, gavodotcom, xyz, lyvwyr101, justmy2, homogenius, vacantlook, Julie Gulden, julifolo, nailbender, CPT Doom, joanneleon, Fabian, chumley, Simian, ArchiPup, CTPatriot, democracy inaction, Technowitch, Militarytracy, craigkg, snacksandpop, Laurence Lewis, eru, Dem Beans, dew, Overseas, LunkHead, paxpdx, Carnivorous Plantling, Geekesque, Savvy813, power model, Ginny in CO, mph2005, FindingMyVoice, kerplunk, Hannibal, Detroit Mark, reddbierd, SoulCatcher, rserven, Shirl In Idaho, redcedar, keeplaughing, vigilant meerkat, ferallike, dharmafarmer, andydoubtless, koNko, droopyd, fiddler crabby, fou, Hobbitfoot, blueoasis, triv33, 4Freedom, figleef, plf515, bleeding heart, AndyS In Colorado, MBNYC, Cenobyte, JugOPunch, emsprater, ShowMe, Stripe, Johnathan Ivan, rkh, Opposite Reaction, BentLiberal, sephius1, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, EdSF, Sydserious, Richard Lyon, Nespolo, Cofcos, Matt Z, hold tight, Jimdotz, ezdidit, Steve Simitzis, dclawyer06, DWG, sfbob, joyful, joedemocrat, newpioneer, Strabo, NoMoJoe, artisan, rainmanjr, jayden, steamkettle, st minutia, martyinsfo, mauro7inf, mlv1055, millwood, Moderation, gchaucer2, RudiB, Rumarhazzit, uciguy30, leonard145b, Puffin, keikekaze, LoLoLaLa, oxon, Terra Mystica, roycej, VelvetElvis, Scioto, scooter in brooklyn, GlowNZ, bythesea, elwior, blindyone, slapper95, mikeconwell, MrJayTee, bluesheep, Missys Brother, Tam in CA, mofembot, Gemina13, kyril, luckylizard, nokkonwud, punkdavid, JamieG from Md, palantir, Ellinorianne, Mike Taylor, DavidW, ZhenRen, lostboyjim, LaFeminista, Rei, Mrs M, Rhysling, smellybeast, DontTaseMeBro, Neon Vincent, socalmonk, Boudicia Dark, Norm in Chicago, h bridges, jodygirl, CamillesDad1, JesseCW, DefendOurConstitution, beijingbetty, moonheart, MKSinSA, Kalex, borndem, jazzence, sanglug, billssha, Keith Pickering, synductive99, Kiku, vadasz, ArthurPoet, breakingsong, angel d, deviant24x, citisven, Leftcandid, nocynicism, Culebrito Blanco, commonmass, lmalave, FogCityJohn, p gorden lippy, stegro,