Updated: November 6, 2008
A majority of California voters are backing a ballot measure to once again ban gay marriage in the state.
Barack Obama, 47, is the first black (or biracial) man to win the US presidency. On the eve of the Nov 4 election, he said in an interview with MTV that although he does not support same-sex marriage, he opposed the proposition on the ballot in California. ''When you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America is about.'' He supports civil unions between same-sex couples ''that provide legal rights to same-sex couples (so) that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, (so) they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners.''
Earlier in the year, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling making such marriages legal under the state's constitution. An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples have married under the new laws in the last several months.
If Prop 8 passes, it is unclear what would happen to the status of gay marriages performed in California. The state attorney general, Jerry Brown, has said in media reports that those marriages would remain valid. But gay rights activists said they fear lawsuits could be filed to dissolve them.
Only three state ballots included questions on same-sex marriage this year, compared with eight in 2006 and 11 in 2004. In Florida and Arizona, the majority of voters on Tuesday support amending the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. Supporters say amending the state constitutions is to prevent court rulings allowing same-sex marriage like those in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled to allow same-sex marriage legal last month.
Observers say California's vote on the issue is expected to have a far greater impact on how same-sex marriage will be received elsewhere.
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
And they need to know about PROP 8 because hets in every country will learn and use this kind of methods to keep you little gay fish dried and stiff like pins.
"THANKS FOR THE GOOD LAUGH"
I'd cry if I wasn't so angry, and though it doesn't make me feel ashamed to be American, it makes me feel ashamed for the Americans that voted yes.
Even watching some publicity for Proposition 8 was disgusting, due to the manipulative arguments and deceiving. This is the kind of people who won.
The Mormon Church and Focus On Family fought this like a trapped dog with no place left to run, and gay people didn't really put up as spirited a fight until it's late in the game.
Black people fought long and hard to get to an Obama. Are gay people willing to do the same?
But everything is transcient... What can be done can be undone.
With an increasing number of countries legalizing gay marriage and a sympathetic Obama administration, who knows what we will see?
In 2 years: Proposition 9 to change California's constitution to "Marriage is between two adult consenting individuals"?
;)
For gay Americans, we we will have to wait at least four more years for a leader who views gay marriage rights as an issue of human rights. On this point, Barack Obama exudes no aura of invincibility, merely irony if not hypocrisy. For there was once a time when white Americans also refused to couch the black struggle for equality in the language of human rights--after all, blacks were not humans, but mere animal niggers only good for the plantation. Only with the passage of time, as black people were proven to be 100% genetically human, were black people's issues properly framed as human rights issues.
How sad that it appears we have learned so little since then. Do we really want to propagate a society where science is the final arbiter--the only arbiter--on matters of the human heart? Does it really need to be proven that humans are born gay before gay individuals are accorded all the rights and privileges of human beings?
As excited as I was yesterday, I knew that my support of Barack Obama could only be qualified at best. I am proud that America has gotten to a point where a half black/half white creature like Barack Obama, once considered an abominable perversion of God's genetic powers by America's Supreme Court justices, will now be living in that building called the Lily White House. All those black Americans who thought "not in my lifetime" were proven wrong yesterday. And so, despite my newfound expectations that go with an Obama presidency, I can't help but to be left wondering if I will see something equally wonderful in my lifetime.
The religious nuts fought hard for Prop 8 to pass. They fought like it's their last stand, and in many ways it is. Abortion is an issue that they cannot win, and the Republicans lost big time. For the fundamentalist religious bullies, gay people are the only sissies left in the school yard that can't or won't fight back.
Just days ago, in Penang Malaysia, the Malaysian police, being utterly incapable of fighting real criminals, picked on gays in a sauna raid. Once again, we're identified as a bunch of wuss that dare not retaliate.
In the end, I decided I'm just going to be happy with Obama winning. It took decades after the first black woman refused to play by the white men's rules before a black man finally becomes president. The black people - they fought and sacrificed - they earned this respect.
The message I got yesterday was this: gay people cannot sit back and expect others to give us respect. Obama's victory may be an inspiration to all of us, but it is chiefly an African American victory, not a gay victory. Like the black folks in America, respect is hard-earned.
And respect, my gay brothers and sisters, is more valuable than all the money in the world.
the only good news is that gay bachelor parties are still legal:) that was way more fun than the wedding anyway
finally, i must admit i need to take a breather with all my Cali friends getting married in a rush, my bank account get drained. . . one can only afford so many 300 USD setting of China from the Nieman Marcus Dept. Store Bridal registry. . . OMG most of my straight friends that got married in the last few months only registered at J.C. Penny's or Crate & Barrel!
I am not kidding, but I did see alot of excessive in the three weddings I did attend:)
but i personally will work harder . . .I mean maybe my bro should have had a simple wedding and just donated all that expensive wedding stuff to defeat Prop 8? i guess we will never know
Ellen and her beau only donated 100,000 USD to support Prop 8, so cheap they were! their wedding cost so much more
Michigan i am proud to say was the number three donor after Cali and New York! anyway, seems like you can only get married in the cold states these days
there was a proposition in california prop 2 that passed :
it creates a new state statute that prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. that allowed
anyway my friend wrote
"Today i am proud to be an american. With tears in my eyes and disgust in my heart. I live in california one of the most liberal states, and animals have more respect then gays."
Well, it was a narrow margin but it can be undone. There is a way to regain this right and as we speak, 3 lawsuits were already ongoing to overturn the ruling.
I agree with Megoville.... So I believe we have a challenging and long road ahead of us considering on how the blacks have fought long and hard to produce an Obama.
......................................................
The article, "Why Gay Marriage Was Defeated in California", appeared in the Time magazine recently.
Here's the link to the full article: [www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1856872,00.html?imw=Y]
A couple of reasons really stand out in the article, as turning points that can especially influence people who are undecided on which way to vote:
"...a group of San Francisco first-graders was taken to city hall to see their lesbian teacher marry her partner. Apparently the field trip was a parent's idea not the teacher's but the optics of the event were terrible for the gay side. It seemed like so much indoctrination..."
In other words, gays shot themselves in their own feet. They gave the impression that they were ready to "indoctrinate" young children into becoming gay. This would have appeared a real possibility to straight people, considering how gays are never tired of saying how "proud" they are to be gay and thereby conveying the impression that being gay is a "choice".
To continue:
"...That news came around the same time the pro-amendment forces were running a devastating ad showing a self-satisfied San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom shouting wild-eyed at a rally that same-sex marriage was inevitable "whether you like it or not." The announcer then said darkly, "It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory."
"Many fence sitters were turned off by Newsom's arrogance; blogger Andrew Sullivan attributed mid-October polls against the gay side to the "Newsom effect..."
So, with gays like this Newsom, the gay community doesn't need enemies. When he could have just as easily won the fence sitters over by appealing to their good sense, he instead turned them off by threatening to shove gay marriage down their throats.
Another reason that comes up is:
"...Part of the reason is that Obama inspired unprecedented numbers of African Americans to vote. Polls show that black voters are more likely to attend church than whites and less likely to be comfortable with equality for gay people. According to CNN, African Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin, 69% to 31%. High turnout of African Americans in Florida probably help explain that state's lopsided vote to ban same-sex weddings..."
Not sure what the solution to this last one can be.
However, it is quite clear that some of the biggest enemies of the gay community are to be found within the gay community itself; those selfish individuals who, against all good reasoning, insist on performing destructive acts in the name of freedom and liberation.
The same United States has just elevated a black man to the highest position in the country. Obama didn't have it easy either. But what are the lessons we can learn from his campaign?
For one thing, the Obama campaign MADE IT A POINT to make Obama appear AS NON-THREATENING AS POSSIBLE to the white man. This was a deliberate campaign strategy, and also fitted in well with his general nature. They wanted white people to feel comfortable with the idea of having Obama as President. They could very well have screamed that Obama would win whether they liked it or not. Why didn't they EVER do that? Because they realized it would have been stupid. It may have given someone a few seconds of satisfaction, but it would have cost them HEAVILY. So they kept their message very very consistent, knowing that perceptions counted and focusing on changing perceptions to their advantage.
Normal
Consistent
Comfortable
Non-threatening
"Inside, I'm just the same as you".
These are powerful words, that create powerful images in the mind while keeping away threatening images. Powerful words that got Obama the Presidency; won former racist voters over to his side.
How does the GAY community CHOOSE TO project itself; choose to be perceived?
Different
Abnormal
Threatening
Unpredictable
Ready to indoctrinate
Waiting impatiently to propagate its decadent values and win more "members"
As I've said many times, perceptions are more important than facts. But the gay community just doesn't get it, does it? Well, not to worry, they can still have their "Pride" ALL to themselves.
.
.
It seems to me we humans have lost all compassion for our fellow creatures on earth, especially for those that cannot speak for themselves or defend themselves. I'm talking about the animals that we eat.
Today we exploit these poor dumb creatures in order to pander to that one-inch piece of flesh in our mouths that we call the tongue. We cram them into tiny little cages where they live horrible lives before being slaughtered for our eating pleasure. Who speaks for these animals?
I wonder if you have any idea what it would feel like to be held practically immobile for your entire life, unable to even stretch your limbs?
Do you grudge the tiny little extra space that these animals may have won through the efforts of some people who are sensitized enough to feel their pain?
These animals were born to be free. We humans decided to exploit them in this way. Why? BECAUSE WE CAN.
Obviously some people don't mind treating animals like garbage, BECAUSE THEY CAN. Why then do we object when straight people treat us like garbage BECAUSE THEY CAN?
Today we gays have complete freedom to live as we like, work, enjoy life, eat, move around, whatever. And yet we would grudge a poor dumb animal a little extra space to stretch its limbs, when it was never meant to be caged in the first place.
People say that personal pain and suffering sensitize us to the pain of others. Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone. We only complain about the injustices heaped on us, while ignoring the injustices we ourselves heap on those who cannot even speak or defend themselves.
I often think the human race is nothing but a disease attacking this planet, and needs to be wiped out for real world peace.
by the way, dont quote Palin anymore, she is just ... "stupid" ... and i hardly ever use that word to describe people ... at all ...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage6-2008nov06,0,2331815.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop8-6-2008nov06,0,5635056.story
be strong, live healthily and long enough to see change! oh and of course, world peace, cure for all diseases, food for all and ... stop being in denial about global warming! ... and safe sex too! ... SPANKS
http://www.latimes.com
good morning everyone!
Obama won a clear majority in the election and a clear majority voted for the amendment to ban gay marriage.
To think if only they had a bit of patience and worked to change hearts and minds and build support for the idea of socially and legally recognized civil unions as an alternative to marriage maybe they would not be taking so many steps backwards today and fretting as many ( not all ) gay Californians are today.
No matter how badly we want something to be, marriage is in all cultures, societies and significant religions, a relationship between a man and a woman. Just because some may want it to be something different does not make it so... for example.... I can go to a restaurant and order lasagna and they bring me macaroni and cheese....no matter what they call it is not the same ..same with marriage.... even if WE think it can be between two individuals of one gender ....it isnt .... so get over it, move on and look inward to validate your love for each other, not for the affirmation of others that don't really matter to us.
What does it really matter what this union is called in legal terms? FOR A START, anyway? Civil union, marriage, or any other name-- what difference does it have to make at all?
The only places where this term is going to be used are in some official records and documents.
Otherwise:
What would prevent gay people from calling it marriage? NOTHING.
What would prevent gay people from printing and distributing "wedding invitations"? NOTHING.
What would prevent gay people from telling others that they are "married"? NOTHING.
What would prevent gay people from shopping for "wedding" presents? NOTHING.
What would prevent gay people from making their own "wedding video" or "wedding photo album" or whatever? NOTHING.
What would prevent gay people from printing their own personal "Marriage Certificates" and displaying them on the walls of their homes? NOTHING.
And finally, what would prevent gay people from settling for "civil union" for starters, and then, maybe 10 years down the line, when the public has got used to the idea of gay union and has found that it poses no threat to them after all, push for a change of name to "marriage"? NOTHING AT ALL.
Then what's the problem with accepting a name like civil union FOR STARTERS? NOTHING, really.
We have been taking an ALL OR NOTHING approach in this matter. Why don't we take the much better approach of progressing in stages, winning small battles until we end up winning the war?
Can we not imagine the analogy of a door being opened gradually rather than "slammed open"?
The problem with the so-called "gay community" is it is not really a community, and there is no central body to do any strategic thinking and planning with long-term vision. Rather, it is just a collection of iindividuals with no clear perspective on issues of concern to all. Without clear leadership I cannot see this "community" progressing as fast as it should be.
And do you realize that any single right concerning civil unions, even a small resemblance of it, comes from the fact that gays world-wide have been fighting for marriage equality, right?
Without it as a reference, we'd get nil.... And even what Obama spoke of giving vital rights that married couples have, would not even take place if this fight wasn't taking place...
Let me tell you a story. Once, i was anti-abortion. I believe we needed government to prepare people first, before allowing it to be at a person's own judgment.
One day i realized this: it will never happen, government will simply follow people. So, in order for people to become conscious and responsible about it, first there would have to be liberalization of it, and then mechanisms, including social and awareness ones, would take place.
And, remember that the people who proposed the ban on gay marriage, they were even using fraudulent means to get enough signatures to get the proposition in the ballot.
They'll do anything, forget about getting those people comfortable about the idea.
What will win eventually is our perseverance. Every year, that perseverance is bringing gains, world-wide.
Right now, they are contesting the result, while the fraudulent and manipulative ones are again claiming the unfairness of such appeal. Remember, they got to the point of challenging the protectors of the constitution. So do not give in to them.
Good luck.
i have to argue against this as well, but it's a disagreement between equals;).
In most cultures, marriage was not monogamous. So it has already changed. In most cultures, divorce was...non-existent. So if anyone wants to use the typical argument that "gay marriage" weakens the institution of marriage, that is plain hypocrisy that derives from autism.
Also, marriage comes from the conception that there are only women and men, two opposite genders. For decades we now know that besides two genders, there are two sexualities (and arguably 3, but we can also claim 3 genders as well).
Some also claim the reproductive capability of marriage, but again, plenty of people can't conceive.
Marriage used to be also about tribal exclusivity, land rights, and inheritance rights. Again, before even gays claimed the right to marry, this conception was overwhelmed by the heterosexuals themselves.
Finally, marriage was never a religious exclusive. It has it's roots way before any institutionalized religion took place. Same way as Christmas exists way before Christianity - it's called religious sincretism the adoption of cultural dates and symbols integrated into the new religion (don't know if this sociological term is right in English).
in any case, i don't even see myself getting married. but i wont sleep well if i don't stand for everyone having that right.
In fact, equal rights and civil unions may have come about even faster if we hadn't demanded "marriage" but had just made a perfectly reasonable demand for legal rights for gay partners the same as for straight married couples. That was the main point here, anyway: to ensure that gay partners were legally protected the same as straight ones. Gay people were always perfectly free to call that union "marriage" or whatever they liked, anyway, and nobody could have stopped them, or may even have wanted to stop them, from doing that.
Your point is like saying that women would have got equal rights faster if they had demanded a legislation that all men stayed at home and did the housework, or if they had demanded that men be denied the right to vote and only women be allowed to vote, and things like that.
Or, it's like saying, if you want to gain equal rights for blacks, you must start by demanding that all white people be turned into slaves and made to pick cotton. And then they will say, "Oh no, we can't do that, but we'll give you equality instead".
In principle, you're saying that the only way to get something is to ask for something more first; like bargaining with a street peddler.
Lots of things in life go through stages. Even women, making up 50% of the population, that is HALF of all of the human species, had to wait for CENTURIES before getting anywhere near the rights men have always enjoyed.
We have to be pragmatic on this issue. American legislation is significantly influenced by the sentiments of Christians who constitute the vast majority of the population. I don't see a need to collide head-on with this faction. There are smarter ways to achieve our objectives.
I still believe that "all or nothing" is a poor way to approach this problem.
your examples showed a downwards equality ("blacks should demand all right people turned to slaves"), and what i claim was an upward equality - of everyone having the same privileges, nobody losing any, which naturally is paved on the universality of equality, a concept that surpasses our still short lived struggle.
I completely respect that you disagree with an "all or nothing" approach. me too, because i think "nothing" is unacceptable and only happens when we curb to them, like it almost happened in Poland 3 years ago.(gay teachers not allowed to teach at school, etc)
Anyway, it's just 2 different perspectives, and probably there's no perfect approach for dealing with some irrational factors at stake in so many people's minds.
I commend your perspective though, for being realistic and practical.
Let's just hope for the best in the future
Maybe we should stop looking to the US for direction in the politics an culture of queerdom; as we should also for many aspects of politics (like the middle east etc.), instead we should consider looking at our pre-colonisation Asian history and culture and also the current European experience.
Yet, once again, the financial market is much more astute about Obama's win; plus ca change, le meme chose.
are you one of those who prefer to do nothing and afraid that things might just get better for the glt communities ? ... if the social, political, economical conditions improve for us ... alot of people will suddenly find themselves, sexless, dateless, and in short, practically less ... i sincerely hope you are not one of those ...
people spend money, time and their lives fighting for equality and against injustice ... they see something is wrong ... and obviously you dont ... so go on, enjoy your carefree ... taken for granted RIGHTS that without past sacrifices ... would have just fallen on your lap ...
you got it easy (or easier), you live in America ... many people dont get none ... their whole lives ... if you dont see the need to contribute constructively ... dont criticize others who do ...
you dont settle for anything thats less than equal ... or do you ? u like handouts ? ... would you like your pants shorter than everyone else's ? cause they are still pants! ... closetful of those ? :P
incidentally, the next battle ground is likely NY ...
"The problem with the so-called "gay community" is it is not really a community, and there is no central body to do any strategic thinking and planning with long-term vision. Rather, it is just a collection of iindividuals with no clear perspective on issues of concern to all. Without clear leadership I cannot see this "community" progressing as fast as it should be. "
the question now is ... would you like to volunteer yourself ? ... for anything ... at all ... you could be the elusive leader we are obviously lacking ... and people and institutions already existed for decades ... oh they just dont matter ... they obviously arent doing a good job and have since escaped your radar ...
i believe people are doing their best ... some more than others ... you for example, what have you done ? impress us ;)
with all your big talk ... why not put them into actions ... try to lead ... and see where it leads you ... and come to the forum again in ... 1 , 3, 5 or 10 years ... see how far you yourself would go and have gone ... it is only fair ... there wouldnt be any leaders till you came along ... now arent we glad ? ;)
... everyone gets equal lengths ... proper ones .. (say, a Tom Ford) ... oh wait, you are gay ... you get the shorter ones or those with unequal lengths ... the color ... ghastly, the trim ... disastrous, we decided yours should not match ours ... they are still pants ... wear them ... get used to them ... get comfortable in them ... THEY ARE STILL PANTS ;)
I do not believe in movements; that is correct. I think they are counter productive. I believe in living my life in a manner where I earn the respect and admiration of those around me by my actions and commitment to core values. To date it has worked quite well.
I find many around me that have very mixed feelings about homosexuality. When they find out I am a homosexual they often are surprised and in most cases I have not suffered any indignity in my treatment from most that know I am gay. They respect who I am as they know I must have struggled to accept my orientation.
In order to advance my interest, or those of some phantom community that does not really exist, as there must be dozens of varying interests and goals of a great gay "community", I do not need to impose what is good for me on others. I can simnply build my life with my partner.
Over the years I have seen the importance of political ideology and I have come to become a strong Republican with conservative thoughts, seeing that the root foundation of those political beliefs and the goal for action in those movements is smaller and less intrusive government.
I would rather keep health care private and to privatize social security so I can decide what is best for me and make my own decisions, rather than have the government or other voters decided ( be careful what you ask for ..... for example... see prop 8 ...the voters spoke loudly... the liberal voters of California, the electors of the most liberal President in American history, in fact EVERY place a ballot initiative has come to redefine marriage to allow same gender marriage has failed.
The movement just went down the toilet. They should try different tactics and approaches and remember that even if things look alike they are not alike and that the biggest delusion is believing something is true because we want it to be true. The thruth is true, simply because truth IS.
My brothers and sisters, don't give up! This struggle is not over by NO VOTE.
It's time to SPEAK UP LOUDLY...........
We don't need "approval" from state institution of our love to our someone special.
We can tell the holier than thou majority voters
to get a life and learn from humanity dark past history about bigotry, intolerance and discrimination upon others.
Our equal rights movement won't stop here.......
Those who want to get MARRIED, please do so
in front of your STATES CAPITOL accross the country,
KISS MORE in OPEN PUBLIC................
AND SUE more if somebody telling you, kissing between same sex partners in the public
is offensive
but not of the straight couples...............
Remember it takes decades and a lot of struggles and sacrifice
before AFRICAN AMERICANS can VOTE!
and an AFRICAN AMERICAN can be elected as a US PRESIDENT by LANDSLINE.............
Remember folks keep fighting for your rights !
It's time for global enlightenment...........
To free the minds of the people of hatred and intolerance
all in the name of self rightous faiths and God.
In 5 months the new law will be banned and there'll be no official record for Romeo and Julio for quite a while, or ever.
Brothers and sisters, be early birds.
Twitter dd coo...
In my case, I am thinking of gay rights in different countries and cultures around the world. There are a lot of gay people out there with practically no sane voice speaking on their behalf.
In countries like India, a gay relationship is even today ILLEGAL and punishable with upto life imprisonment. Yes, two guys found naked in bed together in India can spend the rest of their lives in jail if the law so chooses. To gays in such countries, the very idea that gays in some other countries turn their noses up at legal "civil unions" and pigheadedly fight for "marriage or nothing" would be incredible, even criminal.
Let's take an analogy of a kid in a candy store. Papa takes Kiddy to the store to buy candy. Now, Kiddy has seen the neighborhood bully munching on a particular type of candy. It is green, with three red spots on it. Kiddy wants EXACTLY the same candy as the bully. After all, bullies know best, right? But, for some reason the store is out of stock of that particular variety, though they do have lots of similar ones: red with green spots, green with orange spots, and so on. Papa offers all these to the kid, and also promises to keep coming back to the store and trying to find the green one with the three red spots.
But, NO!!!!!!!! Kiddy is furious.
I WANT THE GREEN ONE WITH THE THREE RED SPOTS ON IT!!!
NOW!!!
SAME CANDY OR NO CANDY!!!
Kiddy screams his head off and runs around the store throwing down everything he can lay his hands on. Finally papa loses his temper and gives kiddy a spanking and drags him out of the store, apologizing to the store keeper.
Most of us would probably understand Papa's logic here, and even give Kiddy the same advice: "Hey Kiddy, why don't you take these equally good candies, which taste exactly the same, and wait just a little while until Papa gets you those other candies as soon as possible?"
But we wouldn't want to apply our own advice in our own lives, it would appear.
In the gay community, these shrill "kiddy gays" cost other gay people heavily.
There are gay people out there who only want to ensure that their property does not end up with their homophobic relatives after their death. They would seek legislation that would ensure that they can WILL their property to their loving partners. But NO!!! Kiddy gays will fight to prevent any such legislation from coming into force. Just the legal right alone is not good enough, even for now. It MUST be called by a certain name in the legal document, and ONLY by that name.
"But Kiddy, you are free to call it whatever you like. Why don't you accept this for now, go ahead and call it what you like, and we can look at changing the document name later"?
NO!!! We want it NOW!!!
NOW!!! NOW!!! NOW!!!
Kiddy gays will tell this dying man, "Sorry, old dying gay man, but you just have to lose your property to your homophobic relatives. We caring gays will not allow any legislation protecting your rights unless it is called "marriage" in the legal document. Too bad for you, that your relatives who disowned you will gleefully grab your property when you die. But it is in the interests of the gay community after all, so just live with it. We mean, die with it, haha."
One thing that's a certainty in life, in addition to death and taxes, is that LIFE's NOT FAIR.
Humans throughout history have trampled on the rights of others, whether of human or animal life.
-People invaded other countries and occupied and looted them.
-Whites enslaved blacks.
-Women were treated as inferior to men, and were denied equal rights.
-Religious fanatics ran amok round the world trying to earn "brownie points" from their "loving Gods" by "converting" other people forcibly.
-Different communities within cultures were treated differently.
-Scientists were persecuted for "going against God" in propounding their scientific theories.
-Animals were, and continue to be, mistreated for the human being's pleasure.
Why did this happen? In each case, they did it because they could. In each case, any questions put to the perpetrators would have invited scorn, ridicule, contempt and even violence. For example, gay people who whine about unfairness would see no problem in subjecting animals to cruelty, and locking up birds in cages, and would treat any animal rights activists with contempt and derision, calling them 'tree huggers', etc.
In all these cases and more, if at all justice has been done and rights have been restored, it has Always come in stages, Never in a single stroke. In many cases, justice is still only partly done.
The gay community is today facing a similar trampling of rights by those who CAN do it. But it chooses to ignore the facts of life, and demands an ALL OR NOTHING solution ONLY.
Why do I use the animal rights case? Because, in many parts of the world, gays are regarded as no different from animals; lower than animals, in fact. Therefore, straight people would NO MORE defend gay rights than gay people would defend animal rights. The logic and reasoning offered in both situations would be strikingly similar.
"''When you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America is about.'' He supports civil unions between same-sex couples ''that provide legal rights to same-sex couples (so) that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, (so) they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners"
From those very words above, I think Obama is still tons better than 'jokers' McCain/ Palin lol.
Of course, people still have bad memories of the Clinton administration but I have a feeling this guy's far sharper - & tougher (watch how he deals with ugly smears & racist taunts during the campaign).
Add to that his flawless diplomatic skills & it really would be benefical for the American glbt community to support his stance.
Obama does appreciate and acknowledge gay people's fundamental right to lead their lives as they choose to. However, he is also constrained by the very real fact that the word "marriage" has HUGE emotional significance to a whole lot of people, arising from thousands of years of tradition, and he simply cannot wish that significance away in a jiffy.
We might as well say, "I don't believe in gravity, so if I step off a cliff I will float in air". A reality does not get nullified instantly just because a few of us feel it is wrong or unfair.
Many cultures, whether christian, muslim, hindu, whatever, comprising billions of people, have traditionally regarded marriage as a sort of "divine" relationship between a man and a woman. This association is not based on any scientific fact. Rather, it is an emotional one. They believe that there is some sort of "divine sanctity" in this very special relationship between a man and a woman. A WHOLE LOT of them, comprising billions, would fight tooth and nail to prevent anything from "sullying that sanctified relationship" as they see it.
Now, you can learn to live with it for the time being, and find perfectly practical alternative solutions to work around the problem. Like, for example, asking for a "civil union" that confers all the same rights to you as straight marriages confer. And then, feel free to go ahead and tell everyone that you are MARRIED, and NOBODY will stop you from doing that.
Let's get that straight: You can have a civil union conferring all rights on you, and you can still call it a marriage. Shout it out to the world if you like. Nobody can or will stop you from saying that you are married.
Or, you can fondly imagine, as some gay people seem to do, that just because you think this is unfair discrimination, you can simply wish it away. You can go and butt your head against this wall of billions, and just arouse their resentment and anger and turn them even more against you, by demanding that it must be EXACTLY the same as a marriage, literally down to the last letter in the legal document.
A lot of cultures around the world simply do not understand what being gay is. Very few countries in the world have meaningful sex education. Many straight people GENUINELY have all kinds of weird perceptions about this whole "gay" thing, including depraved personal choice, child molestation, sex with animals, and so on. So, the way a lot of straight people see it is, a bunch of depraved child molesters are demanding that their sordid relationships be put on the same level with the divine man-woman institution called marriage.
The gay community is just begging for a backlash. Yes, let's fight it out for some kind of narrow victory that will be overturned any moment. Let's arouse more hatred and resentment, more litigation and lawsuits against gay relationships; let's keep fighting even more and delaying any fair settlement, turn away even the sympathizers among the straight community, so that we can claim that we are right in principle.
The correction of every gross human rights violation in human history has often gone through many, many stages in moving from "unfair" to "fair", in some cases happening gradually over centuries. Why was that? Because, in each case, it took time for the perceptions of a significant number of people to change. Changes in attitude require changes in perception, and these often happen gradually, in stages, as each change takes effect.
The gay community can achieve a lot by accepting the reality of the human thinking process and by exercising a little patience and working with a clear long-term plan. We are a tiny minority and in no position to dictate terms. But no, we must have everything NOW. It must be "All or Nothing". And therein lies the problem.
As marriage is now not allowed then GBLT have no relationship rights in California.
This is a good thing ?????
Personally I see marriage as an outdated irrelevant str8 institution and no need for gay ppl to mimic it. But removing the entitlement of gay ppl once it has been granted is plainly wrong and stupid.
As for civil rights not depending on campaigning does anyone seriously believe that women would have the vote without this or that black people would have equality if they had just politely waited ? There are no examples of any group getting their rights without pushing for them and campaigning, even losing their lives. You don't ask you don't get.
Biden said that gay ppl should be have civil unions in law, Palin just said she wouldn't oppose it. Subtle but significant difference, one was a positive commitment to do this the other was just not to oppose but not to initiate it either. In other words she wouldn't push for it but he would.
[www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1857980,00.html]
This article appeared after my last post, and I notice it concurs with the things I have posted in Fridae earlier.
PnCGWMen, I've always held the view that the word "marriage" was an old hand-me-down that the gay community could well do without.
Why not create our own vibrant new term for this relationship, where we can re-define everything to our advantage, rather than settle for this old thing where we have to keep explaining that we are married but our relationship is "different", we don't have things like "husband" or "wife", and so on?
I fully agree with you that we have to demand our rights. We do have to push for changes. But we must also know HOW MUCH to push; HOW FAR at a time. We need to understand the forces working for and against us, and proceed accordingly in stages.
Imagine the following scenario:
It's near the end of the American civil war, the Northerners are advancing down South, freeing slaves along the way.
Imagine the slaves then telling the Northern army:
"We do NOT want to be free unless you also make us COMPLETELY EQUAL to whites RIGHT NOW. So, we also demand the following, RIGHT NOW:
"Our children will study in the same schools as whites and get equal opportunities for education.
Blacks can apply for any jobs they like, and get equal opportunities as whites including the right to hire whites, and also get jobs where whites may serve under blacks.
Black people can marry with whites and have children.
Black people can run for President and have a fair election.
...
"Otherwise we REJECT the freedom you PRETEND TO offer, and we INSIST on remaining slaves!"
If the just-freed slaves had demanded these "rights" at that time, I doubt that you'd be having a Barack Obama for President today, to put it mildly.
Today there are places in the world where just to be known to be gay can be a punishable offence. And we want to go from that status to equality in marriage!
As the Time article says, every "freedom" this kind of gay movement "wins" will lead to a backlash elsewhere, something I've already pointed out.
Understand the forces at work. They will not disappear just because you choose to ignore them.
Just one issue ManFriday, America is not one of those countries where being gay is illegal so the leap to gay marriage is not too much to ask. I don't think there are any campaigns for gay marriage rights in countries where it is not even legal to have gay sex - is there ?
I have to say, I find the amount of homophobia in the US very disappointing and surprising, especially as the whole gay liberation movement took off there first in 1969 (Stonewall), well before gay rights movements did in Europe and yet those countries have made more progress towards equality, and protection from homophobia even, than in the "home of the free" and the home of gay lib.
what I do know is that he's not going to be reading your comments on here, and its a real shame how so many country and there power off authority live in the dinisores days
i quote "apparently civil unions are still recognised in California, so in terms of basic rights the passing of Prop 8 will make little difference - apart from the adverse publicity that it creates for gay people"
Well, after some wikipedia homework and resourcing online, it seems that civil unions carry less than half of the rights awarded to a married couple in the US. (Refer to the Elton John article and the respective comments if you care to know more about civil union rights in UK) On top of that , we have around168 already-married gay couples in California who are second-guessing the entire validity and meaning of their marriage.
But i do agree the damage (except to the 336 individuals abovementioned) done is mainly symbolic. It has proved that the progression of the gay movement is not always moving up a straight line. It can decelerate, stagnate or even regress. We can no longer complacently believe in "Give it a few more generations, and our full set of rights will be given". Prop 8 has more than amply proven that evolution might not always work in favor of equality. At this point, we should look at this whole incident from another perspective : Why were we stopped here? Why do 52% of the people object to gay marriage althought alot of them would not have voted for criminilisation of gay sex? Have we hit a raw nerve? Why was this right given and yet taken from us? Could there be another way around this obstacle? Or are we even headed in the right direction ie demanding certain rights that might be exclusively heterosexual?
The significance of this single event leaves more to be pondered upon.
Please log in to use this feature.