Gay Marriage - What Happens Next?

Like most here, I am severely disappointed in the decision reached by the State Court of Appeals in Maryland regarding the 1973 law banning same sex marriage.  By a narrow 4-3 vote the Court upheld the ban saying their is no state constitutional right for people to marry despite convincing arguments from the plaintiffs that the law violated their equal rights and denied them due process under the law.

Now I am not legal scholar so I'll let others get into the legal arguments.  And since I already support gay marriage I won't rehash the rationales for gay marriage that many have eloquently diared here on Daily Kos.  What I want to ask is what now?

Here is where the state of recognitions of gay relationships stands in the States.

Marriage   Massachusetts
Civil Unions         New Hampshire
                             Vermont
                             New Jersey
                             Connecticut
Domestic Partnership (Full) Oregon
                                               California
Domestic Partnership (Limited) Washington
                                                     Hawaii
                                                     District of Columbia

Marriage Legislation has been passed in California but today Gov. Arnold said he would veto the bill.

THE FUTURE

So with all that background here is what is upcoming in the near future.

State High Court Decisions

Connecticut (any day now)
California (early 2008)
Iowa (late 2008)

Marriage Legislation

California - will pass the bill again. But until Arnold is gone it will not be signed into law.

New Jersey - Governor Corzine says he want to have a debate / vote on a gay marriage bill in 2009.

New York - A gay marriage bill passed the state House but the Senate GOP blocked a vote this year.  If DEMS win control of the State Senate in 2008 a new vote on the Gov. Spitzer backed bill could happen in 2009.

Vermont - will consider a gay marriage bill sometime later in 2008 or 2009 once a state commission studying the issue reports back next year. However current GOP governor Jim Douglas vows to veto a gay marriage bill.

Connecticut - Assuming a bad ruling from their High Court, the DEM controlled legislature will take up as gay marriage bill which unfortunately GOP governor Jodi Rell has vowed to veto.

District of Columbia -  The new mayor Adrian Fenty support gay marriage and so does a majority of the city council.  But they are holding off from passing a law because of fear the Congress will overturn in (less likely is DEMS get stronger control of the US House next year)

Civil Unions Legislation

Maryland - Governor O'Malley supports civil unions and a bill will be introduced in the next legislative session.  With more liberal DEMS in control of the legislature a civil union bill could likely pass in the new year.

Illinois - A civil union bill is pending.  Gov. Blagojevich supports it and is pushing for its enactment from the DEM controlled legislature.

Washington - A civil union bill is likely to be considered in the next session as a step up from the weak domestic partership laws passed this year.  

Rhode Island - A civil union bill is pending but the fate is unclear.

New Mexico - A domestic partership bill will be reintroduced after almost passing this year.

So as you can see there is a lot of potential for advances in recognizing same sex couples in the next few years. Another encouraging fact is that as of this moment no anti-gay marriage amendments will be on the ballot in 2008.  Florida might face one if enough signatures are gathered but even still the amendment would have to get 60% support to be passed. According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll 56% of Floridian support civil unions so I don't see 60% voting to ban both gay marriage and civil unions as this proposed amendment would.  Arizona and Oregon could face amendments also.

Today had double setbacks but time is on the side of equality.  And another encouraging fact is American acceptance of the concept of recognizing gay relationships is already at majority level....most Americans support the idea of civil unions.  It is only a matter of time before they become fully comfortable with supporting full same sex marriage.  

To keep up with the fight for marriage equality please visit this great site.  

http://samesexmarriage.typepad.com/...

•  What Do You Think?

  I did a lot of research to put together a comprehensive status.

  by Cederico on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:03:05 PM PDT

  •  I think that the government has no

    truck in marriage.  Marriage is a religious sacrament, if one believes in that.  A contract is quite different, conferring legal rights on the legally interesting parties.  I advocate that marriage be relegated to whatever religion, of lack of thereof, to sort out the details.  A contract, on the other hand, is a legally binding document that requires certain stipulations.  The state should be concerned with legal stipulations, not religious sacraments.  Therefore, marriage is completely different than legal matters.  
    Regards, Doc.

    by Translator on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:46:41 PM PDT

    •  No, it's not.

      Marriage is a civil function. The state often allows houses of worship to officiate, but you will recall that just before a couple is pronounced married, the phrase "by the power invested in me by the state of ______" is uttered. That's not just because it sounds pretty, it's because the state decides what marriage is, who can get it, and who can perform one.

      And while in the Catholic Church marriage is a sacrament, for most Protestants it is not. Even for those who say that it is, it's a good chance their denomination only recognizes 2 things as sacraments: baptism and communion. There was this little thing called the Reformation, oh about a few hundred years ago. Among his numerous points, Martin Luther noted that of the 7 sacraments of the Catholic Church, only 2 could actually be claimed to be coming from Jesus.....baptism and communion.  Sorry, marriage isn't one of them.

      by pucknomad on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:58:59 PM PDT

      •  I understand what you are saying,

        but I think that government should rethink.  Only since the War between the States did government take over marriage.  It was a Church function previously, but then the Dominionists actually got a foothold.  Regards, Doc.

        by Translator on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:02:01 PM PDT

      •  I have no agrument with you,

        but in the best interests of all, let us allow marriage to be religious or not, and allow the exact same benefits devolve to those who contract it in the civil way.  That would take marriage out of government, and allow all to join with whom he or she would chose.  I am not sure that Luther was sane, anyway, and the number of sacraments seems to me to be arbitrary at best, depending on your particular saint.  Regards, Doc.

        by Translator on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:05:36 PM PDT

    •  You should be right,

      but unfortunately you're not.

      I myself agree with Catkiller Frist here: Marriage is a sacrament, and the state should not truck in sacraments.  But until a huge majority of Americans comes to that strikingly logical conclusion, extending marriage to same-sex couples remains a necessity.

      by corvo on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:22:07 PM PDT

    •  Right. Gays are already married.

      Gay people get married in religious ceremonies every day, and their religious ceremonies are not having any effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriages.

      What we need to do next is make sure that all married couples have the same legal rights--hospital visitation, the rights of inheritance, et al.

      I don't understand why that's such a hard concept.

      by CoolOnion on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:32:27 PM PDT

  •  I gave you some mojo, because

    you had a very well thought out diary.  I just still think that the government has not any business in the sacrament of marriage, but everything insofar as enforcing legal contracts.  Regards, Doc.

    by Translator on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:50:21 PM PDT

  •  I think that you did yeoman's

    job in assembling this.  It is a very difficult, convoluted, and emotional topic.  I do not know if I am qualified to comment, being neither straight nor gay, but I will say that the government has better things to do than to sanction religious attitudes.  Regards, Doc.

    by Translator on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:18:42 PM PDT

  •  First, I think you rock

    Second, I think I should get to vote on the marriage rights of people like Ghouliani, Britney Spears, Gingrich, McCain, et al.

    heh

    by PBnJ on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:25:27 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for doing that

    but I don't think it's going to happen in the  Maryland legislature under O'Malley, for a number of reasons. The first is the budget; that is going to suck all the air out of next year's legislative session. I also think the legislature is still too conservative to get this done, even among Democrats.

    If it will happen in the legislature, next year is the best chance. It's 3 years until an election. But there will be too many other contentious things.

    by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:13:50 PM PDT

•  As An Amateur Legal Scholar

  The fact that marriage equality doesn't exist on the national level offends me.

  by ChapiNation386 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:06:25 PM PDT

•  what's next? gay divorce, of course.

  by rasbobbo on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:10:12 PM PDT

  •  LOL!

    True. In fact the Rhode Island Supreme Court is considering that very issue regarding a gay Rhode Island couple who want to end their Massuchusetts wedding.

    by Cederico on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:14:51 PM PDT

  •  Wrong!

    I believe the first order of business after a gay marriage is a gay honeymoon.  Then mail the thank-you cards after you return.  That's what most "traditional" married couples do (at least that's what my wife told me).

    In all seriousness, what is the difference (other than the label) between a civil union and a "traditional" marriage performed by a justice of the peace or the like?

    by lonemorriscodem on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:20:18 PM PDT

    •  What's the difference?

      That is what I used to think until my partner and I got "married" in Alberta two years ago.  It was not a commitment ceremony or a civil union.  It was marriage.  This is what society recognizes.  This is what receives "social oxygen."

      Strangers in the town congratulated us. Friends sent gifts, cards and even faxes. The hotel sent us up champagne and a gift.  Someone made us a "Just Married" sign for the Jeep.

      You can say it is just semantics, but I now know better.

      by rf7777 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:26:24 PM PDT

      •  MA.

        me too - but the ceremony with the City Clerk of Boston in her very official office, and then the honeymoon cruise with many diverse wellwishers convinced me.  

        by scooter in brooklyn on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:48:03 PM PDT

    •  full faith and credit

      recognition across state lines.

      DOMA be damned.

      by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:16:08 PM PDT

      •  Good answer, thanks. n/t

        by lonemorriscodem on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:39:06 AM PDT

  •  The Musical?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    by ortcutt on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:05:46 PM PDT

    •  of course, only the movie, "the gay divorcee"

      with fred & ginger.

      by rasbobbo on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:14:34 PM PDT

•  We need to sit on this for now

  Seriously.  I know gay activists don't like to hear this, but gay marriage is a very unpopular issue out in Middle America.  You know, the kinds of places where we're going to need to win next year?  The kinds of places where we managed to elect a bunch of purple-blue representatives and senators last Fall?  

  I strongly believe that gay marriage lost us the 2004 election.  If we make it a major issue this year, it will ensure that we lose in places like Missouri and Ohio, places where we need to win if we're going to take back the White House.

  This is a triage situation, and in that kind of situation you set your priorities.  Ending the war, restoring the Constitution, establishing health care for every American – those should be our priorities.  By contrast, gay marriage is a luxury.  Making it a cornerstone of the progressive agenda will only guarantee that the entire progressive agenda – including the things I just listed – will be lost for at least another four years.  Can we afford another four years of GOP rule?

  We need to put the gay marriage thing on the back burner for the time being.  Choose your fights, and choose when to fight.

  And before anyone accuses me of being homophobic, etc., I'd like to point out that I am gay myself.  But that doesn't keep me from recognizing that we are a relatively small interest group, and one who's agenda is – for now, at least – a very difficult one for many Americans to accept.  Maybe we should work on that before we try to force gay marriage too early.

  by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:13:04 PM PDT

  •  While I see the merits

    of what you are saying, I don't think anytime is the right time to give up on someone's civil rights.
    You might want to read A Letter From A Birmingham Jail.

    by HugoDog on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:21:07 PM PDT

    •  Right to Habeas Corpus....

      ...or gay marriage (which you will not attain).

      Your choice.

      I'd go for restoration of the rights you had before instead of pushing for rights you do not have yet.

      Signed,

      A Gay Guy Who has Seen it All.

      by Bensdad on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:30:11 PM PDT

      •  False dicotomy

        This is not an either-or situation. There is not reason we can't have the restoration of full rights to habeas corpus AND full, equal marriage rights.

        by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:44:46 PM PDT

        •  True dichotomy...

          ...what on earth makes you think you can attain the right to marry before basic civil rights are restored. Basic civil rights will not be restored unless and until we can elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. If you push for Gay Marriage now, you can kiss your ass, your partner's ass and the the hope of a restoration of civil rights and a Democratic President goodbye.

          Pucker up.

          by Bensdad on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:04:54 PM PDT

          •  Marriage...

            is a basic civil right unless you want to dispute three separate Supreme Court rulings, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and its 50th anniversary successor) written after the horrors of WWII, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international, multilateral human rights treaty which has been signed and ratified by the U.S.

            by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:09:10 PM PDT

          •  Where's your time machine parked?

            And will it hold the majority of same-sex couples in this country who disagreed with you 5 years ago, which is when the political problem started happening?

            Your repetitive, negative inaccuracies on this issue serve no purpose. Knew you'd be here, beating your 'Stop things that happened in 2004 or we're going to be in big trouble!' drum.

            You can't fix the politics by wishing that what's happened didn't. The battle is over, you lost, and it's time to focus on solutions instead of blaming the gay people who outflanked and out-fundraised you.

            We don't know whether we can fix things by pressuring Democrats to do the right thing in the right way. But we know for damn sure that continuing to whine, 'We're not as in favor of the gays as those mean Republicans say we are!' has failed as a strategy for them. So why do you insist on encouraging more of it?

            To sound pragmatic?

            by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:23:40 PM PDT

  •  I Know Many Would Agree With You

    I have mixed feeling regarding its impact on the elections next year.  I think in 2004 it did cause issues in come states like Ohio where there was amendment on the ballot. But looking at how the amendments played in 2006:

    In AZ...the amemdnent failed and Gov Napolitano won in a landslide over a religious right zeolot. DEMS also picked up two House seats and also increased their numbers in the state Legislature.

    In Wisconsin....the amendment passed with 59%, but voters re-elected DEM governor Doyle, re-elected Senator Kohl by a landslide, DEMS picked up a House seat, gained control of the state Senate and almost took control of the state House.  DEMS won almost all statewide races.

    Colorado....the amendment passed but DEMS won the governship, picked up a House seat and strengthened control of the state legislature.

    Tennessee....the amendment passed overwhelmingly but Gov. Bredeson won in a landslide, Harold Ford almost became the first black elected Senator and DEMS kept the state House and won a seat in the state Senate.

    I give these examples because I don't think the initiative hurt in the way you think.  There has been little damage in Iowa so far after their recent ruling and as of now there actually are no anti-gay amendments to be voted on in 2008.  

    People are more concerned about getting out of Iraq and the stumbling economy to worry about Adam and Steve getting married.

    by Cederico on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:26:55 PM PDT

    •  In Colorado...

      ...the domestic partnership reformenment failed, however, we picked up a Dem.Governor, a Dem. Senator, 2 Dem. congressmen and maintained Dem. control of the house and senate.  This in the domain of James Dobson and his minions.

      by carver on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:18:19 PM PDT

      •  Ironic aside:

        The fundies wanted to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot last year in Colorado that would forbid gay civil unions and domestic partnerships as well.

        They were dissuaded from this by . . . a certain Ted Haggard.

        I am not making this up.

        I am so not looking forward to 2008, when that amendment is likely to reappear.

        by corvo on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:31 PM PDT

        •  Let's sent Teddy...

          ...a couple of bags of meth.

          by carver on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:54:47 PM PDT

  •  Congrats on the gay thing

    but I suspect you are not in a loving long term relationship.  If you were, I would hope that you would find it intolerable to not have YOUR government recognized your relationship while condoning straight marriage musical chairs (e.g. Britney, Giuliano,reality marry for money tv shows, etc)

    by rf7777 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:30:22 PM PDT

    •  I think that it is a little

      insensitive to refer to such an important part of so many peoples' lives as "the gay thing".  I am sure that you did not mean it that way, but it came over like "a black thing", or "a kid thing".  Once again, I am sure that you did not mean it that way, so please have my friendly regards, Doc.

      by Translator on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:22:20 PM PDT

      •  No insensitivity intended

        I live "the gay thing."  I campily refer to our people as "the gays" and joke about "the gay agenda."

        by rf7777 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:03:53 PM PDT

  •  Morally repugnant

    Your position is completely and utterly morally repugnant. We are talking about a basic, fundamental human right. It is no "luxury." While I can accept the "wait to legislate" on DADT and ENDA and other gay rights measures, when it comes to universal basic fundamental human rights, waiting is no option. It is tantamount to allowing the Germans to continue the Final Solution at the concentration camps until the German people warmed to the idea that Jews aren't savage animals unworthy of respect.

    Moreover compromising on the principles of basic human rights and equality only emboldens the Christo-fascists. It is a surrender of the high road that gives "Democrats" no leg to stand on. Instead of tepid spineless equivocating, we should be asserting the moral high ground. It is immoral to deny taxpaying American citizens much less living breathing human beings the fundamental human right to marry the mutually consenting adult partner of their choosing.
    It is immoral to deny people basic equality under the law.

    You would do well to read Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail. King also derided the kind of spinelessness exhibited in your comment. "For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!'...This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is justice denied.'" Another excerpt from it is also appropiate:

    I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    Likewise, our great stumbling block is not rightwing Christo-Fascist religious wingnuts, but the heterosexual moderate. And the heterosexual moderates will not change until they are shamed into abandoning their irrational bigotry. Simply placating them and being docile and sheepish about our rights will accomplish absolutely nothing but prolonging the bigotry.

    by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:43:23 PM PDT

    •  yeah, they're in the wrong morally

      But since they're not budging, see my comment above on why they're wrong pragmatically.

      Any thoughts on what we should be doing besides forming a circular firing squad?

      by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:25:01 PM PDT

    •  Great

      But even if you are right – which, by the way, I'm not conceding – it is not a fight that we're going to win in 2008.  It is a long-term fight that requires long-term tactics.  In the short term there is going to be a backlash.  Do you want that backlash to happen in the year of the most important presidential election of our time?  I don't.

      Choosing the time and place that the fight takes place is just as important as the fight itself.  Here me well: making this a major issue in 2008 will lose us the election.

      by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:23:06 PM PDT

      •  bzzt! Try again!

        Whether this is going to be made an issue in 2008 elections is not in the control of gay people who want to get married.

        In 2001, this would have been compelling. See my comment below about what we could be doing to effect the outcome.

        by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:36:05 PM PDT

        •  Cute

          but glib and borderline obnoxious retorts are exactly the kind of tactics that make gay activists – and progressives in general – so disliked by many moderate swing voters.  That's what makes them the tactics of defeat.

          by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:55:31 PM PDT

          •  In other words:

            "I'm unrealistic about the situation we're in, but you better tell me that real gently or you risk pissing me off."

            Since you're obviously a smart guy, given your extensive knowledge of how glibness impacts swing voters, go ahead and try to meet the challenge I just posted.

            I'd love to be able to tell myself that the damage that has been done since 2004 to this country was avoidable, and that we can avoid the continuation of Republican-run disaster--if only the gay people who want to be married would shut up.

            But I live in reality, and in here with me I have the Romney campaign. Which brought out the 'Mitt really hates the gays' ads this afternoon. So in this reality, I have to recognize that I don't have that control. The horse left the barn in 2001 when the MA marriage case was filed.

            It would be nice if we could be compliant and strategic enough to stop the moving train...and failing that, it would be nice if we could control where the train is going...but we can't. Pretending that mealy-mouthed appeasement is going to stop the attacks is a failed strategy.

            Just ask not-President Kerry how well it worked to be for both civil unions and state anti-marriage amendments--it didn't. I'm not sure that he would have gotten different results with a tactic I would have liked better, like honestly saying 'Why in the hell should my neighbors get to vote on whether I'm married? That's nuts. Next issue?'.

            Regardless, what we know now is that taking no position on this issue doesn't neutralize it. That's reality.

            And no amount of calling me names makes facing reality a tactic of defeat. Playing 'let's pretend' is for kids. Suggesting solutions is what responsible adults do.

            See how I just shifted that frame on you? You came at me from 'smartmouthed kids, always asking for everything right away, learn some patience' to 'the grownup thing to do is to use what we know to solve this problem'? It's not rocket science.

            by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:21:43 PM PDT

            •  Then answer me this

              How many aggressively liberal progressives, people that espouse your approach, have been elected o the White House?

              The number you're looking for is zero.  The only presidential elections we've won since 1964 have been post-Watergate (and still it was a razor-thin margin), and two three-way contests in which our candidate still couldn't manage a majority.  Whenever we've nominated real liberals – McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis – we've gotten our asses handed to us.

              I believe your tactics to be the tactics of failure.

              by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:21:02 PM PDT

              •  paradigm shift

                The country has mood swings. We have a long set of generally conservative Presidents followed by a short lived, but dynamic liberal stage. See FDR and Kennedy/Johnson. We are overdue for another one and George W. Bush is insuring that the next progressive swing will be soon.

                by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:27:17 PM PDT

              •  we're back on what you believe again

                Whether you can throw a bunch of scare words at me is irrelevant. Yes, 'liberal' is strongly associated with 'failure', but that has nothing to do with the situation we're in. And what exactly are these tactics you want to tar me with the failure of?

                (Were Mondale or Dukakis in favor of same sex marriage? I didn't get that memo, which is surprising.)

                I'm not suggesting 'being aggressively liberal' is a solution.

                I am re-stating the fact that 'we hate the gays less than the other guys' is proven to be a losing position.

                And I'm starting to think that you're the mole of all time, but as long as I'm getting this conversation into the public eye I'm winning so I don't care. Throw some more Republican scare words at me!

                by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:41:02 PM PDT

                •  Whatever

                  "The mole of all time."  In fact, you and I (according to our UID's) have been here pretty much the same length of time.  A quick look back at my history would show that I am anything but a "mole."

                  I think I've stated pretty clearly that I am gay myself, so this is not merely some academic debate for me.

                  Were Mondale and Dukakis in favor of same sex marriage?  I don't know.  Since that wasn't even on the radar (or would it be the gaydar? Ha ha) then it's impossible to know.  If I had to guess I'd say yes.  But the point is that they represent the kind of unabashed liberalism that your attitude reflects.  The kind that has lost over and over and over and over.

                  You used the phrase "we hate gays more than the other guys," not me.  But, even though I disagree with that phrase, you haven't proven that it's a losing position.  By contrast, history has shown that a too far-left position on anything – gays included – tends to be a losing position, especially in national politics.  The country simply isn't as progressive as you think it is.

                  On the other hand, civil unions are achievable and don't cost us much in the short term.  Better to accept that incremental victory and build on it than to risk losing everything else on the progressive agenda for another four years in a fight over the word "marriage."

                  by Jon Stafford on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:49:48 AM PDT

  •  No pun intended right?

    We need to sit on this...

    That's funny!

    On a more serious note, I disagree that equal rights for homosexuals should be pushed aside for any reason. Of course, my opinion on this is completely biased.

    I'll go with you on ending the war and restoring the Constitution, but I want my rights before I pay for my own and someone else's healthcare with my taxes.

    by 59stevenm on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:51:02 PM PDT

  •  Wrong.

    I'm sorry, this isn't a 'we do it' or 'we don't'.  That's not how it works.  There's a good argument to be made that, because of its unpopularity in middle america, the activism needs to be focused differently: grassroots work educating people rather than high-profile battles in the courts.  

    But put it on the backburner because of perceived damage to the party?  Heh, not on your fucking life.  

    by pico on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:05:49 PM PDT

    •  Educating

      The cases are educating the public. IMO, we ought to have more of them. The more local and visible, the harder it will be for people to ignore the issue and it will confront peoples' prejudices and force them to examine them and hopefully reject them.

      by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:13:00 PM PDT

    •  Once again...

      ...as I said upthread, I don't necessarily think you're wrong.  But the kind of progress we need to make will take time.  It is a battle that will NOT be won in 2008.  What it WILL do is virtually guarantee a backlash that will lose us the election.  Better to table it, win the election, then join the battle at a time and place of our choosing, in an environment friendlier to our position.

      by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:25:43 PM PDT

      •  Okay, you're just not budging

        so I'll treat you as if you were serious:

        How do you suggest 'we' accomplish 'tabling it'?

        Get back to me on that. Real soon, okay?

        by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:37:51 PM PDT

        •  Well, for one thing...

          ...by convincing the most vocal activists that discretion is the better part of valor.  This is nothing new.  The Republicans essentially did the same thing with pro-lifers.  Abortion was never going to be summarily banned, that was too controversial.  So the Religious Right took the slow boat.  They started whittling away at Roe v. Wade bit by bit, until, before you know it, we're on the verge of losing it.  A position that would have seemed impossible in 1980.  That's how you enact fundamental social change in the face of popular opposition.  It's called "delaying gratification," and it's something that we progressives have never been good at.

          by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:02:11 PM PDT

          •  is that your best shot?

            Seriously, I AM the activist you're afraid of, and the best you can do is 'Be discreet'?

            That's a weak sales pitch, because it suggests an action to me but doesn't tell me what's in it for me. Is being discreet going to get me something I want, which is full citizenship? If so, how?

            This is your big chance. Explain to me how my kid is going to benefit in 15 years from me stopping my work on this issue today. Cite your sources.

            I'm starting to think you're just not knowledgable about this issue. Do you get that we got where we are, a position in which full family recognition called something-that-isn't-marriage is the conservative position? We got here by whittling away at the Republicans in state legislatures to get some protections written into state laws, and by filing strategic federal and state lawsuits.

            There's a lot to learn but to suggest that this movement hasn't been exactly following the template that was cut out for us by the religious right is just...not informed.

            by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:29:37 PM PDT

            •  I disagree

              I think we got where we are through fundamental changes to public attitudes.  Being gay is WAY more accepted now than it was 20 or 40 years ago.  I think a lot of that was through exposure.  Maybe that exposure "desensitized" people, which enabled us to whittle away at Republicans in state legislatures, etc.  I suppose it's a "chicken or egg" argument.

              Being discreet doesn't mean giving up.  I gave you a good example, I thought, in the abortion analogy.  If religious conservatives had made an all-out, in-your-face push for banning all abortions in 1980, what do you think would have happened?  Well, obviously I don't have a time machine (yet – I'm working on it!), but my suspicion is that it would have lost big, and in the process lost them seats in Congress.  Possibly (but it's a stretch) it could have lost them the White House, too.

              But conservatives had learned a valuable lesson in Barry Goldwater's 1964 loss to LBJ: you can't push too hard, too fast.  So instead they were, well, discreet.  They put their agenda on simmer.  They got conservatives elected, which got conservative judges appointed, and they started systematically whittling away at Roe v. Wade.  At the same time they perfected their nefarious spin machine which, odious though it is, was extremely successful at making their positions look good to "Middle America," and making us look like assholes.

              Well, you know the rest.  We dropped the ball for, oh, about twenty years, and they essentially had their way.  So now we have to undo everything they did.  To do so effectively – in a way that's going to have a lasting effect – I think we have to adopt similar tactics.  Yes, it smacks of unpleasant realpolitik, but, hell, that's what politics is.

              You ask me to "cite sources."  That's not so easy.  This is, after all, just my interpretation.  But I don't think it's an unreasonable one.  I think it's a lesson that applies to progressivism in general, too.  I mean, after all, it's not like we progressives have won a lot of presidential elections since 1964, is it?  And the ones we have won have been by thin margins.  Maybe it's time for new tactics.

              by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:46:38 PM PDT

              •  But you're just wrong about the facts

                If religious conservatives had made an all-out, in-your-face push for banning all abortions in 1980, what do you think would have happened?

                I don't have to guess, I know. And so do you.

                The Moral Majority began pushing for the reversal of Roe in 1978. By 1980, they had made some incremental gains that had an enormous impact on access to abortion for the majority of women in this country. Did they give up? Hell, no, they continued to work within the system. And today, thirty years later, what's at stake in this election? Roe.

                Because the extremists on that side have never, ever allowed a politician to ge their votes for free. That's why GHWBush didn't win a second term; he didn't have their votes. He wasn't strong enough on their one issue and they punished him by not bothering to vote.

                In general, he political tactic of being harder on our friends than our enemies is a powerful one. However, we simply don't have the kind of command and control over the fringe on our side that they have. So their tactics can't ever work for us as well as they do for them.

                We're doing really well at building political power and working within the system. But this persistent urge to exercise control by throwing an interest group under the bus isn't tactical, and it's already failed.

                by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:05:25 PM PDT

                •  Well...

                  ...I can see that we're simply not going to agree.  Our interpretation of events is simply too different.  Anyway, I need to get to bed – I have burned kids to tend to in the morning!  For what it's worth, I hope you're right, even if I fear you're wrong.

                  by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:10:27 PM PDT

  •  believe what you like...

    but the data don't agree with you.

    I strongly believe that gay marriage lost us the 2004 election.

    Not only is that wrong, but if you look at today's results in the aggregate (loss at Maryland Supreme Court, CA governor rejects marriage equality bill for the second time, Romney campaign releases ad using gay marriage) a pattern begins to emerge.

    Whatever we do, or fail to do, the Republicans are going to invest in ads and rhetoric that beats up on Dems because they support gay marriage. Our choices have no impact.

    If you want to argue that we should never have asked for full citizenship because that caused 8 years of runious Republican malfeasance, you can bring it on.

    And I won't be the only one laughing at you--gay couples suing for inheritance rights made the Republican party dominated by immoral liars who ripped this country in half to achieve temporary political gain? It's a stretch. cf Max Clelland.

    by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:15:49 PM PDT

    •  It cost us Ohio

      The gay marriage issue enabled Rove to mobilize the conservative Christian masses in Ohio, which made us lose Ohio, which made us lose the election.

      I never said "never ask for full citizenship."  I said that we should choose the time and place of battle.  Better to win the election and put in place an administration friendlier to our position, then attack the issue from a place of strength.  It's called "delaying gratification," and it's something that we liberals have never been good at.  But we need to get good at it, because if we're going to win this fight – not to mention all the others – then we're going to need a long-term, tactical approach.

      by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:30:05 PM PDT

      •  Again, the data don't agree

        First, how do you know we lost Ohio? Kerry conceded before my mom's vote was counted.

        More importantly, if Rove hadn't had the flyers with boys gettin' hitched to put out in churches in SE Ohio, you think he would have had his hands tied about how to use that network of religious Republicans? I don't think so.

        In sum, I disagree with your premise and so do the exit polls and post-election reporting from the applicable precincts.

        However, that's irrelevant today. It doesn't matter which of us is right, as long as we all understand that once the toothpaste was out of the tube, marriage became a campaign issue for anyone who wants to make it one.

        by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:45:35 PM PDT

        •  You don't find it possible...

          ...that more Ohioans voted for a liberal black woman that supports same sex marriage for Ohio C.J. than John Kerry for President?  </snark>

          Ye, 2004 was stolen and again the Democrats fell down on the job.

          by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:01:54 PM PDT

        •  Very well

          Keep fighting the way you're fighting.  You'll just keep losing.  And when Rudolph Giuliani or Fred Thompson takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2009, take a good, long look at yourself in the mirror and ask whether it was worth it.

          by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:04:51 PM PDT

          •  Why is it so important to you

            to give Democrats who fail at the task of getting elected next Nov. an excuse?

            We have no option in which we change 'the way we're fighting' and neutralize marriage equality as an issue for this election.

            Time is linear.

            Given that, why do you want them to have 'the gays screwed us' to fall back on in the event that they can't oust the party of the most unpopular and incompetent President ever? What's your relationship to this battle? I want the Democrats to sweep both houses and the White House. What do you want?

            I ask because you're all about what the gays should stop doing--as if that would change what the Republicans are going to do. There's nothing strategic about your approach because all your ideas require reality to be suspended. So what's the real agenda?

            by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:38:00 PM PDT

            •  Pushing gay marriage...

              ...gives Republicans a rallying point.  Yes, they will always bring it up, but it's much more of a wedge when there's news reports of things like gay marriage lawsuits, protests, etc.

              What do I want?  I want Democrats to win.  And I believe that a vocal, activist gay movement at the forefront of the party makes that more difficult.  I am gay myself, and I know damned well how much some people dislike us, especially when we're "in their faces."

              by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:52:42 PM PDT

              •  Let's get this straight (heh):

                and it's important:

                Anything the Democrats propose gives hard core Republicans a rallying point.

                Stop the war? Soft on terrorism.

                Financial responsibility? Raise taxes.

                Regulation? Government waste/corruption.  

                I could go on.

                If you believe in these points, you'll fight for them, regardless of the fact that it gives Republicans rallying points. So what? If you think they're necessary, you'll argue for them.

                For those of us who believe this is a fundamental right, we'll keep fighting for it, thank you very much, even if it gives the Republicans a rallying point.

                And if you agree it's a critical issue, you'll join us.

                by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:57:44 PM PDT

                •  I guess that's the difference

                  Compared to restoring the Constitution, ending the war, and providing health care for all Americans, I just don't find this to be critical.  Important?  Absolutely.  But critical?  No.  "Critical," to me, means life-or-death, absolutely-must-be-right-now-or-the-consequences-will-be-appalling  level.  I don't see gay marriage as being at that level.

                  by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:07:46 PM PDT

                •  I'll go further:

                  The nothing that Democrats do will also give hardcore Republicans a rallying point.

                  I know I'm right about this, because the Kerry campaign literally did nothing about marriage equality and that didn't stop the Rove flyers in WV and OH.

                  If Democrats support marriage equality, some Republicans will demonize them for it. If they ignore the issue, those same people will still demonize them. There is no neutral territory left on this.

                  by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:10:23 PM PDT

                  •  Spot on

                    and it's the doing nothing, and the lack of spine and character that requires, that keeps getting the Dems into trouble.

                    Leadership requires an ability to take risks.

                    by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:12:51 PM PDT

              •  Another MLK quote

                Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

                If we're quiet, nothing will ever change and our "Democratic" "friends" will continue to ignore us.

                by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:57:46 PM PDT

                •  That just puts it in a nutshell n/t

                  by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:06:33 PM PDT

              •  They won't like us more

                unless we agree to their terms for our lives, which are that we're miserable in a tiny closet except when trying to change. So those aren't the people we're trying to move in the voting booth, agreed?

                It's not in our hands. I could agree this minute that you've convinced me (although you've brought nothing convincing to this exchange) and promise not to file a suit until Dec. 2008. That wouldn't help.

                Because I can't control what my neighbors do.

                And because the tactic you're insisting on has already failed.

                If anybody has an idea of how the Democrats could treat this issue in a way that gets them any political gain, I've issued a challenge below. Prize to be announced later.

                by PhoenixRising on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:16:30 PM PDT

  •  A social issue did cost us the 2004 election

    IMO, but it was not equality issues.  It was Rehnquist's health, which reminded many theocrats about the Supreme Court and caused them to come out in enormous numbers.

    by IhateBush on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:01:27 PM PDT

  •  I could not disagree with you more, not at all

    Story of two couples: the first one met in college, had a long distance relationship for a couple of years, had some breakups along the way, finally settled down together. Finished school, had one kid, then another. Both became involved in church and local activities, sent their kids to school.

    Second couple: met in college, became a couple, had some difficult issues early on because one of them was from out of the country. After some difficulty, got that issue settled, then settled down together as a couple. Finished school, had one kid, then another. Both became involved in church and in local activities, sent their kids to school.

    The difference? The first couple was heterosexual, and at some point in their relationship (prior to the kids) got married. As a result of that marriage, there were automatic benefits; they didn't have to get a lawyer to make sure they could buy a house together; they didn't have to worry about medical decision making; one could get health insurance for the other; they didn't have to cross adopt their kids; they didn't have to worry about family members usurping parental rights; and more things than I can possibly mention here. Many I don't even know.

    The second couple is two women. They did have to cross adopt their kids. They can't guarantee health insurance for each other, much less for their non-biological children. Everything they do to protect their families requires a lawyer. And when one of the women went into labor, the anesthesiologist refused to give an epidural until the other one left the room.

    The first couple is me and the spouse.

    The second couple are the lead plaintiffs in the case that was decided today in Maryland. We know them quite well. My daughter goes to school with them.

    They can't wait to protect their families. This is not some goddamned abstraction. This is real life.

    So, if you want to worry about party politics, fine and dandy. Maryland is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and yet this happened here. Most of the members of the state court of appeals were appointed by Democrats.

    Rights know no party.

    It's time to fight for our rights. And I will fight. And note: I'm one of the heterosexuals.

    I just cannot disagree with you more.

    by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:31:00 PM PDT

    •  That's a compelling story...

      ...but it wouldn't take "marriage" to have made the gay couple's life better.  All it would have taken was civil union, which pols show a majority of Americans are willing to support.

      Fighting over the word "marriage" misses the forest for the trees.  Like Bill Maher said, if straight people want to own the word "marriage," then let them have it.  So long as equal rights and benefits can be achieved through civil unions, then does the terminology really matter?

      by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:37:09 PM PDT

      •  You want to ask them about it???

        Marriage is different from civil unions.

        On 2 (of many points:)

        • It does not relegate them to second class citizens;
        • In the long run, it does not restrict them to living in a certain place.

        Hey, look, the pastor at the church where spouse and I were married, the one who married us, chose to use the term 'civil unions' for all of his marriage services.

        The one who came after him chose to use the word marriage for all, and was defrocked.

        It ain't the same. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a damned duck.

        Or, assuming you are in a long term legally sanctioned partnership, are you willing to refer to your relationship as a 'civil union?'

        by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:44:11 PM PDT

        •  Yes

          I'm not so hung up on terminology.  We have different words to describe legally equivalent things in many walks of life.  A male parent is referred to as a "father," a female parent is a "mother."  But they're both parents, and both have the same rights.  King/queen.  Waiter/waitress.  Actor/actress.  There's all kinds of separate terms for things that are essentially the same but for gender differences.  Marriage?  Civil union?  What do I care, so long as the rights and privileges are the same?  I promise you, if civil unions were enacted nationwide, then within twenty years everyone's going to call them "marriages" anyway.

          by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:11:25 PM PDT

      •  I'll just give you an example

        and this is not so removed from possibility.

        Say this family decides to go down to Virginia Beach for vacation, and one of the adults and one of the kids goes out to get something at the store. There's an accident, the driver is incapacitated, the child is injured and needs medical attention. Even if they have a 'civil union,' unless all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, in Virginia it is very likely that the other mom would not be recognized as a decision maker. Then what?

        For people who are facing this reality every day, it is not some theoretical abstraction. It is very, very real.

        I am in a protected class. They aren't. The state supreme court made that very clear today.

        Why is my family due protection and theirs isn't?

        by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:56:32 PM PDT

        •  As a pediatric...

          ...medical provider who deals with emergency situations often, I can tell you that the hospital will treat first and ask questions later.  But of course I'm nit-picking a specific example.  I do get your point.

          It's all the more reason to make sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.  That's how it goes with civil rights struggles.  There was a time when African Americans had to make damned sure that they had all their "papers" in order to go out in public (hell, that's probably still true in some places).  It sucks and it's not fair but it's how it goes.  Persecuted minorities always have to be cleaner than their majority counterparts until society as a whole changes for the better.

          by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:15:40 PM PDT

          •  Well, as for your second paragraph

            that's exactly, and precisely, why I'm going to keep fighting this fight. Because it's not right and it's not fair. And it's no more right or fair than any of the other things I fight for politically.

            As the Dixie Chicks said, I'm not ready (or willing) to make nice. Not on this. Sitting back and waiting isn't going to get the job done.

            And as I said, if it's not going to get the job done in Democratic Maryland, it's not going to do it anywhere.

            BTW, I am also a medical provider. And I have been asked to provide papers for women in same sex relationships who, when they and their partners went to cross adopt (not allowed or recognized in Virginia, btw) they had to prove that they were suitable to adopt even if the child in question was their own biological offspring. This is just not a simple process.

            by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:22:37 PM PDT

            •  I'm confused

              Why would someone need to adopt their own biological offspring?

              I have no doubt that Virginia is not a state particularly friendly towards gay issues.  In that respect I have it pretty good living in Massachusetts.  My fear, though, is based on the fact that we're going to need to win some states that lean more towards Virginia's position than Massachusetts' (Missouri, Ohio, etc.) if we're going to win the 2008 election.

              by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:30:22 PM PDT

              •  THAT

                is the exact problem with these people not having protections that are afforded to me!!!!

                If I were a single woman, I could name any man I damned well please as the 'father' of my child, and therefore give the child legal status. If I were a married woman, the automatic status of father goes to the husband, whether that is biologically correct or not.

                These kinds of situations do not pertain to two women who are in a relationship who choose to have children together. As I said, if the couple lives in Virginia, no matter what they do, the state will not recognize any parental rights of the 'non-biological' parent. I could go into multiple permutations, but there have been cases where even parental rights have been successfully challenged by grandparents.

                In Maryland, as I understand it (from my patients) this paperwork is what the law requires in order for there to be cross adoption. No one says it has to make sense.

                That's not right. At all. Not right for kids, not right for the parents. It is discriminatory and it is wrong.

                There are some things worth fighting for. Getting Democrats in, unless we are willing to fight, isn't going to change a damned thing. This decision wasn't even on the local 11:00 news.

                Clearly these rights are not important to you, you are willing to put them on the 'back burner' in order to accomplish the goal of getting Democrats elected.

                And I will say that unless we push the issue, and discuss it, and say that this is an issue that is important to us, then we're not going to see any difference even by getting Democrats elected.

                Gee, we've seen how effective they are on the war, haven't we.

                by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:39:20 PM PDT

                •  I disagree

                  You of all people understand the concept of triage.  We need to deal with the most nationally life-threatening issues – like restoring the Constitution – first.  That's going to mean getting Democrats elected.  And doing so also creates an environment friendlier to tolerance in general, which makes for a better venue in which to stage our fight.

                  The Virginia law is old-fashioned.  It allows the mother to name any man as the father because it is essentially taking her word for it that he's the biological father.  It comes from an old, stodgy world in which the concept of anyone other than the husband being the father was simply not countenanced in good company.  Obviously, a same-sex partner is not the biological father.  It's clearly a stupid law, but it's logic is weirdly consistent, at least within the boundaries of it's own prejudicial assumptions.

                  Democrats and the war is a bigger issue, and too much to get into here (I have to be at the hospital tomorrow at 7, so I really should be getting to bed!).  But I would say, briefly, that without the ability to override a veto their options are rather limited.  Bush will just keep vetoing any spending bill they send that doesn't fund "the troops."  That's what he does – he's basically a child.  But look at it this way: if a child screams every time it's fed carrots, but his father keeps feeding it carrots anyway, who does the mother get mad at?  The child or the father?  That's the position congressional Democrats are caught in.

                  by Jon Stafford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:03:48 PM PDT

                  •  See craigkg's comment above

                    from Dr. King.

                    My triage is about rights. To me these are fundamental, essential rights. I don't subjugate the importance of the right to protect one's family to other civil rights. I just can't do that.

                    The fathership law? It doesn't apply to just Virginia. To the best of my knowledge, no state requires a biological proof of fatherhood, although some states may require a marriage license. But I think that's obsolete.

                    I too have to be at the hospital in a matter of hours, and I don't know where you are but I'm on the east coast, and the spouse needs the computer. So I'm off (shortly) for the evening.

                    by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:09:30 PM PDT

      •  In other news...

        by NATHAN QUICK, Universal Press writer

        RICHMOND, VA. - Virginia and 15 other states that previously barred interracial marriage have filed legislation to stripe interracial couples of their marriage and will now classify them under a separate institution these states have dubbed "mongrel unions."

        Such couples would still have all the rights they previously had under marriage under the new "mongrel unions" said pro-marriage advocates, saying the change in law is necessary to preserve traditional marriage from being diluted.

        "It just goes to show that I was right in 1959 when I said 'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.'" said Harry L. Carrico, the trial court judge in the Loving v Virginia case that lead to the Supreme Court striking down Virginia's miscegenation law. Carrico continued that the reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clauses of state constitutions to allow once again allow separate but equal institutions is a step forward for the law reiterating that interracial marriage was a capital offense in colonial times and that allowing such marriages to occur was a violation of the nation's history, legal traditions, and practices and that any assertion of such a fundamental right is highly specious. Carrico explained "Due process only protects those rights that are 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and negro-white marriage was among the most offensive practices in our nation's early history."

        Carrico later continued his crusade of protecting traditional values as Chief Justice of Virginia's highest court. "My job was to protect Americans from the homosexual scourge. It was my pleasure to protect a poor innocent child from having a dyke for a mother as I did in Bottoms v Bottoms in 1995."

        Proponents of the new mongrel unions concede its not likely to be signed into law in Virginia this year, but expressed hope that with Macaca Rosenberg's eminent win of the Virginia governorship, the legislation will sail through.

        In South Carolina, Jim Bob Billy Joe Pencock was elated when that state's legislature sent a similar bill to the governor for his signature. "Strom Thurmond will finally be able to rest in peace," he said. "Them (expletive deleted) and traitor whites mixing and making them mutts has to stop. I ain't no bigot its just wrong. Since we can't lynch them and all, I guess it'd be OK if we let them cohabitutate [sic] and all. Its only fair." Pencock also express enthusiasm at the possibility that "white only" and "negro only" facilities could return. "That's be sweeter than and candy apple red '67 Mustang in Death Valley at noon on a summer's day in Death Valley. Separate is best. Then we white folk get to feel superior again. And maybe then we'll be able to put our women in their place even though nuthin' compares to bein' able to beat the crap outa them fags and get away with it."

        </snark>
        Civil Unions are a loathsome institution and completely unacceptable.

        by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:41:20 PM PDT

      •  By the way, just to make it clear,

        this isn't a story. It's true. We do know the couple in question. What I said about the labor episode? It is actually something that happened.

        This is not abstract in the least.

        I wanted to make sure you knew that.

        by stitchmd on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:44:21 PM PDT

      •  and separate

        really is equal, right?

        by lapolitichick on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:12:08 PM PDT

•  As a Gay Man I have an idea....

  ...let's all just be vewwy vewwy quiet until 2009. You see we are UNDER THE CONTROL OF A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP  and so NOW may not be the very best time.

  by Bensdad on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:28:28 PM PDT

  •  Heed Niemoller's words

    They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;
    They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;
    They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;
    They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew;
    Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object.
    --Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor, 1892-1984

    by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:47:19 PM PDT

    •  Oh Jesus...

      ...they aren't "coming for us". They are just not standing in the way of our nuptials for heaven's sake.

      by Bensdad on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:01:47 PM PDT

      •  This is nuts.

        You're criticizing someone else's hyperbole after saying we are (all caps) UNDER THE CONTROL OF A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP?

        Really?

        by pico on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:07:12 PM PDT

        •  Excellent catch

          I actually laughed out loud.  :-)

          by craigkg on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:16:39 PM PDT

      •  Don't be so sure

        See the transformation of German attitudes toward those of the Jewish faith from the 1920s to the 1940s. Don't be so na