Fighting Our Fight: the Gay Politics Thread

[Gatito Grande]

The Time is Right . . .



Why another thread, you may ask? Because where we learn about news of ourselves on one thread, and "general politics" on another, and our relationships on a third, and what our faith communities (if we have 'em) say on a fourth, and what happens when we come out on a fifth, and how we have pride on a sixth . . . Get the Picture?



So this is where we put all of it together: our struggles, local, state, national . . . and international (that is, all nations, not just the US of A). Employment rights, marriage, adoption/custody, immigration, hate crimes: all of it.



We can strategize here: how to replace hopeless (phobic) politicians. How to best work w/ the good uns. How to (gently, constantly) nudge the ones in the middle. What are the best ways to reach the undecided---say, on same-sex marriage? Are there ever times to "let sleeping dogs lie"? How do we build on our victories? What happens if (God forbid) a door gets slammed in our face (by the Supreme Court, or elsewhere)?



ACTIVISTS, START YOUR ENGINES!



Now, to get down to brass tacks: John Kerry is very likely to be the Democratic nominee for President. Kerry is from Massachusetts, the state whose Supreme Court has just ordered *marriage* (and not "civil unions") be opened to LGBTs. If Kerry is the nominee, he almost certainly will have locked it up by May 20: when the first same-sex marriages will (Praise God!) happen, and then just a couple of months later---irony of ironies---the Democratic National Convention will be held in Boston. Kerry is on record "opposing gay marriage," but has also come out against a (national) Constitutional Amendment. The heat generated by the GOP on this issue is going to be intense (in direct proportion to other things---war, economy---being screwed up).



So, what should Kerry (and the whole Democratic party) do on this issue? Is there a way to nuance this, or is it "Sh*t or Get Off the Pot" time?



How's this for nuance: every time he's asked about "gay marriage," Kerry should reply "I stand for equality for all Americans before the law" . . . and just repeat that ad infinitum (or nauseum). Will that fly? Or does Kerry need to decide, once and for all, exactly who he stands with, and say so, sans bullsh*t?



GG What do you think? Out

[Tempest Duer]

If I were in his shoes, not that I ever will be, I'd go for wanting all Americans to be equal before the law. Because really, that's all gay marriage is: treating gay citizens as equal before the law.



If he's any more explicit, he may make enemies. And quite honestly, as long as he's not Bush, I don't really care who our president is. I liked Lieberman, but he dropped out, so at this point, I'm just pro-Democratic nominee.



Besides, I can't vote.

Willow: Hey Buff. One more thing. Buffy: Yeah? Willow: I’m gay. Buffy: Okay, Will. Xander owes me ten bucks.

~Remember to Breathe by Yellow Crayon

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

As a UK citizen, I find your election system in the USA very strange indeed. However, in answer to your question I say this: He has to be honest! The worst thing in the world to have is someone in power who says one thing in public but has the power to vote against it in private, claiming a personal or public victory depending how the vote goes.



What you need is someone who has believes in equality for all under the law, rather than using the phrase as a convenient way of winning votes. I don't like Bush, but at least you know he is going against you, he tells you he doesn't like you to your face, rather than hide behind rhetoric. Kerry is dangerous if he will say, or not say, anything simply to secure votes.



SO, I say, find a candidate who is fully supportive, openly supportive, of same-sex marriage and other legal stances where the rights of gay men and women are being abused, and throw all your energy into supporting them. It is true that you may not like other policies that candidate has, but if you make it clear that the gay community will vote against Kerry he may change his views or make an open declaration to support gay marriage in an attempt to stop defeat.



You have a vote folks. Use it!!

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[Darcy]

At this point the Democrats could nominate a trained monkey - or even an untrained one - and I would find myself having to vote for it in preference to Bush.



I was impressed to learn that Kerry was one of the few to vote against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, at at time when even the HRC was letting politicians skate on a yes vote. I'm disappointed in his response to the Massachusetts court's advisory opinion, while recognizing that at least at this time in history it's probably the most politic response in a very literal sense.



I was just watching Barney Frank on the Today show essentially saying that the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution doesn't apply to same-sex marriages, that states won't have to recognize Massachusetts marriages. And he's supposed to be on our side!



The thing that gives me the most hope is the generation gap on this issue. Every poll I've seen indicates that the younger you are, the more likely you are to support same-sex marriages. This morning there was one indicating 18 - 24 year-olds were 61% in favor; those over 65 only 18%. Eventually our opponents will die off; in the meantime, we need to mobilize younger voters and get them to the polls when it counts.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

The thing that gives me the most hope is the generation gap on this issue. Every poll I've seen indicates that the younger you are, the more likely you are to support same-sex marriages. This morning there was one indicating 18 - 24 year-olds were 61% in favor; those over 65 only 18%. Eventually our opponents will die off; in the meantime, we need to mobilize younger voters and get them to the polls when it counts.

---

And this begs the question, why are older gays so opposed to gay marriage while the young ones are all for it? What are we missing? I'm disappointed in Barney Frank, too, but I wonder if he isn't part of this trend of older gay opposition to the concept of gay marriage. Do you think it has to do with the way older gays were raised (i.e. if many were raised in strict Christian households and had to struggle to come out and accept themselves while younger gays face more acceptance and might have had a little easier time coming out in this day and age)?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[dekalog]

Kieli - this is a huge issue, and all the reasons pro and con couldn't possibly be dealt with in a single thread. Plus, I don't think it's necessarily an age think with gay people, but a where you sit in the 'social order' type of thing.



In the end though I can only speak for myself. While I agree that everyone should have the same Rights, including marriage - I hate that the gay politic has focused on this issue to the exclusion of others. Perhaps why it seems that many older gays and lesbians are opposed to gay marriage is because all other rights and issues are being overshadowed by this one. With gay youth on the street, and troubles in school and coming out. With AIDS still very much an issue. With bashing, rape, and insensitivity within our own ranks. These issues and many more make it clear that we should not only have one goal. However, to some, it seems that most of the political force of gay organizations is going into the marriage issue. That is certainly the case here in Canada, and while it has achieved much success it still brokers to a very middle class ideal of what we should become.



There is also the message that if you are one of the sluts, or 'out there' gay people who don't want to settle down in a house with a picket pence and get married that there is something inherently wrong with you. The gay community's rights that we do enjoy (i.e. not being picked up in a bar and thrown into prison) were mostly won by very out and very vocal drag queens, and party folks who are now put down regularly by folks who just want gay people to fit in. Does this mean we are pandering to an inclusionary ideal by becoming more like them as opposed to who we are (whether you are gay or straight or anything in between).



This is a long post, so I'll shut up now. Just wanted to say that marriage is a tough issue, even if you are gay, but certainly not because anyone feels that someone should not have the right to marry. It's just alot of other issues are being pushed aside. The other two major components I'd say are that some folks don't want to 'fit' in - they like the fact that they are different (unique). The other is that some people feel that marriage as a whole is a dying institution, and why should gays want to get in on something that ends in divorce for so many.



Just my two cents...

[Darcy]

I'm not sure where you're getting that older gays are opposed. I think I qualify, since I'll be getting my AARP membership this year (BTW, their Web site says "membership includes your spouse or partner, free!"), and Melissa and I have gone nuts getting all the legal recognition available. Most of the couples I know of that have been working on this issue, getting civil unions/marriages, etc. are older and have been together for decades, but then, most of the couples I know are older.



That said, my generation grew up and came out at a time when people were starting to question many societal institutions, including marriage. Marriage was regarded by my peers as a patriarchal institution whose main purpose was the control of women. It makes us a little uncomfortable, like we're selling out, to consider getting married.



However, there are advantages to legal recognition that become more important as you get older and acquire property, have kids, and run into health issues. And I believe that it's important for us to be able to participate in our cultural rituals and not be excluded. Getting married let me declare publicly that this is the person I love and with whom I will spend my life.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Kieli - this is a huge issue, and all the reasons pro and con couldn't possibly be dealt with in a single thread. Plus, I don't think it's necessarily an age think with gay people, but a where you sit in the 'social order' type of thing.

---

I have long thought this but was not quite ready to say anything for fear of offending anyone. I have a real definite observation about that but I think I might reserve that for emails if you care to hear it. I agree with many of your points and would discuss them in detail with you outside of this forum if you're game.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure where you're getting that older gays are opposed.

---

I did not mean imply that it was a general feeling among older gays. I was simply making the observation based on your quote here:

Quote:

---

The thing that gives me the most hope is the generation gap on this issue. Every poll I've seen indicates that the younger you are, the more likely you are to support same-sex marriages. This morning there was one indicating 18 - 24 year-olds were 61% in favor; those over 65 only 18%. Eventually our opponents will die off; in the meantime, we need to mobilize younger voters and get them to the polls when it counts.

---

Just so you know where I was coming from

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[urnofosiris]

But those numbers refer to the general population. I´d hope the numbers in favour for gay marriage are much higher among the LGBT population. There probably are gay people opposed to gay marriage for whatever reason (I do not know any specific numbers), but I wonder whether in case of gay people the older generation would be more likely to oppose gay marriage given that they grew up in a time that was even more homophobic (hard to imagine) than today, the yearning for absolute and complete equality may be even greater for them.

[Kieli]

Ummm, Dek, my inbox is being a bloody idiot today *grr*....mind resending your email to me? Pretty please?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Ben Varkentine]

Kittens near their radios today might want to tune in to NPR's "Fresh Air"--they're doing a special show about gay marriage. You can find details (and when and where the show airs in your area) here:



freshair.npr.org/

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Darcy]

Thanks for the heads up on Fresh Air! I'll be sure to listen to the rebroadcast tonight. I only wish I'd seen it before 3 here - Fresh Air is a local production for me and I might have been able to call in.



And yes, that survey was not limited to the GLBT population, it was more general. So 82% of all the respondents over 65 were opposed to same-sex marriage.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

Edited by: Darcy at: 2/5/04 2:37 pm

[Gatito Grande]

I could see how class divides could raise a sort of "marriage rights" vs. "employment rights" clash between different classes of LGBTs. If you're educated, w/ a highly-valued skill set, you're both less likely to be let go (in a recession) and more likely to work for an "enlightened" employer who doesn't discriminate in employment---maybe already offers partner benefits (or would, if one could marry their partner).



Whereas less educated, lower (economic) class LGBTs don't have that kind of "innate" job security and are more likely to work for a less enlightened employer. For these LGBTs, non-discrimination in employment is the priority (plus, since there's a correspondence between less education and younger age, they're also less likely to have long-term partners).



I'm unemployed, but I would also like to be able to marry a partner someday---I just can't see these things as an "Either/Or."



This "Either/Or" choice also factors in a close election. Desperate as I am to replace Bush (for any of dozens of reasons), I could almost countenance a Demo nominee (presumably Kerry) waffling on this (marriage) issue . . . it's just that I don't really think it'll work. Republicans have made hay on "Democratic waffling" (on a range of issues, esp. so-called "culture war" ones) for years: advertising themselves as the "Party of Principle," while Dems are the Party of Situation Ethics (and Convenience). It seems to me that having a *definite* position would play better w/ undecided voters.



Ergo, Kerry should "Sh*t or Get Off the Pot": support the rule of law in Mass (which means gay marriage), oppose a marriage-banning Constitutional Amendment (everywhere), and say he'll support the rule of law on marriage everywhere (which can and will be presumed to include "Full Faith and Credit") when the time comes. And hammer home repeatedly the difference between civil and religious marriage---there's no "sanctity" in the former to preserve!!



Obviously, this strategy keeps LGBT activists in the Demo Party happy (which can't be overlooked, both in terms of activists on the ground, and those few-but-notable LGBTs w/ Big Checkbooks). I honestly think that the clarity will be persuasive to the undecided, but even if it isn't, I think it will at least limit the wound's bleeding to only a short duration (whereas waffling can cause the bleeding to go on and on).



GG Of course, I've been wrong on this "clarity" issue before: I'll never forget 1984, when Walter Mondale said "President Reagan and I will each raise your taxes, but he'll never tell you. I just did." I thought that was the winning line of the ages! WTF do I know. Out

[late prada fall]

hi kittens, i need some help with my senior government project.



the project is kind of a tradition at my school, where every government class makes their own political party. we elect our leadership, create our platform, campaign and debate with the other parties. the juniors vote, and the party that wins gets an automatic A for the semester. needless to say, everyone takes this project pretty seriously.



the class was divided up and each person wrote a policy paper on an issue for our platform. i did the gay rights policy paper, wherein i suggested we come out strongly against the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as well as the defense of marriage act, and support complete marriage equality. i said civil unions were not enough as separate but equal institutions are inherently unequal.



our leaders got together and used our policy papers to write the platform and unfortunately, our party stance on gay marriage is apparently: "we support a civil union for all couples, both heterosexual and homosexual. both should receive all rights that are currently in place for heterosexuals." they said they want to "redefine" marriage for all under law as civil unions, and people can find a church to marry them if they want. while it is an alright idea, it doesn't really sit well with me and i think that a lot of backlash can come from it.



your opinions? how would you word the policy? i'm meeting with our party chair this weekend to discuss it and hopefully make it better. i'd really like a discussion about this, either here on the board or one on one. i can be found on AIM (late prada fall) or email/yahoo (isle_smile@yahoo.com).



p.s. i wasn't sure to put this here or in the gay marriage thread. mods please feel free to move it.

-----

i'm thinking it's a sign that the freckles in our eyes are mirror images and when we kiss they're perfectly aligned...

[Tempest Duer]

"Civil union" just sounds ugly to me. I don't like it, I'm not sure why. Just like I don't like the term "partner" to describe your same-sex spouse who you can't marry because the law is stupid... it just sounds so businesslike and totally insensitive to the significance of the relationship.



Marriage is marriage. Whether it's legal or church-sanctioned, it's marriage. Don't be afraid to call a spade a spade.

Willow: Hey Buff. One more thing. Buffy: Yeah? Willow: I’m gay. Buffy: Okay, Will. Xander owes me ten bucks.

~Remember to Breathe by Yellow Crayon

[Gatito Grande]

I think that "Civil Unions for All" would be a fine policy . . . it's just that hets will never go for it.



In the U.S., there's long been a tradition of a "civil religion": the idea that one can be "fine, upstanding, patriotic" (and all that other BS) w/o committing to any church, synogogue or temple (and keep Sunday mornings free for golf!). It's as part of that, that the civil marriage has existed as just such a quasi-religious institution: it's not just any other kind of public contract, it's the one w/ a white dress, a Big Party, and presents.



Even if "civil union" hadn't been invented for gays and lesbians, the masses of American public opinion would never have stood for marriage being "de-valued": people still want weddings, and presents, and caterers (and then there's all those caterers, et al. who want to stay in the marriage biz, for all those secular types who do want to have the whole church ritual thang!). No, civil marriage is status quo, and people want to keep status quo.



However, it's the quasi-religious nature of civil marriage (the fact that few hets ever bother to tack on the word "civil," just because there's a Justice of the Peace conducting it), that leads to all this confusion w/ "sanctity." Hets want the "sanctity" w/o the religious ceremony/community that assigns a separate holiness (which is what sanctity means).



The heterosexual community at large loves these kind of ambivalences . . . and then queers come along and call a spade a spade. See why there's a backlash against us? We force hets to look at a "Britney Spears Marriage" (BSM, a very useful abbreviation) square in the face, and say "Your civil marriages are no more intrinsically 'holy' than that."*



GG Hets would never settle for "civil unions" . . . and ergo, LGBTs shouldn't settle for it either. Like the Mass S.C. said "Separate but equal almost never is." Out



*NB: Not that same-sex civil marriages will have anymore intrinsic "sanctity" than a BSM either. Which is why Yours Truly the Episcopalian wants (God willing!) a same-sex marriage in church (w/ the blessing of both God and the State). That's fighting two separate fights!

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Triangle Foundation, American Friends Service Committee and other GLBT organizations are calling for an emergency lobby day at the Michigan Capitol.



On Wed., February 11 beginning at 9:30 AM folks from around the state should come to Lansing to lobby their State Representatives and State Senators to oppose Senate Joint Resolution E and House Joint Resolution U.



These resolutions, if passed by 2/3 of each chamber of the legislature, would go on the ballot this November. If passed by the citizens, it would ban marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples and eliminate any chance for domestic partner benefits or civil unions.



Show up at 9:30 AM at 404-405 in the Capitol Building. Talking points and other materials will be there. A lobby training will be offered for folks who feel they need it.



Please schedule meetings with your legislators in advance.



http://www.michiganlegislature.org



Take I-96 to 496 Downtown to Grand Ave. going north to Michigan Avenue. Go West. Park Anywhere.

---

www.tri.org/



GG Yours Truly intends to be there: email me at jcf1962@iwarp.net if you wanna get together: either before, or up in Lansing. Out



********************************************************************

ETA:

Quote:

---

Candidates react to Massachusetts ruling

by Christopher Curtis

Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network



Massachusetts' highest court put political pressure on the presidential candidates -- in addition to the state's lawmakers -- when it reiterated Wednesday that only full marriage rights for same-sex couples would be constitutional in that state.



Most of the major candidates responded to the decision by re-emphasizing their views on same-sex marriage.



The White House described the ruling as "deeply troubling," with Press Secretary Scott McClellan saying the president is "firmly committed to protecting and defending" marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman.



McClellan reminded reporters that during the State of the Union Address last month, President Bush said if such rulings continue, a constitutional amendment may be needed.



Massachusetts Senator and Democratic front-runner John Kerry came out against the ruling.



"I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples -- from inheritance to health benefits," he said in a prepared statement. "I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision."



Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark supports the right of each state to make its own decision, said Bill Buck, press secretary for the Clark campaign.



"As General Clark has said many times before, he believes all couples should have equal treatment under the law and it's up to states to determine how couples should be treated," Buck told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "As a candidate for president, Clark would make sure each couple would have equal treatment under federal law."



North Carolina Sen. John Edwards shares a similar view, according to Roger Salazar, the national spokesman for the Edwards campaign: "Edwards believes each state should have the right to decide for themselves on the issue of gay marriage/civil unions."



Salazar added while Edwards believes in domestic partnership benefits and equal treatment, "he also understands that the country isn't ready for gay marriage."



Wednesday's advisory ruling counters the 1999 decision in the Vermont high court that paved the way for the state Legislature to choose civil unions as an acceptable alternative to same-sex marriage. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean signed it into law in 2000.



While the Dean campaign was not able to issue a statement by press time, Dean has argued that same-sex marriage is not an issue for the federal government to decide, and he believes the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by President Bill Clinton is unconstitutional.



"I believe in equal rights under the law, period," Dean said on his Web site. "And that means equal rights for everybody under the law, including those who are gay and lesbian."

---

www.gay.com/news/article....04/02/04/2



Kerry's reaction really is disappointing: it's like he's already taking the LGBT vote for granted.



GG Really glad I voted for Dean today. Out

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 2/7/04 4:14 pm

[Iamyouknowyours]

George W. just kills me! He should remember that his delusions about the forces of good and evil are considered religion (however warped his own view of his) and that church and state are supposed to be SEPARATED! And he should take a little look at the section of the constitution that says all men are created equal. That includes men who love men (and by modern standards) all women as well whoever they love. Don't you love how a man who wasn't even ELECTED thinks he knows what should be in a constitution in which he probably can't even pronounce half the words?



I could go for the civil unions if they became the legal version of marriage, for everyone gay, bi, trans and straight. If took the term marriage and changed it to apply purely to the religious and spiritual aspects of a bond for two people, I would be perfectly fine with each individual church choosing which particular unions they wanted to bless. After all, I wouldn't want to be married by a minister or other religious official who is homophobic and small minded. There are plenty of better, more rational and open-minded people out there that would be happy to do the job. So that's my solution. No idiotic constitutional amendment. Just keep the church aspects of marriage non-legal and the legal aspects of the bond between two people non religious. Of course Americans would never ever go for it. It's not nearly as brilliant as starting a war to liberate people who don't want to be liberated and find nonexistent weapons.



-Jules

[dekalog]

Since Roman times church and state have gone together like bread and peanut butter. The history of homophobia in Western culture funnily enough stated to be enacted in law around this time as well.



For the most part ancient Greeks and Romans were tolerant of same-sex sexual practices, around the 4th century C.E. attitudes changed as Roman civilization became increasingly de-urbanized with greater totalitarian controls were placed over personal life. During the declining years of imperial Rome, philosophical, political, and social forces merged, establishing a climate of intolerance. Christianity, (with it’s pronouncements against homosexuality) became the official state religion under the rule of Constantine I. In this climate, laws were enacted which severely restricted same-sex eroticism. The edicts of Constantine and Constans of 342 C.E., and the later law of 390 C.E. – sponsored under the tripartite rule of Theodosius, Valentitian II, and Arcadius – prescribed death to men engaging in homosexual activity, especially in the case of prostitution. Other Roman laws would follow, as well as a campaign against anyone who was different.



As for today many countries have been trying to be more precise in making sure some semblance of a distinction between church and state exists. This is not the case however in one George Bush who regularly evokes God in his speeches and makes policy decisions based on his own religion rather than the greater good of his country (just MHO).



Church and State will at least in some ways always be together no matter how much we try to pry them apart. Many of the Institutions (like marriage) emerged and developed through the Roman Canon laws. Oppression within these laws has always been evident, and always will be unless the foundations of these structures are reformed entirely.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

The edicts of Constantine and Constans of 342 C.E., and the later law of 390 C.E. – sponsored under the tripartite rule of Theodosius, Valentitian II, and Arcadius – prescribed death to men engaging in homosexual activity, especially in the case of prostitution. Other Roman laws would follow, as well as a campaign against anyone who was different.

---

Although the edicts were put on the books, the Borgia popes (as well as several others that were named Antipopes by the Catholic church because they engaged in homosexual activities among other things they deemed as behaviour totally unbecoming of a Pope) and other Roman Catholic cardinals wantonly disobeyed all of them with impunity.



Antipope John XXIII, Cardinal Cesare Borgia (brother of that famous wild-child Lucrezia Borgia), Pope Benedict IX, Pope John XII, Pope Julius III, Pope Leo X, Pope Paul II, and Pope Sixtus IV are just some of the popes in Church history known to have sex with men.



I'm not sure about the bread and peanut butter analogy. That would seem to imply that church and state have ruled together harmoniously since Roman Times (that is, if one enjoys peanut butter on bread ) which is not the case. The Holy Roman Empire started becoming more involved in matters of state during Constantine's rule and things rapidly went downhill from there. But this isn't a history thread so I won't hijack it like this

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Darcy]

Actually, "all men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and is not technically part of US law. And without the ERA, the U.S. Constitution could be construed as permitting discrimination on the basis of gender. The courts generally apply a "rational basis" standard in deciding whether a law violates the U.S. Constitution where gender is concerned, while "strict scrutiny", a much more difficult test to meet, is used in reviewing allegations of racial discrimination.



That's one of the reasons marriage lawsuits are usually based on state constitutions. States are free to provide greater protections to their citizens than the federal Constitution provides, and the state's high court is the ultimate arbiter of what a state constitution requires, which means that decisions based on a state constitution may not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.



Interestingly, in the marriage lawsuits which have made it to the highest level of the state courts, the state has been able to make even a "rational basis" argument stick. The courts have generally found that none of the supposed reasons for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples actually holds water when examined.



Funny we should be talking about ancient Rome. I just read an interesting column on Juvenal (85 AD) and his hatred of gays

www.suntimes.com/output/steinberg/cst-nws-stein06.html

that bemoaned the fact that we don't seem to have made any progress in nearly two million years.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

Edited by: Darcy at: 2/8/04 3:44 pm

[Iamyouknowyours]

Oops on the declaration on independence bit. It's been a long time since high school government and they mostly just showed us movies like The American President instead of teaching anyway. My bad. Teehee.

[babyblue]

Quote:

---

The courts generally apply a "rational basis" standard in deciding whether a law violates the U.S. Constitution where gender is concerned, while "strict scrutiny", a much more difficult test to meet, is used in reviewing allegations of racial discrimination.

---

Darcy, I have to say that I'm a total fan of your politics and the way you argue them. (I'm also a total fan of Triscuit's writing, but I digress...) I should note, though, that since a 1976 case called Craig v. Boren, the Supreme Court has used so-called "intermediate scrutiny" with respect to cases involving gender discrimination. To meet the intermediate scrutiny test, the government has to show that a discriminatory policy advances an "important" governmental purpose and does so in a narrowly drawn fashion. In practice, this standard suffices to invalidate most but not all laws that draw distinctions based on gender.

Quote:

---

That's one of the reasons marriage lawsuits are usually based on state constitutions. States are free to provide greater protections to their citizens than the federal Constitution provides, and the state's high court is the ultimate arbiter of what a state constitution requires, which means that decisions based on a state constitution may not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

---

Absolutely. All but one of the lawsuits I'm aware of relied solely on state constitutional claims, in part because of the greater protections afforded by many state constitutions, but largely to keep the cases from being reviewed by a US Supreme Court still widely viewed as generally hostile to gay rights claims, notwithstanding the recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas striking down sodomy laws.



Blue

[kpmuse]

Yeah right. First of all, how can anyone believe this guy's sincerity? Secondly, how much does a marriage license cost? Not much and it comes with all the things that our esteemed leader thinks we can get under very costly contracts. Some of what he says is true, but it is very costly, difficult to arrange and why the heck should we have to cement our relationships this way anyway? Also, there are many other federal rights that can't be gotten through regular contract law. Geesh, I just had this huge debate with my sister about this topic. This President has got to go.



FOr your perusal Kittens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/09/politics/09GAYS.html



Congressman Says Bush Is Open to States' Bolstering Gay Rights

By JENNIFER 8. LEE



Published: February 9, 2004



WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — President Bush believes states can use contract law to ensure some of the rights that gay partners are seeking through marriage or civil union, a South Carolina congressman said Sunday.



The subject of contracts and gay marriage came up while the lawmaker, Representative Jim DeMint, was traveling with the president and the rest of the South Carolina Republican delegation on Air Force One last week. He described the conversation, first reported in the new issue of Time magazine, as politicians "shooting the breeze" rather than an in-depth policy discussion.



Paraphrasing the president's remarks, Mr. DeMint said: "He said he was not going to condemn anyone, that the need to have various types of agreement does not mean we need to redefine marriage. `If people want to have contracts on hospital visitation and benefits, that's O.K.' "



Responding to questions on Sunday about the Time article, Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said:



"States, through their contract law, have the ability to address some of the issues that advocates of gay marriage are raising, such as hospital visitation rights and insurance benefits and the ability to pass on one's estates to another. What the president has said is that he strongly believes in the sanctity of marriage, so that's what he is saying."



Ms. Buchan noted that civil contracts were available to heterosexual couples as well.



Recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court, a Canadian court and the top court in Massachusetts have pushed the administration into a delicate balancing act.



Conservative groups are lobbying the White House to endorse a constitutional amendment defining marriage as something that can take place only between a man and a woman. At the same time, the White House wants to appear empathetic to gays who tell of hospitals forbidding them to visit partners on their deathbeds.

[Gatito Grande]

This is such a load of cr*p! Civil marriage conveys something like 1300 privileges under U.S. laws, and LGBTs are supposed to make 1300 separate contracts, to get the same deal any drunken Brittany Spears can get in a half hour in Vegas?



GG Is there any better proof that "separate" is Not Equal? Out



Kieli, when you mention "AntiPope John XXIII", that's not the same as Pope John XXIII (aka "Good Pope John," the father of Vatican II) is it? Because he's been beatified (one step below sainthood: and he, unlike the anti-Semitic *sshole Pius IX who was beatified at the same time, actually deserves it).

[lauriebear]

Bush is great. Yup contracts for all! cuz really cheap and easy!



speaking as someone who just went through that. We are going to spend close to 1,000 dollars (lawyer fees) for not even a 10th of the rights that Britteny Spears got on a drunken night on the town in Las Vegas. and that doesn't even include any federal statutes.



Meanwhile today in the state's capitol over 3,000 people rallied for DOMA. I'm from Connecticut. They're getting scared because of our good ole northern neighbor.



The hippocracy in the country is staggering.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Kieli, when you mention "AntiPope John XXIII", that's not the same as Pope John XXIII (aka "Good Pope John," the father of Vatican II) is it? Because he's been beatified (one step below sainthood: and he, unlike the anti-Semitic *sshole Pius IX who was beatified at the same time, actually deserves it).

---

Nope. Once an antipope has been declared, the name he takes on becomes free to use again because he is not considered as having upheld his office and the ideals of the Church. Thus, the latter day Pope John XXIII was free to acquire the title.



I think it's funny that Bush is doing all of this song and dance crap. He's jumping around like a frog on a hot rock now that the citizens are pissed at his selective omissions of some key facts. Can anyone say cluster-f**ked? I think we can

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[kpmuse]

Kerry Says He Could Support Constitutional Amendment



by Rex Wockner

365Gay.com Editor-At-Large



Posted: February 10, 2004 8:01 p.m. ET



Leading Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry is not necessarily opposed to a federal constitutional amendment to permanently ban same-sex marriage, he told National Public Radio's All Things Considered, today.



Kerry was asked, "Would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union?"



He replied: "Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union. I'm for partnership rights.



"I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded," Kerry continued. "Obviously under the Constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage kind of gets in the way of the whole debate, to be honest with you, because marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church. It's sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there's a separation of church and state here. ... Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."



Kerry said this holds true even for civil marriages that are not conducted in a house of worship.



"Even for those that aren't, there's still two meanings," he said. "I mean, the state picked up the concept [of marriage] afterwards. It's a latecomer to the state."



Despite his positions, Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] that passed Congress and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.



DOMA states: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. ... In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."



Kerry told NPR: "I opposed it [DOMA] because I thought it was gaybashing on the floor of the United States Senate. It was one of those examples of ideological Republicans trying to drive wedges into the electorate of America, and I objected to the Senate being used for that, even as I still said at the time, 'I don't personally support [gay] marriage as we understand it within the context of religion.'"



Kerry therefore also opposes the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that mandated legalization of full same-sex marriage by May 17, and specifically rejected the notion of civil unions.



"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the court said.



Responding to that Feb. 4 ruling, Kerry said: "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples -- from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision."

[Kieli]

Just some updates on Dubya's newest slap in the face to the Log Cabin Republicans that voted for him:



Bush plans on supporting the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

---

Quote:

---

Bush plans to back marriage amendment

Constitution would say marriage is union between man and woman



Jim Bourg / Reuters



President Bush plans to endorse a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in response to a Massachusetts court decision requiring legal recognition of gay marriages in that state, key advisers said yesterday.



Bush plans to endorse language introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) that backers contend would ban gay marriage but not prevent state legislatures from allowing the kind of civil unions and same-sex partnership arrangements that exist in Vermont and California.



Bush has moved incrementally over seven months toward embracing a ban on gay marriage, and the advisers said he will clarify his position with a public statement shortly.



"We'd like to see Congress take it up, and the president will be supportive," a top Republican official said. "We would like to see both chambers act sooner rather than later."



Bush's move could put cultural issues at the forefront of an election year that had been dominated by economic and national-security issues.



The White House strategy, designed to minimize alienation of moderate voters, calls for emphasizing that Bush is for traditional marriage, not against gay people. Opinion polls have found widely varying support for a constitutional amendment depending on the way the question is phrased, suggesting that voters have ambiguous feelings on the subject.



Republican officials said Bush's decision to proceed now was driven partly by his desire to start the general election campaign on a fresh issue, at a time when his credibility has been battered by questions about prewar warnings of unconventional weapons in Iraq, as well as gaps in documents about his National Guard service.



The White House counsel's office began researching the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in June. In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry. The same court ruled last week that civil unions would not be an acceptable alternative.



'Sacrament of marriage'



Bush signaled the direction of his thinking in last month's State of the Union address, where he stopped just short of endorsing an amendment but said the nation "must defend the sacrament of marriage."



Musgrave's proposal, called the Federal Marriage Amendment, states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."



The amendment's authors say it is a compromise that would not stop state legislatures from allowing civil unions. Gay rights groups disagree. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, which supports marriage rights for gays, said the White House and "the Christian right" are "being deliberately deceptive." He said the "vague and sweeping language" of the proposed amendment's second sentence "is intended to deny any other measure of protection, including civil unions and domestic partnerships."



Republican officials said Bush's embrace of an amendment is one facet of his reelection campaign's plan to portray the Democratic front-runner, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), as a liberal who is outside the nation's mainstream.



Kerry opposes gay marriage but does not support a constitutional amendment, his campaign said yesterday. "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples, from inheritance to health benefits," he said in a statement. "I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."



'Mean-spirited'



Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist and former Kerry campaign manager, said the issue carries risk for Bush. "When Republicans are in a pinch, they always look for the cultural wedge issue," he said. "Bush's margin of victory in 2000, such as it was, came from moderate suburban voters taking Bush's word that he was a different kind of Republican, a compassionate conservative. Issues like this look mean-spirited."



Republican strategists said they believe the amendment could take years to pass Congress with the required two-thirds of each house. After that, it must be approved by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states.



Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, a group of religious leaders that has pushed for a constitutional amendment for three years, said separate hearings will take place in the House and Senate judiciary committees -- probably before May 17, when the Massachusetts court decision takes effect.



Daniels said he sees "a good chance" that the hearings will result in minor wording changes to make clear that the amendment would not block state legislatures from enacting civil unions.



Many conservative Christian groups have pushed for wording that would ban civil unions as well as same-sex marriage, and a few held out hope yesterday that Bush still might embrace their position. "Let's do it right and also ban phony marriage that is called something else," said Jan LaRue, general counsel of Concerned Women for America.



'Right set of events'



Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said organizations on the Christian right will continue to oppose civil unions at the state level. "I think civil unions are a problem, but I don't think you fight both of those battles at the same time on the federal level," he said.



For months, conservative Christian leaders have complained about Bush's hesitation to flatly endorse a constitutional amendment on marriage.



"I think from the beginning the White House felt that there was a sense of timing in this and they needed the right set of events, which they got with the Massachusetts court decisions," said Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation.



Opinion polls suggest that most Americans oppose gay marriage but favor civil unions and vacillate about an amendment.



A Feb. 5-8 poll by the National Annenberg Election Survey asked: "Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution saying that no state can allow two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other?" Of the 814 adults surveyed, 49 percent opposed an amendment, while 42 percent favored it.



That was a reversal of an Annenberg poll a few days earlier that asked, "Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman?" With that wording, 59 percent were in favor and 33 percent were opposed.



© 2004 The Washington Post Company

---

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[sam7777]

I don't think that gay marriage will be the divisive issue that the Republicans are trying to make it.



Firstly none of the main Democratic contennders is in favor of gay marriage: Kerry, Dean, Edwards.



Secondly the public doesn't favor a constitutional ammendment according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center

Quote:

---

American Public Opposes Both Same-Sex Marriages

And Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Them



In polling conducted after Wednesday’s decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court telling the state’s legislature it must legalize same-sex marriages and not try to compromise by allowing civil unions, 60 percent of the public nationally said they opposed any such law in their states, while 31 percent said they would favor one.



But the Feb. 5-8 polling of 814 adults also found that 49 percent of the public opposed a constitutional amendment saying no state could allow same-sex marriages, while 42 percent favored an amendment. That meant that about two fifths of those who opposed a same-sex marriage law in their state also opposed a constitutional amendment banning

them. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

---

Democrats have come out in favor of cilil unions which most people support. While I think the dems are showing a lack of courage supporting the status quo, even the Log Cabin Republicans must see that they will lose rights with Bush. In this fight the Dems are the ones for less government interference ironically.



Log Cabin Republicans are supporting the coalition to fight the anti-gay marriage amendment to the Massachusett's constitution. 5 gay Republicans set to be Bush delegates

Former D.C. Log Cabin president mulls protest over gay marriage

Quote:

---

Five gay Republicans are running unopposed as candidates for delegate or alternate delegate for President Bush in D.C.’s Feb. 10 Republican presidential caucus, guaranteeing them a ticket to the Republican National Convention in New York City in late August.



Their participation in the D.C. Republican caucus comes at a time when the national gay group Log Cabin Republicans has said it may decline to endorse Bush’s re-election if the president backs a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The president said in his State of the Union address last month that he might support such an amendment.

---

So I see Bush losing the support of moderate republicans which he needs while pandering to the right wing whackos who will vote for him anyway.

Edited by: sam7777  at: 2/11/04 3:42 pm