Blogcritics: Comments on Gay Marriage Goes 0-11

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:37:02 EST

I was very surprised and disappointed by this result - I guess I'm out of touch. I am not sure what exactly these amendments are affirming or protecting, but apparently a shitload of people feel threatened. I would have to agree though, that things aren't as bad as they look at the moment, because there really have been drastic changes in the perception of gays and gay rights in the country over the long haul, and in particular over the last ten years or so. Things will continue to improve: those under 30 poll as much more amenable to gay rights and gay unions than those over. And the courts have made it clear that in the long run irrational prejudice cannot be sustained legally over the long haul.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:53:32 EST

RJ, if you are going to indulge in that much celebratory ass-fucking, please make sure you are using proper lubricants, and for the sake of your catamites, proper condoms. And no, I don't think a 12 inch doll dressed up like Shrub can be easily inserted in your rectum. But it's your trip to the ER.

Comment by RJ

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:44:53 EST

"I stand behind my community because we are all ultimately working for the same thing, even if the approach is different. Same with Kerry. I was a Dean person, but I got behind Kerry because the Democratic community did." BAAA! BLEAT!

Comment by RJ

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:43:09 EST

"As far as Sullivan goes, I posted his commentary here because the straight conservative group seems to adore his principles and philosophy," Actually, he HAS no principles or philosophy. He endorsed Kerry, remember? Conservatives now despise Sullivan just as much as liberal homosexuals. He no longer has a "base"... "but the gay community turned our back on him and quit syndicating his material and demanded his gay membership card back once we learned he (an HIV positive man) seeks partners online for UNsafe sex and does not tell them he is infected" [emphasis mine] That, of course, is just a plain old lie from a bitter little man.

Comment by RJ

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:40:08 EST

"Maybe the barrel of the gun in my face is blocking my view" Hyperbole, much?

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:36:03 EST

The whole thing about these marriage amendments isn't about the civil rights of sodomites and heathens, but about re-affirming the status of women and their spawn as property. And the indications are clear that in 11 states, they have assumed their proper place as chattel. (Jumped up jeebus, I know there are enough stupid brain-dead motherfuckers who can't hear satire when they have a smarter friend read it to them).

Comment by RJ

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:35:58 EST

"Actually, had the activists been a little more patient, Civil Unions would have passed without incident and been followed by marriage within the next 10-15 years as a matter of course. Instead, the radicals decided to foist it upon an unprepared public." BINGO!

Comment by RJ

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:34:34 EST

"so now we are looking outside the U.S." Good choice.

Comment by RedTard

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:29:39 EST

Marriage is an institution which was coopted by the church long before this government existed. The government should get out of marriage altogether and pass is back to the church. Everyone and anyone would be able to have a federal civil union with all the lawful protections we now associate with marriage. Churches could choose to hand out 'marriages' as they see fit. Gay friendly churches could finally marry gay couples and homophobic ones could simply refuse to 'recognize' them. Atheists, gays, and everyone else could all sit around singing Cumbayaa instead of all this anger.

Comment by ColdForged

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:46:10 EST

Never underestimate the power of peoples' insecurities. I'm still waiting for my gay-marriage-opposing friends to explain to me how someone else's union belittles their own. Are they so insecure in their own relationships? Frustrating.

Comment by SFC SKI

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:40:18 EST

Well, Boomcrash, I have to admit I haven't been keeping up on current evente regarding these amendments so I will have to look more closely at them. I'd like to believe that issues other than the election will soon get a lot more scrutiny. I may be naive, but I like to believe that our country has the mechanisms in place to enact change for the better, and will do so. As for the yopur second issue, I thank you as well. I saw what Nam vets went through, I don't want to see it repeated.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:24:22 EST

Yep, we must protect our children. If one has the ability to get out, that is what I would recommend.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:21:25 EST

Thanks Natalie. I'll check out the Green Party, as well as being an independent. But we're also going to check out Canada and the Netherlands, maybe Germany. If Americans want a country that punishes people for not adhering to current religious standards, then maybe we should go. After all, we have children to protect from this hatred. :-)

Comment by Natalie Davis

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:08:51 EST

BCB, having walked the solitary route for some time, it would be nice to have some company. Woke up this morning in despair about the result, but comforted by the fact that I did not compromise my integrity and principles during the campaign.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:42:35 EST

sorry urthshu if I seem condescending and cynical. I am very much a family man and it hurts to have your family relegated to 'wedge issue'. You can ask RJ, I've said long ago that personally I would have settled for civil unions. Our community feels it deserves full equality and I don't deny us that, and so I stand behind my community because we are all ultimately working for the same thing, even if the approach is different. Same with Kerry. I was a Dean person, but I got behind Kerry because the Democratic community did. I've always felt that if I abandoned a party or a group to follow my own personal ideology, well, I don't think I could take the pressure of being the sole beacon of light and truth in such dark times. :-) I can tell you this though, now that this election is over, my lifelong commitment to the Democratic party has just been 'divorced'.

Comment by jack e. jett

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:41:03 EST

natalie: i couldn't agree more with your post. jack

Comment by Natalie Davis

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:32:48 EST

Land of equality. Not. Kerry, in his concession speech, talked of unifying. As if. No, this election solidified "us" versus "them." I have always said I have no enemies. That, I now see, is untrue. Half the nation is my enemy.

Comment by urthshu

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:31:26 EST

Yet that's precisely the point I was making: It HAS been 'slowly working throuth the system for the past 30 years'. The initiatives to pass it now didn't work out and have resulted in it all going backwards. Waiting- or settling for civil unions first- would have eased it in without much difficulty. We won't agree on method, but our aims match up pretty well.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:21:19 EST

Nope. From my gay friends. Deal with it. Gay friends who think that marriage has been 'pushed' on the populace this year and isn't aware it has been slowly working through the system for 30 years? Sounds like the stereotype of far too many gay people I know. Gay on the weekends, gay when the wife isn't home. I get it.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:18:07 EST

More importantly, I don't see a lot of advances in the broad category of civil rights being rolled back anytime soon Some of them were just rolled back yesterday. 8 of those 11 amendments that were passed yesterday also banned civil unions or ANY sort of recognition or protection of the gay person. Generally,, those who break the civil rights laws are prosecuted, and people are adamant enough to let those laws stand even when radicals try to remove them. I guess we all perceive things differently. Repeat: 8 of those 11 amendments that were passed yesterday also banned civil unions or ANY sort of recognition or protection of the gay person. I wish I could see these adamant defenders of civil liberties that you do, but I don't. Maybe the barrel of the gun in my face is blocking my view though. As far as Sullivan goes, I posted his commentary here because the straight conservative group seems to adore his principles and philosophy, but the gay community turned our back on him and quit syndicating his material and demanded his gay membership card back once we learned he (an HIV positive man) seeks partners online for UNsafe sex and does not tell them he is infected, while he rants about promiscuous queens in his commentary. The Right can have him and his 'optimism' for our community. On a different note, I just want to say thank you SFC SKI, I know you are a soldier, and I am aware you know that I have been very critical of our Commander-in-Chief. You are the only soldier I know who has shown an indication that my being critical of Bush does not carry down to the troops. You're the only one I've encountered like that, and I just wanted you to know.

Comment by urthshu

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:07:03 EST

"urthshu, you must get your perception of gay activism from WorldNetDaily or something." Nope. From my gay friends. Deal with it.

Comment by SFC SKI

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:52:05 EST

I read all of Sullivan's post regarding gays and their future, he is a bit more optimistic than you are, albeit guardedly.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:47:41 EST

remember, republicans are for less government. ...except for when they're for more government.

Comment by SFCSki

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:42:22 EST

Well, BCB, I am sure that right now it looks bleak, but I also believe in the people of the US, and all its checks and balances, to come out with the correct response in time (I don't want to say "right answer" for fear of having left and right thrown around again.) More importantly, I don't see a lot of advances in the broad category of civil rights being rolled back anytime soon, despite the cries of some alarmists. Generally,, those who break the civil rights laws are prosecuted, and people are adamant enough to let those laws stand even when radicals try to remove them. While gays will not likely ever be embraced by all Americans everywhere, gays are much more accepted and able to live openly, AND protected by law against a lot of discrimination and violence. I agree that they should be alllowed the same legal protections and rights as married hetero couples do, they couldn't possible make any more of a sham of marriage than so many straights do, and from an economic standpoint it seems to pass the common sense test. As a side note, many Christians fell just as threatened by the so-called "gay agenda" as you do about their "religious" one. I guess only more dialogue between the 2 parties could help, but human nature gets in the way of that far too often.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:25:57 EST

urthshu, you must get your perception of gay activism from WorldNetDaily or something. Being a little more patient? It's not like we filed for the right to marry last week. It takes years for a case to make it to a state Supreme Court and even longer to go to the US Supreme Court. We have been fighting for the right to marry for over 30 years! Patient? Why should somebody be patient and wait for other people to grow out of their bigotry? I don't get your reasoning at all. Mr. Kismet, I wish I could share your optimism, but these are constitutional amendments that are passing, not boy scout pledges. Amendments can be repealed, but I don't see it as 'easy' as you do, given the intolerant sentiment of the majority. They aren't going to change their mind anytime soon. And now that the Supreme Court will be filled with ultra-conservative judges, I don't think we can count on Lady Liberty being able to look out from behind her blindfold for a long time. I wish I had your optimism. America seems to be many decades behind other countries in terms of liberty and equality for all it's citizens. SFC SKI, thanks for your concern. I would love to live in the northeast, it's so beautiful and has some great places of tolerance, but my concern is with all the conservative judges that are going to be put into place. I don't think the laws that promote tolerance now, will be standing in the future. Certainly Mass. marriages will be stopped in 2005, or 2006 when the determination of equality is put in the hands of the populace. Sounds dismal, but that is how I see this country heading. The bible may condemn homosexuality, but I do not see how severing the legal connection between a child and his/her parent is furthering God's work. I have read stories where Christians sue and fight their PUBLIC school system to remove all mention of homosexuality. The complaints they file state that it is because it goes against their faith. And they win. So public school systems DO promote religious ideology. Well, gay people have kids too, and we are having an entire generation grow up in a society that condemns their family, severing the connection between parent and child, trampling on property rights, employment protection, etc. If anybody thinks this is good for society overall, don't bother trying to convince me, cuz I don't buy it. I read about it happening all over the country. I appreciate all the support you guys have offered but I just don't see the pendulum that is swinging, suddenly able to reverse it's course. It's not done swinging by a long shot. I think we (gay people) are first, but not the last in it's path. Women (Supreme Court has already agreed to 'review' Roe. v. Wade in the coming years) and other minorities will be next. I was taught in school what America was supposed to be. But apparently it is all wrong, because the values I was told America was founded on, are not the values it subscribes to today. Even if you are against gay rights, you cannot deny that the values America wants to follow are theocratically based. Maybe that's what America was intended to be, but if so, we should SAY that to our youth in the school system, we shouldn't mislead people with the falsehood that we are all to be equal.