Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: mmphgurgleWTFblurgh Previous entry: Not buying it

A few words on Maine and the dying hog of homophobia

Mainers came out in droves for fairness; volunteers from around the country flocked to the state to educate, inform and appeal for equality. There were long dedicated hours spent to preserve the civil right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

But even in the great state of Maine, there are far too many people who cannot move past the word “marriage” because of its ties to religion and cultural norms. The result is that the filthy hog of homophobia continues to be fed with lies and deception. Witness the reaction of Matt “Bam Bam” Barber. Read it; I know you don’t want to, but you need to see the level of hate that propelled discrimination to a victory - historians will pore over this filth decades from now, and wonder how could anyone find satiety in this level of bigotry:

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% - 47%:

“There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ‘same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1’ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow ‘gay’ duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”

The fact is that it was, yet again, not yet time to test equality when put to a popular vote. It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule—but the hateful people behind Yes on 1 capitalize on spreading fear—suckling pigs at the teat of dying, mud-covered sow of homophobia.

The hog is going to die. Hate alone cannot sustain that beast.

We should find solace in the fact that the children and grandchildren of those who voted to rollback the rights of fellow Mainers will be embarrassed that their relatives were so short-sighted, duped by entities that exist solely to discriminate using the ballot box as a weapon—and making money off of the hate with great gusto.

All of those people fighting to kill Yes on 1 are to be heralded for making us see what outreach and organization can do to pull voters to our side—and the limits of effecting change in firmly held beliefs despite using every tool in the tool box.

It’s simply not time, not in this place. What this loss in Maine (and the victory in Washington State) says to me is that I am so grateful that my civil rights, as a person of color, were not put up to a popular vote. As we’ve seen over and over in the last year, the emergence of naked racism lives despite laws on the books banning discrimination based on race. Reality-based arguments to people who are raised with bias have little motivation to change their thinking outside of keeping their bigotry out of the realm of law-breaking (and even then—it still occurs!). The feelings simply go underground.

That public expressions of racism have re-emerged and been cultivated by a major political party shows the work the LGBT community has to do as it waits for equality at the federal level. Changing hearts and minds every day is necessary—not just when there’s a pending bigoted mob rule ballot measure.

LGBTs—and more importantly, allies—need to come out of the closet advocating for equality in ways large and small. It’s the only way to move many voters, particularly the ones who think they don’t know someone who is gay. Too many politicians who support us privately still don’t have the spine to step up their game when our rights are under attack. That has to change.

I’m sure I’ll have more to say later, but I just wanted to thank everyone for putting so much energy into fighting what is an unfair, unconstitutional battle.


Kerry Eleveld @ The Advocate has a great summary of last night’s highs and lows.  More below the fold.
In better news:

Iin NC: pro-LGBT incumbents win in Durham, and Chapel Hill has an openly gay mayor. Jake Gellar-Goad of the Mark Kleinschmidt campaign contacted me last night and announced Mark is going to be the next mayor of Chapel Hill. He won by 101 votes in a squeaker.

Q-Notes:

Mark Kleinschmidt emerged victorious in his campaign for mayor of Chapel Hill on Tuesday, with a 49.49 percent (4,006) to 46.53 percent (3,766) lead against chief opponent Matt Czajkowski with 21 of 21 precincts reporting. Shortly after 9:00 p.m., Czajkowski conceded to Kleinschmidt.

A member of the Chapel Hill Town Council since 2001, Kleinschmidt will become the third openly gay man to hold mayoral office in the state, following Mike Nelson in Carrboro and Elic Senter in Frankinton.

In Durham, all of the seats up for re-election on the city council (including the mayor’s seat), are winning in landslides. All voted for the marriage equality resolution, and the bible beaters were calling for their defeat. Not a chance: 77% Bell, 76% Cole-McFadden, 72% Clement, 87% Woodard.

Out lesbian Annise Parker, the city comptroller of Houston, garnered 30% of the vote in the mayor’s race. She was the top vote-getter in a field of four, so she wins a slot in the runoff.. Houston Chronicle.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 12:51 PM • (65) Comments

I hate being torn! I’m so very, very angry the hatemongers carried Maine, proving yet again rights can NEVER be determined by popular vote. Yet I am ecstatic that so far it looks like 71 is passing here in my home state, protecting my sister’s union and those of my friends. Now we can focus on getting the DOMA overturned here, getting away from the “separate but equal” marriage/ domestic partnerships.

I will say those NC candidates look like an extremely positive step!

Comment #1: TheRealistMom  on  11/04  at  01:27 PM

Sorry Pam…nice attempt at spin, but this sucks any way you look at it.

My only hope is that the crazy wing of the GOP will conclude that gay-bashing is the only winner in their playbook, and will proceed to go so over the top on it that they’ll end up repelling and alienating independent (or just plain decent) voters.

Comment #2: Bitter Scribe  on  11/04  at  01:29 PM

I am tempted to say that the appropriate response here is a reevaluation of electoral tactics and stragtegy when it comes to marriage equality rather than a typically indignant screed about “what a conservative somewhere said.”

Marriage equality had the best chance to win on the ballot , and it still lost. That sucks, and this is the second time that has happened (California being the first). It is time for a bit of reflection here- is the right response a change in the way we approach ballot box strategies or simply to wait this out for 10-20 years until marriage equality becomes less controversial?

Comment #3: Tyro  on  11/04  at  01:39 PM

No attempt at spin, Bitter Scribe, it’s the truth laid bare. There was good news and very bad news yesterday Referendum 71 went the right way; there were gains regarding openly gay candidates in elections in NC, FL, and TX—that’s no small development in parts of the country often seen as oppressive environs for LGBT rights.

But we have to mourn that Obama and the DNC/OFA did not lift a finger to help the fight in Maine, while shifting forces to NJ for the lost-cause gubernatorial race. A conscious decision, when the civil rights of a minority were up for a vote. It’s quite damning.

Comment #4: Pam Spaulding  on  11/04  at  01:39 PM

Tyro-

Ballot fights every year unending, court cases unyielding, legislature passage uninterrupted.

Yeah, it may be that doing nothing will win faster, but the more pressure we lard on, the less the bigots can capitalize on the momentary inequality to pass more permanent crap like the constitutional amendments and the more we expose our opponents as the theocrats they are and normalize ourselves in the eyes of “moderates”.

This campaign, there were hundreds, if not thousands of stories of people who switched sides, fell out of their lifelong churches that they had stuck through even after child rape scandals, became radicalized by the forces of good and that will only increase when early next year the court reveals just how much the mormon church funded everything.

It’s a fast-track to the day-to-day changing of opinion we do every day and we should continue it because it just might speed things up and keeps us from having the horrendous 20 year period pro-choice activists have had when they decided to just be nice and wait things out or the ERA people. We will only win if we fight and I can smell blood in the water even after this setback.

Remember everyone that this was a state that could only decide to give gays basic discrimination protection 4 years ago after two failures and has elected two republicans to the senate. This is hardly Vermont we are talking about. We lost a moderately conservative state by a close, nearly exact same margin as the moderately liberal state. This is actual a sign of progress.

I suspect in less than 5 years, we will not only have more states passing it by legislature and courts, but we will have seen the first state defend it at the ballot box as well.

Comment #5: Cerberus  on  11/04  at  02:01 PM

Sad, but 53% isn’t a crushing defeat, especially when that was all that was on the ballot.  Spin doesn’t make it any better but it does show that there are a lot of non-gay people that will turn out just to protect other’s rights.  Soon, soon.

Comment #6: Magis  on  11/04  at  02:04 PM

God didn’t let Jesus get married, so I guess modern homosexuals shouldn’t get married either.
wink

Comment #7: martin  on  11/04  at  02:05 PM

I’m actually eager to see a breakdown of the voters by age. I’m assuming those opposed to marriage equality are on the whole the older segment of the population. If this is so, it will just be a matter of time before the rights of all people to get married is established once and for all.

Comment #8: martin  on  11/04  at  02:10 PM

Rights should not be legislated.  Problem is, with the 5 Scalia votes on the SCOTUS, we can’t count on the court to defend individuals.  Hell, Scalia can’t even see why Jews might not believe a crucifix is meant to “honor” them.

If miscegenists like myself had had to wait on referenda instead of Loving vs. VA, it would probably not be legal to this day.

It’s coming.  I think referenda would be helped if they were phrased logically.  Instead of voting “no” to mean “yes, gay people should be allowed to marry” and “yes” to say “take away their civil rights”, it might actually be helpful if people voted “yes” for “Yes” and “no” for “no”.

Comment #9: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/04  at  02:13 PM

Sad, but 53% isn’t a crushing defeat, especially when that was all that was on the ballot.  Spin doesn’t make it any better but it does show that there are a lot of non-gay people that will turn out just to protect other’s rights.  Soon, soon.

The one thing I hang my hat on is that each time this comes up for a vote, even when the forces for good lose, it’s by a smaller and smaller margin.  I’m certainly not going to sit here from my privileged straight perch and say that “it’s just a matter of time”, because obviously for those who want or need to marry and can’t, one day’s delay is too long, but I am amazed at how (relatively) quickly attitudes have changed - 10 years ago I couldn’t have imagined gay marriage happening at anywhere near this speed.  I thought it might be something our children (or grandchildren) would get to enjoy.  But now it’s something that I envision in my own lifetime, and that is actually enjoyed by several of my friends who are lucky (or strategic!?) enough to live in MA and CT. 

Needless to say though, what happened in Maine still sucks big time.

Comment #10: sam  on  11/04  at  02:23 PM

It won’t happen quickly but it will happen.  Look at how far we’ve come in the cause since 2000.  I can still remember the joy I felt when the marriage equality movement really gained momentum in 2004.  Sure, there have been numerous setbacks since but the outcome is inevitable.  We will continue to visibly fight for civil rights and we will achieve our goal.

Comment #11: Jake Squid  on  11/04  at  02:27 PM

This may sound overly optimistic, but I do think that part of the problem in Maine (and in California) is that you’re trying to get people to vote “no” in order to get something they’re in favor of.  It’s easy enough to tell people, “Vote ‘yes’ if you want to bay gay marriage” but it’s a lot harder to tell people, “Vote ‘no’ if you want to let gay people get married.”  I know that in 2008 here in California I was getting a little confused about if I was supposed to vote yes or no on the proposition, and I was following the election pretty obsessively.

Note that in Washington people were asked to vote “yes” if they wanted to expand rights for gay couples.  And they did.  Asking people to vote “no” if they don’t want to take away someone’s rights is counterintuitive, and in elections this close, it could easily make a difference, because confused voters may not vote the way they meant to.  Palm Beach County in 2000, anyone?

Comment #12: Mnemosyne  on  11/04  at  02:33 PM

I am so grateful that my civil rights, as a person of color, were not put up to a popular vote.
There needs to be a Federal law instead of putting to the states. Buddha knows I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for President Obama (“Mr.Change” yeah right) to sign it in though.
It would be nice if marriage wasn’t such a powerful, legal insitution that it is. We need an alternitive.
It’s strange that a Good Ol’ Boy from Texas signed in some of the strongest civil rights legislation that we have now.

Comment #13: pitbullgirl65  on  11/04  at  02:41 PM

Marriage equality had the best chance to win on the ballot , and it still lost. That sucks, and this is the second time that has happened (California being the first).

Unfortunately, it’s even worse than that, depending on how you look at it.

It’s the second time that an existing law granting LGBT marital equality has been repealed at the ballot box, which is simply a fucking abomination, but it’s actually the 31st time that the issue of LGBT marital equality has been placed in the hands of the voters, and it’s the 31st time that hatred and bigotry has won at the polls.

Which is absolutely sickening.

Someone pointed out last night that the “good news” is that the numbers continue to trend towards granting equality - that this same initiative would have been a much worse loss for the LGBT community 10, 20, or 30 years ago.  And while I suppose that is true, it’s hardly comforting.  Yes, I guess it’s good to be able to see the other side on the horizon, to realize that we’re approaching the cultural tipping point here… but we aren’t there yet.  And for a lot of older LGBT couples who would like to have at least some time to enjoy life on this earth with a sense that they are entitled to the same legal and social benefits of marriage as anyone else, we might not get there in time.

On the one hand, I look forward to a day when this matter can be poll tested and the good people win, so we can finally shove it in the faces of the bigots.

On the other hand, I become more and more appalled by the fact that we are allowing a whole segment of society’s basic civil rights be determined by the masses.

Amendment XIV wasn’t decided at the ballot box.

Amendment XIX wasn’t decided at the ballot box.

Brown v. Board of Education wasn’t decided at the ballot box.

Loving v. Virginia wasn’t decided at the ballot box.

I could go on forever.  Equality-granting measures for groups being treated as second-class citizens aren’t decided by the masses as a rule in America, they are decided by constitutional amendments and by the courts.

It would be terrific if we lived in a society in which the vast majority believed in expanding equality for everyone, but we don’t, and never have… as a general rule, we have learned to become more tolerant mostly AFTER the legislatures or judiciaries have taken action to enforce the equal treatment of our more maligned fellow citizens.

Comment #14: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  02:41 PM

Mnem:

This may sound overly optimistic, but I do think that part of the problem in Maine (and in California) is that you’re trying to get people to vote “no” in order to get something they’re in favor of.

Yeah, this is important. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my lifetime, it’s that people are stupid. With something even only slightly confusing like asking people to vote “no” for something they’re in favor of (or, let’s be fair, “yes” on something they don’t want), a distressingly large number of them are going to fuck it up.

Comment #15: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/04  at  02:43 PM

But we have to mourn that Obama and the DNC/OFA did not lift a finger to help the fight in Maine, while shifting forces to NJ for the lost-cause gubernatorial race. A conscious decision, when the civil rights of a minority were up for a vote. It’s quite damning.

Ain’t that the fucking truth?

Joe fucking Biden had more success in getting someone elected last night than Barack Obama - Owens won in NY-23, where Biden campaigned at the last minute, and Corzine lost in NJ, where Obama practically rented a second home.

But nobody except the grassroots fighters was there in Maine.  Which is absolutely disgusting.  I would have been completely OK with the GOP going 3 for 3 in the big races for elected office if we could have won in Maine.  Losing Virginia was expected, losing New Jersey stung a little, winning NY-23 provided a little delight at sticking it to the teabaggers… but losing in Maine was absolutely depressing.

And all in all, last night mostly sucked for progressives overall.

Comment #16: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  02:50 PM

DTG is right; popular acceptance follows shifts in the law. I remember researching the popularity of interracial marriages, pre-Loving, and needless to say they were generally disfavored by about a 2-1 or 3-1 margin.

Comment #17: norbizness  on  11/04  at  02:51 PM

It is sad that it lost, but the percent of people who support gay marriage is growing quickly: polls showed less than 30% supported it in Maine in 1994-6, now it’s 47%; in 1994-6 in MA 34% supported it, now it’s 56%. If this trend continues, there will be quite a few states that get marriage rights fairly soon.

Comment #18: JohnL  on  11/04  at  03:06 PM

There needs to be a Federal law instead of putting to the states. Buddha knows I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for President Obama (“Mr.Change” yeah right) to sign it in though.

I think President Obama deserves every bit of criticism he’s gotten from the LGBT community for not making good on his promises to be a “fierce advocate”.

But I disagree with your assertion above… Obama is not gonna be the one to move the ball here, but I do think that if legislation affirming LGBT rights passes both houses of Congress, he’ll sign it.  I mean… do you really think he would actually veto a repeal of DOMA or DADT if it passed both houses of Congress and wound up on his desk?

And I’m seriously not trying to be an Obamapologist on this matter, because I think he has really sucked at his handling of it.  But it’s one thing to be unwilling to take a stand in the fight and sit on the sidelines - which is essentially what Obama has done - and another thing completely to actively work against the forces of equality.

I have no reason to believe that President Obama would actually actively try to prevent LGBT equality from being achieved so egregiously by refusing to sign LGBT-affirming legislation.  It would be utterly shocking if such a thing happened.

That said… Obama’s decision to basically sit on the sidelines and do nothing about these issues while continuing to verbally pander to groups like HRC for fundraising is pretty infuriating in and of itself.  It’s not that he’s opposed to initiatives to grant LGBT equality… he’s just unwilling to lift a finger to help further the cause.  He won’t actively block progress, but he doesn’t seem too willing to be a force for pushing it, either.

Comment #19: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  03:07 PM

I do think that part of the problem in Maine (and in California) is that you’re trying to get people to vote “no” in order to get something they’re in favor of.  It’s easy enough to tell people, “Vote ‘yes’ if you want to bay gay marriage” but it’s a lot harder to tell people, “Vote ‘no’ if you want to let gay people get married.”

This is extremely important. “Do you want to let gay people get married and live as human beings?” is a different question from “Do you want to preserve marriage and not let gay people destroy it?” and can elicit either bigotry or empathy from the same person.

Comment #20: junk science  on  11/04  at  03:10 PM

20- Yes, which is why every state that allows these referenda should have a campaign with this on it every single year. Look at this year. We only lost Maine, we won NH, VT, CT, and IA and NY and NJ are still open for passing later on this year. We have net wins for the first time in awhile because we were proactive. It sucks getting kicked in the balls, but at least when we try and are proactive, we have some victories too instead of endless worse like during the Bush years.

Comment #21: Cerberus  on  11/04  at  03:33 PM

There is very little in the way of “silver linings” to find in this ugly cloud.

But I think I found one, from Bill in Portland Maine at Daily Kos, who is both an editor for the site and an openly gay man from Maine…

The future does look much better:

University of Maine-Orono campus

81% No
19% Yes

So to all of the hateful fuckers celebrating today who want to continue to trample upon the rights of our LGBT citizens, here’s a newsflash, assholes - you are going to die before the rest of us.  We will outlive you shitstains.  And in the end, we WILL win.

Comment #22: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  03:52 PM

DTG @ 19:

>>>It’s not that [Obama’s] opposed to initiatives to grant LGBT equality… he’s just unwilling to lift a finger to help further the cause.  He won’t actively block progress, but he doesn’t seem too willing to be a force for pushing it, either.

This is because Obama and his advisers (Rahm Emmanuel) are too scared of tackling any hot button social issues during his first term (not that a second one is assured).

If his second term does come around in 2012, I think you’ll see Obama become more outspoken on topics like DADT and DOMA.

Comment #23: CHV  on  11/04  at  03:52 PM

Though it pains me to say, as a gay, married Iowa resident, Iowa is not a sure thing in the medium term. Though nothing will be changed until 2012ish, and though in the long run I think marriage equality will happen in the whole country, there are plenty of bigots here (Hi, Mom! Hi, Dad!) who will be trying to undo the court decision, or who are working on it already.

The mechanism is complicated, and I think is tilted against changing court decisions, but it’s still not a firmly-settled thing. Though the fact that there have been no natural disasters since April and that life has more or less continued as normal since the court decision surely counts in same-sex couples’ favor.

Comment #24: mr_subjunctive  on  11/04  at  03:54 PM

(That was directed at Cerberus’s comment.)

Comment #25: mr_subjunctive  on  11/04  at  03:55 PM

My state of Washington is also inching towards equality. (I think Mnemosyne makes an awesome point about getting people to vote Yes instead of No. People do want to make affirmative statements.)

Oh, add this to the small pile of good news: My old home state of Utah found SLC electing their first openly gay councilman.

Comment #26: PixelFish  on  11/04  at  03:55 PM

Two big churches: Catholic & Mormon, came out against Gay Marriage, and raised or donated money to pass their nasty law.

This is Unconstitutional.  We really must take on these corrupt cults of hatred.

Comment #27: Kwillow  on  11/04  at  04:05 PM

We won in Kalamazoo last night!  Ordinance 1856 banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity passed with a pretty solid 62%-38% vote, and things are looking good for the future, as the Western Michigan University student areas went by much larger margins than even that.

Comment #28: Brylock  on  11/04  at  04:05 PM

Redefining marriage to mean somethingit never did is not a civil right.

Comment #29: tomonthebay  on  11/04  at  04:38 PM

I actually think this needed to happen several years ago, but this needs to be a wake up call.  Gay rights activists need to stop telling themselves they’re on the right side of history, and therefore it’s inevitable that they will prevail.  And they need to stop blaming their losses on conservative Christians.  You’re losing not particularly religious, registered Democrats.  These measures couldn’t be passing in places like California and Maine without them.  But at this point, it’s stopped being a surprise when our side loses.  And I feel like we’re not learning the right lessons.  We need to stop agreeing about how the problem is Christian conservatives, and telling ourselves that they can’t keep winning forever.  We need to figure out why we’re losing secular Democrats, and craft arguments that win them back.

Comment #30: Wallace  on  11/04  at  04:51 PM

Redefining marriage to mean somethingit never did is not a civil right.

Comment #29: tomonthebay

Deuteronomy 21:15-17: “15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,
16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.” (NIV)

Samuel 12:7-8 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s <b>wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.</i>

My wives approve of this, Tom.

Comment #31: cynickal  on  11/04  at  04:57 PM

tomonthebay,

I’m just gonna be crude here.  Eat my asshole, you inbred mouth-breathing troglodyte POS.

Comment #32: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  04:58 PM

I knew I should have previewed as soon as I hit the Blaspheme button

Comment #33: cynickal  on  11/04  at  04:58 PM

Redefining marriage to mean somethingit never did is not a civil right.

Sure it is. That’s why you’re not allowed to buy a 12 year old from her dad to be your wife and rape her every night.

Marriage used to mean “that condition in which a man has a high-status sex-and-domestic slave” or perhaps “that condition in which a man has as many sex-and-domestic slaves as he can support”. Now it means a union of legal equals, because enslaving women to their husbands was wrong. And as soon as you take the gender-based slavery out of it and make it a relationship of equals… why shouldn’t it include members of the same sex?

Comment #34: Alara J Rogers  on  11/04  at  05:00 PM

@tomonthebay

Interracial marriage, was once upon a time not what marriage was legally defined as. It also was a violation of civil rights. It is, in fact, a civil right to change oppressive or discriminatory institutions.

Comment #35: jalmondale  on  11/04  at  05:23 PM

Because they want to keep child-rearing to themselves, they want to keep the thousands of dollars of taxes they save to themselves, they want to keep the inheritance of their misbehaving adult children to themselves, and to exclude anyone they don’t approve from their adult children’s lives.

They have the advantages, and they don’t want adults to choose to care for other adults, period.

But then again, these are the same people who put the value of a live child below the value of an dead fetus.

Comment #36: Crissa  on  11/04  at  05:23 PM

I actually think this needed to happen several years ago, but this needs to be a wake up call.  Gay rights activists need to stop telling themselves they’re on the right side of history, and therefore it’s inevitable that they will prevail.  And they need to stop blaming their losses on conservative Christians.  You’re losing not particularly religious, registered Democrats.  These measures couldn’t be passing in places like California and Maine without them.  But at this point, it’s stopped being a surprise when our side loses.  And I feel like we’re not learning the right lessons.  We need to stop agreeing about how the problem is Christian conservatives, and telling ourselves that they can’t keep winning forever.  We need to figure out why we’re losing secular Democrats, and craft arguments that win them back.

The funding for institutional bigotry is coming from the fundies.

The votes for institutional bigotry are also coming from the fundies, but more importantly, from old people.

Young people outlive old people.  We haven’t crossed over the line of having generational dominance on our side, but we will in a matter of years.  A 60 year old voting against equality only has a few more election cycles left to influence the outcomes.  A 25 year old supporting equality has 15 or more election cycles left to influence the outcomes.

Guess who wins in the long term?

And before busting out the common conservative trope that “people get more conservative the older they get”... true, on matters of fiscal policy.  On social issues, not so much.  Ask any older anti-gay conservative who makes this claim if they EVER would have supported the concept of gay marriage, even in their supposedly “liberal youth”.  People in their 20s and 30s who support LGBT marriage equality today will continue to support marriage equality when they reach their 50s and 60s.  Our individual views on fiscal policy may shift right as we get older, but our individual cultural values are much less dynamic as we age.  People who support the fight for equality today will continue to support it 40 years from now.  People who oppose the fight for equality today will mostly be worm food 40 years from now.

As frustrating as the present state of affairs is, America has always headed in the direction of granting more equality over long periods of time.  We used to enslave people based on their skin color.  In the early 1800s, it’s likely that ballot initiatives to continue this barbaric practice would have been widely supported.  The notion of even debating such initiatives today would be appalling to the vast majority of Americans.  Same for women’s suffrage.  Same for interracial marriage.  Hell, even though many polls show that abortion remains a hotly divided topic, I don’t believe the majority of Americans today would support an outright total ban on all abortions.  Back in 1970, that vote would have gone a lot differently.

The cultural shift change is simple.  We will cross the line when enough of the closed-minded assholes die off.  And a lot more of them will die before we do.  We don’t need to worry about changing their minds, because for a lot of them, it would be a waste of time.  4 out of 5 student voters at the University of Maine supported the fight for equality yesterday, and the day will come when the youth control enough of the vote to defeat the bigots.  Today, there is a bright-eyed idealistic 20-something somewhere in America that is going to be the President of the United States in 20-30 years.  And that 20-something is on our side.

In the end, we will win.  This is no longer a question of “if”, it is simply a question of “when”.

Incidentally… to all older commenters who stand on the good side of this issue and other progressive issues - thank you, thank you, thank you.  My screed is not intended to be an indictment of all older Americans, just the older Americans who support bigotry, which sadly is most of them, especially the older they are.  Our 60, 70, and 80 year old friends are real heroes for the cause, but realistically speaking, they represent a pretty lonely group - most of your generational peers suck when it comes to this matter.

Comment #37: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  05:34 PM

What a GREAT day indeed!! This affirms everything I have been saying for the longest time. The majority of Americans believe in traditional marriage, one man one woman. PERIOD. Everytime this goes to the ballot in whatever state you wanna choose….you LOOSE!  SO DEAL WITH IT!!

Comment #38: cookie  on  11/04  at  05:53 PM

Cookie, the majority of Americans believed in slavery too, BUT THEY WERE WRONG. Putting this on the ballot was wrong. The fundies wanted it on the ballot because they knew they could win. Simple as that.

Comment #39: Pam Spaulding  on  11/04  at  06:10 PM

Somewhat tangential, but guess which California “defender of traditonal marriage” beauty queen just abandoned a million dollar lawsuit against the state pageant authorities after it was revealed that the good little Christian princess had a sex tape floating around?

God I fucking love schadenfreude!

Comment #40: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  06:16 PM

Are you serious??? Comparing this to slavery???  No wonder no one takes you serious.  Maine is one of the most liberal states in America…just like California.  Those states aren’t full of fundies, what they are full of are Americans who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.  oh yea,  fundies didn’t push to get in on the ballot….left wing fucknuts like you did. And you LOST!!  So continue to put it on as many states ballots as you want.  You will continue to loose!

Comment #41: cookie  on  11/04  at  06:19 PM

What a GREAT day indeed!! This affirms everything I have been saying for the longest time. The majority of Americans believe in traditional marriage, one man one woman. PERIOD. Everytime this goes to the ballot in whatever state you wanna choose….you LOOSE!  SO DEAL WITH IT!!

Hey asshole… look at the demographic breakdown on how the vote went.  80% of young people in Maine supported gay marriage yesterday.

Guess who is gonna live longer?  The crusty old fuckers who won’t let go of 1950s America, or the progressive-leaning youth who will be voting for the next 5 or 6 decades, long after your ass is rotting worm food in the fucking soil?

Go fuck yourself.

Comment #42: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  06:19 PM

It would be nice if wingnuts would take cookie’s advice regarding the Presidential election.

It would be nicer if cookie would put down the Taser for 5 minutes and pick up a book about Loving v. Virgina.

Oh well.

Comment #43: Sour Kraut  on  11/04  at  06:20 PM

Those states aren’t full of fundies, what they are full of are Americans who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

No, what they are full of is a diverse mix of people, some who support equality, some who support bigotry.  Right now, the bigots are in the majority at the ballot booth - by a pretty small margin.

And the average age of the bigots is several decades older than the average age of equality supporters.

You piles of pigshit won’t live forever, and the youth who support equality will outlive you.  And in the next decade, we’ll also outnumber you, while you shitpiles become senile and more and more of you go take your permanent dirt naps.

My only hope is that you live to see the day when the younger generations finally have a strong enough majority to put the final smackdown on the hatefulness of so many from the older generations.

You will be irrelevant soon, you asswipe.  The clock is completely on our side.

Comment #44: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  06:29 PM

DTG,

I remember the first time one of these came up for a vote, and I was really shocked that the gay-friendly side lost.  I’ve continued to be shocked at the success of the opponents of gay marriage.  It blew my mind that Prop 8 would even be competitive in California, let alone that it would win.  But, to me, it’s just stopped being shocking.  And I worry that by the time the demographics are on our side, it’s going to be incredibly hard to undue all the success the other side is achieving now. 

And I don’t think you can write it all off as fundies and bigotry.  That maybe gets them 35% of the vote, but that leaves 15-20% that’s still showing up and voting with them.  And it seems to me we’re so convinced we’re going to win, we’re not investing the necessary energy in figuring out how to fight for that 15-20% that should be on our side.

Comment #45: Wallace  on  11/04  at  06:33 PM

Keep drinking the Koolaid, DTG,  One day Americans will wake up (which they are slowly doing now), and tell left wing fucknuts like you, go back under the rock that you came from!!!  Liberalism is what got us on the path to hell we’re on now. So take that clock and shove it up your ass! We are taking back America!!! BTW…..stop pulling out Loving v. Virginia to try to argue for gay marriage….DOES NOT WORK!!  interracial marriage and gay marriage are TWO different topics!

Comment #46: cookie  on  11/04  at  06:45 PM

Can we ban this goddamn colostomy bag already?

Comment #47: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  06:48 PM

By the way, to the wingnuts gloating about the outcomes of last night’s elections as being some sort of “sea change” that is predictive of what will happen next year…

What did you say in November 2001?

Two governorships that had been held by Republicans for the previous eight years were flipped that year to the Democrats, despite a president who enjoyed high approval ratings at the time in the immediate aftermath of 9/11… did you think that was also a “sea change”?

It wasn’t.  And neither is this.  The two governor’s races went the exact same way that they have gone for the past 20 years.

In NJ, in every gubernatorial election since 1989, the candidate from the opposite party of the POTUS has ALWAYS won the race in the off-year elections.  And the same goes for VA, but that trend goes back even further, all the way to 1977.

And despite GOP pundits talking about New Jersey being this deep blue state that would never normally elect a Republican to anything, the facts say otherwise.  While NJ has been pretty consistently blue in federal elections for some time, the governor’s office is a whole different story - for 16 of the past 28 years, the New Jersey governor has been a Republican.  Last night was hardly an unprecedented victory for the GOP.

So when you really break it down, 2009 was no more a huge win for the Republicans than 2001 was a huge win for the Democrats.  What happened last night was essentially par for the course in these off-year races.  An overall win for the GOP for sure, but not the groundbreaking event that Fucked Noise is making it out to be.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911030050

Comment #48: DTG in STL  on  11/04  at  07:09 PM

Sweet McGillicuddy!  Someone let cookie into the liquor cabinet, didn’t they?

Comment #49: Sour Kraut  on  11/04  at  07:45 PM

Oh, add this to the small pile of good news: My old home state of Utah found SLC electing their first openly gay councilman.

Similarly, in Detroit, the top vote-getter in yesterday’s City Council (who becomes Council president) elections was Charles Pugh, an openly gay African-American man.  It’s a small victory, but it could go a long way in eventually reversing the anti-marriage equality amending to Michigan’s constitution.

Comment #50: Linnaeus  on  11/04  at  07:57 PM

Er, make that “amendment”.

Comment #51: Linnaeus  on  11/04  at  07:58 PM

As usual, each side of last night’s election are going to play up the positives and downplay (or ignore) the negatives (respectively).

For example, I expect Sean Hannity will very briefly address Hoffman’s loss in NY-23 on his show tonight while heavily emphasizing GOP wins in VA and NJ. 

Remember JFK’s old saying about success having a thousand fathers, and failure being an orphan. It applies to politics today as much as any other time.

Cookie @ 38, 41, 46:

FYI: Only idiots who can’t express themselves like adults (much less spell “lose” correctly) rely on using all caps and heavy exclamation points to make their positions.

Otherwise, despite setbacks in CA and ME same sex marriage is going to keep expanding. You’d better get used to it, hot pants.

Comment #52: CHV  on  11/04  at  08:09 PM

Someone let cookie into the liquor cabinet

Yep, and it looks like he drank all the Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum….........

Liberalism is what got us on the path to hell we’re on now.

“Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.”

Amanda, I hearby invoke the stick rule, there are dead palm trees in southeastern Tulare county that have more sense than cookie the political troll.

Comment #53: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/04  at  08:30 PM

>>>“Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.”

This statement (probably taken from Limbaugh) is not only fucking moronic (as no political philosophy exists in a vacuum), it’s also a huge cop-out to those so beholden to conservatism that they cannot bring themselves to admit when its imploded on itself (e.g. Bush/Cheney).

And just for the record, this also applies to liberalism.

Comment #54: CHV  on  11/04  at  09:09 PM

Cookie has never contributed anything useful, aside from giving us an example of authoritarian thinking. He once threatened a commenter, although most people didn’t seem to notice at the time as they were too busy yelling at him for other reasons. Banning is long overdue.

Comment #55: Samantha Vimes  on  11/05  at  10:06 AM

”>>>“Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.”
This statement (probably taken from Limbaugh) is not only fucking moronic (as no political philosophy exists in a vacuum), it’s also a huge cop-out to those so beholden to conservatism that they cannot bring themselves to admit when its imploded on itself (e.g. Bush/Cheney).”

I first read at Digby’s blog several years ago (I don’t know if she originated it or not).  And it’s not something “conservatives” say about themselves (mainly because they’re just not that self-aware), it’s an observation of the way Conservatism behaves like a religious belief.

No matter what happens, the True Believer is not dissuaded; any setback is seen as the action of some rival group, and further strengthens their belief.  For example, see wingnut/teabagger reaction to their stinging loss in NY-23 and how that proves they need to run even more radically conservative candidates. 

It’s a pretty insightful observation actually…

Comment #56: MikeEss  on  11/05  at  10:43 AM

Damn, I really didn’t need cookie before my first cup of coffee, unless it was a nice biscotti. Unfortunately, the taste in my mouth is more like a shit sandwich.

Going back to the issue of setting up voting for more distinct “yes” and “no”, I have to agree. I was fearful that here in WA we might have that problem based on the original initiative that the homobigots were attempting to put on the ballot. This summer, we needed to be sure NOT to sign the petitions, as what was being put forth was an attempt to overturn what Governor Gregoire had signed into law granting domestic partnerships all of the rights of a marriage. With only a short time before the elections it changed, as the initiative on the ballot was to MAINTAIN the rights signed into law, so we needed to vote yes. Thankfully it seems so far people got the message, but last I looked the margin was narrowing.

Comment #57: TheRealistMom  on  11/05  at  11:45 AM

I want to submit that we’re NOT redefining marriage.  What marriage means as it already stands—-that is, love and committment and social acceptance/legal protections of the relationship—-is what we want; THAT IS WHY civil unions aren’t enough, because they are not marriage as we define marriage today.

Marriage, the relationship, is the same, gay or straight—-all we are doing is letting more couples in.

Marriage isn’t a property transfer of women from father to husband these days.  It isn’t a repressive social box, a duty, a gender-role lockup, or even a dull bit of bureaucracy, and when you ask a random person on the street what marriage means, these are not the answers you get.  It is, in our culture, overwhelmingly perceived as first and foremost the ultimate expression of love, as the official choosing of one’s favorite, one’s beloved, the person one means to share one’s life with.

Seeing as this is what same-sex couples often do, same as straight couples, it makes perfect sense that we pick up the institution that is, in the present culture, almost tailor-made for us.  No change in definition is required.

(Seriously, how WOULD we change the definition of marriage?  Have it imply more love?  The only way we’d change it, and on an individual basis only at that, is a complete lack of “we had to get married because one of us got pregnant.”)

IOW, trolls, shut the fuck up.

Comment #58: Kyra  on  11/05  at  12:14 PM

Oh, and what Maine is full of is people who are grindingly poor, and vulnerable to skilled propagandists who tell them that all those newcomers with money and loose morals are taking away their lives. Downstate went overwhelmingly against, the interior (where a friend lives and although poor by urban standards is still among the best-off in town) was full of Yes signs.

Comment #59: paul  on  11/05  at  12:24 PM

I usually eat cookies, rather than feed them, but,
oh yea, fundies didn’t push to get in on the ballot….left wing fucknuts like you did.

Complete bullshit in Maine’s case. Us fucknuts had won, through the channels of good ol’ representative democracy, working like it is supposed to. It was the fundies who couldn’t stand that the people’s representatives did the right thing, and so had to subvert them and put it on the ballot.

Comment #60: Shiny  on  11/05  at  12:43 PM

As it stands, as long as the government allows civil unions/marriages to be an economic game the right will hold on to it because the majority of money is coming from large corporations and large churches.  Once the businesses are forced to give insurance and benefits they’ll pull their support which will leave the churches to fight a battle by themselves.  Ultimately it will become a state-by-state issue unless democrats get gutsy but currently nobody wants to get voted out by giving a minority equal rights.  It sucks, it’s completely unfair, but it is how this works.  Until the younger generation takes over and solidifies equality in their own minds nobody is going to willingly vote to give rights.

Comment #61: Xeranar  on  11/05  at  09:13 PM

If people really wanted to protect Traditional Marriage, they would tell bigots like Barber to keep their dirty hands off.

As for Barber’s talk of telling the truth, how many people who believed Rick Warren’s lie about marriage being “5000 yeras of a man and a woman” voted against gay marriage, and how does that compare to those who know that polygamy has had official acceptance—including in Utah Territory between 1850 and 1890?

Comment #62: Judge Moonbox  on  11/06  at  12:04 AM

Yeah, it may be that doing nothing will win faster, but the more pressure we lard on, the less the bigots can capitalize on the momentary inequality to pass more permanent crap like the constitutional amendments and the more we expose our opponents as the theocrats they are and normalize ourselves in the eyes of “moderates”. unix web hosting

This campaign, there were hundreds, if not thousands of stories of people who switched sides, fell out of their lifelong churches that they had stuck through even after child rape scandals, became radicalized by the forces of good and that will only increase when early next year the court reveals just how much the mormon church funded everything. php web hosting

It’s a fast-track to the day-to-day changing of opinion we do every day and we should continue it because it just might speed things up and keeps us from having the horrendous 20 year period pro-choice activists have had when they decided to just be nice and wait things out or the ERA people. We will only win if we fight and I can smell blood in the water even after this setback. web hosting frontpage

Remember everyone that this was a state that could only decide to give gays basic discrimination protection 4 years ago after two failures and has elected two republicans to the senate. This is hardly Vermont we are talking about. We lost a moderately conservative state by a close, nearly exact same margin as the moderately liberal state. This is actual a sign of progress.

Comment #63: shawn  on  11/10  at  01:53 AM

I’m still boogled by cookie’s claim Maine is liberal.  WTF?  No, cookie dear, not even close.  It’s more closely aligned to my old home state of Idaho (at least the northern part) than my current one of MA.  They fancy themselves (and seem to sometimes be) rugged individualists.  They don’t like religious fundy wacko authoritarians messing with their drugs and sex or unaware urban conservation fundies (as opposed to real conservationists) messing with their fishing and hunting.

Comment #64: helen w. h.  on  11/10  at  10:28 PM

I can’t seem to pull you guys up in my google reader.  When I look up “Pandagon” all I get are crazy sexist persons responding to the things posted on this blog.  I want to attach your blog to my easily found cluster of neat things read daily.  Unfortunately that means I currently have to go to your website to do so.

Is this fixable?

Comment #65: bacchuswino  on  11/10  at  10:32 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.