Gay marriage cont'd

Yeah I totally agree with your last point. One of my really good friends at work here is gay and she is (was, I guess now...) planning on getting married to her long time partner. On Wednesday afternoon, a lot of people in our office were scanning the polls to see if Prop 8 had passed or not. Finally late in the day it looked like 8 was going pass. My friend got teary and said "I can't believe that so many people in California hate me." To me, it's like what the F...how can people who have gay friends or relatives look them in the eye and basically think "No, I don't want you to have the same rights as me." I just don't get it.


Anyway, I'd rather spend $50,000 on a Lex or a Benz than a political campaign! At least mortgage your children's future for something tangible, preferably with lots of bling. Arrgggg...

--------

The no on prop 8 ad that was talking about how other races used to not be able to marry and such was Samuel L. Jackson, so I assume they were appealing to blacks with that one.

And I also have a hard time understanding, maybe the better word is believing, someone when they say they are not against gays but only against gay marriage.

I have debated, recently, a lot of religious folks, non religious but first generation Americans (i.e. strong traditional values from their country of origin), “normal folks” etc. And at this point I haven’t talked with a single one whose argument doesn’t boil down to negative reactions to homosexuality. Either they don’t want their children to turn gay, they think being gay is immoral intrinsically, it varies, but the jist is homosexuality = bad.

And of those that I have debated, in general the black folks are either insulted or just disagree with the position that gay marriage is the same thing as black civil rights. Homosexuality is a choice, it’s a lifestyle, its unnatural, and the arguments go on. But until African Americans at large can associate homosexual acceptance with civil rights, they won’t be changing their minds any time soon.

Someone else brought up the fact that in contrast to blacks or Chinese or whoever not being able to intermarry, gays CAN marry, they just can’t marry other gay folks. That is almost like the opposite of laws that existed in times gone by where interracial marriage was the taboo and black marrying blacks was no problem.

But to my main point, I reject the idea that you can be anti gay marriage and for gay rights, or the homosexual lifestyle or say that you are tolerant of their lifestyle. And all my experience to this point has proven this out.

As to abortion, I can at least accept the idea that there is ambiguity on when life begins. I can intellectually understand how two reasonable people can look at the same evidence and disagree in their final decision. No religion, intolerance, etc required. Gay marriage seems to require something extra to reject, intolerance or hate or prejudice whatever the case may be.

--------

Thx M's for the comments, and props to G for even getting to the last point on one of my long-winded emails! Regarding your coworker - I can understand why she's upset. But of course it's not like the "Yes on 8" people "hate" her specifically, or gays in general. Unfortunately we live in a very competitive, adversarial, fragmented society. Giving concessions or benefits to one group may be perceived by others as doing so at their expense. They would rather "protect what's theirs" than give gays something that seems to diminish what they already have, regardless of the hurt it causes to gays. For lack of a better metaphor, maybe it's like rich people lobbying Congress to cut their taxes by reducing welfare benefits to the poor? So it's not like the rich hate the poor and want to punish them (well, not all rich people at least), but they want what they think is rightfully theirs, and are willing to take from another group to do so.

But I heard a very sage comment from one gay woman interviewed by KQED. She said that she was planning to marry her longtime partner as well, but despite this unfortunate voting result, she knows that no one can attack the love they share - and that's more important than any official title like marriage or whatnot. If everyone was so humble, then we wouldn't even have this conflict. Not to say that gays should just accept it, but non-gays also could also say, "Gays may be marrying, but nothing that anyone else does can take away from the sanctity of my bond with my spouse, so it doesn't matter." Separation of church and state? Certainly, but let's also remember separation of public and private life. America is a great land because our private practices are no business of others or the state (within reason). But that freedom carries the responsibility that we must also respect others' wishes, even if we don't agree with them.

Yes I agree with M's comments and also think it's strange for some people to say they oppose gay marriage, but are not homophobic. Obviously people are more bigoted than they admit, and homosexuality is not well accepted worldwide (if CA gays feel bad now, maybe they could visit Tehran for a week and see how good they have it actually). So immigrants will bring those sentiments with them here. I know gays may never be able to change some minds, but better PR from them fostering better public perceptions would really help their cause. But maybe the fundamental difference is that homosexuality doesn't really affect non-gays, because in general they don't have to see it publicly. But for gay marriage, just to know that it's legally equivalent to hetero marriage, and worry that their kids will be confused in school or other stereotypes, makes them oppose it? I heard one voter say, "I am not even against gay marriage, but just I don't want my kids being taught those things." Even though most of those fears are unwarranted, how can you get through to people who think like that, especially with the anti-gay-marriage side stirs up their paranoia?

I also find it funny that interracial or inter-religious unions used to be discouraged or even illegal, yet homosexual marriage is now under fire. But the rationale seems to be similar. "Traditionalists" and narrow-minded people didn't want their faith or race polluted by lesser humans, and don't want gay marriage to take away from hetero marriage's status. It's an ideology I guess. However, I do disagree with those who want to equate their situation with the black Civil Rights struggle. As recently as the 1960s, blacks couldn't even be in the same restaurant as whites, were assaulted rather than protected by the police, and their disenfranchisement was tolerated. Gays have it much, much better, and I think it may insult or at least turn off some blacks if they try to draw parallels with their people's past suffering. Plus, it's not like blacks have totally overcome as the old song said. All the statistics suggest that blacks are still doing much worse in America than gays, even if our next president is half black. But that is mostly symbolic, and the fact that Obama won will not in itself do much to improve the lives of millions of American blacks still marginalized or burdened by the legacies of racism.

And the stakes have raised...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/mormon_backlash_boycott

I would expect this type of response from the pro-gay movement, but it is counter-productive and hypocritical. Not all Christians are against them, and probably not all Mormons either. No matter how they may look down on or dislike Mormons on a personal level, it's not right for people who promote (or even demand) tolerance to behave so intolerantly to their political opponents. If that happens, then they lose their moral high ground. They say that Mormons have gone from persecuted to persecutor, but obviously that is quite a stretch (the latter part). Gays are not "second class citizens" in CA or most of America. They are protected under the same rights that we all are, the same rights as Mormons or the KKK (no relation). It's not like they are stoned in the streets, barred from owning businesses, or forced to wear rainbow armbands. Exaggeration won't help their cause, and in fact suggests a victim's complex. "Persecuted" is not a term that should be used lightly, lest it lose its power to describe real instances of high injustice (Darfur, Palestine, etc.), which numbs people from feeling outrage and taking action.

It's not right to deface Mormon temples or defame an entire faith just because they don't agree with you. Collective punishment is ignorant, often bigoted, and even prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but few people pay heed. Mormons were one of many groups supporting "Yes on 8"; so why just single them out? Would they dare do the same thing to black churches who were also against them? And Utah is about 70% Mormon; if they boycott tourism and commerce there (ski industry, Sundance Festival, etc.), it will hurt thousands of innocent people who don't care about Prop 8 or may even support gay marriage. Similarly, it's ludicrous for conservative extremists to call for boycotts of "gay friendly" companies, just because they may donate to some gay rights groups. It's not like Microsoft or Ford are designing gayness into their products to brainwash non-gay users. But that demonstrates how hard it will be to bridge the gulf between the activists on each side of the debate (if you can call it that).

Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.

"It's really not a Park City thing, and I don't see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue," he said. "To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues — it's sad that people kind of think that and say, 'We're going to bury you.' It's sad to hear people talk like that."

More on gay marriage

In my opinion, spending your life savings to back a proposition of any sorts is completely and utterly irresponsible. I know that it's their right to spend the money however they see fit, but with five kids and a California economy that is sinking, that is just plain stupid.

The 69% vote from African Americans for Prop 8 is kind of shocking. IMO, it's also hypocritical of African Americans to vote for it after decades of their own fight against inequality. I'll just leave it to the California Supreme Court's own words from their May decision to allow same-sex marriage:

"An individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

And as usual, Jon Stewart expertly highlights the hypocrisy of the Mormon Church's fight against same-sex marriage:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=i-now-denounce-you-chucklarry


Why can't people just let people live? If you don't approve of gay marriage, then don't get one and SHUT THE F*** UP.

--------

Well now you see why I prefer to discuss foreign policy issues. Sadly, the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa seem easier to comprehend than the bitter, emotional deadlocks we face on such social issues like gay marriage and abortion! But I appreciate your input M, and generally agree.

I too feel bad about the black voter reaction to gay marriage and whatnot. But despite being majority Democrat, most Christian blacks follow a fairly socially conservative version of the faith. There were a lot of "No on 8" radio ads narrated by an obviously black voice in order to maybe change their opinions, but to no avail. History seems to show that previously persecuted groups will generally not stick their necks out to assist other persecuted groups (especially when it could return them to persecuted status). And sadly, once persecuted groups obtain power, they may return the favor by persecuting their former abusers or others (Iraqi Shia being a recent example). That is probably what some xenophobes and white supremacist Americans fear about empowered blacks and the new Obama administration. But there were some positive examples, such as Northern Jews risking their lives to help Southern blacks in the Civil Rights struggle, and the Mandela-led reconciliation in South Africa. But unfortunately, it seems that persecution may just make minority groups more self-protective, even at the expense of others. Not to say that is happening with American blacks, but it's clear that many of them are not going out of their way to speak out for gays/immigrants/Muslims, but no more or less than other races I guess. It just depends on who become the new n*****s in our society: blacks, Indians, Poles, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Latinos, gays, Muslims. And unfortunately, the previous n*****s (after the mainstream decides to include them) often join the bandwagon to give the new n*****s a hard time.

Even with Obama, check out this link:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/20729974.html?location_refer=Nation

I guess it's more the fault of his campaign handlers than Obama himself, but he's the chief. They are so paranoid of the Arab-Muslim "slur" (so are "Baptist" and "British" slurs now too?), that they have gone to ludicrous lengths to "protect" Obama. Of all the hundreds of speeches he gave, he never ONCE said that Americans shouldn't be like that. He dissed McCain for not using email, but never said that it's ok to be Muslim, even if he isn't. But Obama just wanted to win, and had to neutralize this potential weakness, even if it meant failing to take a stand for what's right and insulting a subset of his supporters (Muslim Americans are heavily anti-GOP for obvious reasons). It does disappoint me and other liberals who believe that Obama could have shown more courage and inclusion, especially since he has criticized Bush for straining relations with the Muslim world and inciting backlash. As you said, isn't that hypocritical of a black man with a law degree, who should know a lot about injustice? But sorry to digress...

Funny Daily Show clip, thanks. Well, for the record only a few fringe Mormons practice polygamy, and I guess it's not totally mysogenistic - during their trek to Utah, many men died and the survivors felt obligated to care for the widows/orphans. Supposedly it's the same principle behind Muslim polygamy (many men died in wars and left their women in a bind, so other men picked up the slack). Not to say that I agree with it, but just a take on the history. There was an interesting documentary on Mormonism on PBS that my wife and I saw last month. I guess it went a few steps beyond the South Park parody haha. I couldn't really get my head around the concept that they believe we're all "celestial beings", and families were predestined to find each other on Earth, and then be together for eterninty in the celestial realm. Man, that must be truly hell if you have to live with your family forever! Maybe that partially explains why many Mormons take family very seriously and therefore feel strongly about perceived attacks on their "divine" family model.

Yes I agree with you about that family's spending. I didn't mention it to praise them, but rather to demonstrate how extreme some people's reaction to gay marriage can be. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they weren't manipulated into that decision by their church or "Yes on 8" minions. Those parents love their kids as much as the next family, and I guess they just felt that their savings, which could have been used to improve their kids' lives in many ways, was better spent as political influence. I guess to help shape a world where there are laws that better preserve their value system. I'm not saying it's sound thinking, but it's not like they're just jerks who want to pick on gays. Though I would question "activist religions" that would rather speak with their pocketbooks/lobbyists than humble deeds of love and charity. Thankfully we live in a "civil society" versus Congo or Iraq, where they settle their differences with bloodshed. But here we sometimes inflict sociopolitical violence on one another instead, which can be almost as hurtful.

Maybe pro-tolerance groups can't reach some people who have gone off the deep end, but it shouldn't have gotten to this point. Now pro-gay groups are protesting outside Mormon temples and such, which won't help anything. Shouldn't they know that some religious people crave nothing more than feeling righteously persecuted? Remember how bad it got with the Tom DeLay Congress and Terry Schiavo? Animosity just makes both sides want to circle the wagons and be less receptive to the other's views. Some people are truly homophobic, but others do mostly practice live and let live. However, those people's beliefs may compel them to want to "protect marriage" or other social standards. It's not good enough to them to go about their lives knowing that gay marriage is happening around them. I mean, would we sit idly by if we knew our next-door neighbor beat his wife and kids? I know it's not the same thing (and gay marriage is not a crime), but to the "Yes on 8" people, I guess they feel that it is their moral duty to take action and not just passively accept it, especially if people like Newsome keep flaunting it all over.

Same thing with abortion; they feel that a high crime is being committed and their conscience won't let them just tolerate it. Though the pro-life side may never accept anything less than "life begins at conception". At least with gay marriage, maybe in time the proponents can demonstrate that gay couples just want to mind their business, be happy, and don't have an agenda of spreading gayness. In fact, many preachers have said gay marriage is a good thing, because any sort of increase in monogamous commitment between two people in love strengthens family values and sends a good message in the community. Divorce and promiscuity are bigger threats to marriage than gay marriage is! So if traditionalists eventually lower their guard and feel comfortable that gays don't threaten heterosexual marriage, and don't want to brainwash their kids, then there's no problem, right? But that would require the pro-gay movement to maybe tone it down a notch, and not upset conservative sensibilities with flamboyant pride parades and such. That accentuates their differences, when really they should be striving to demonstrate humility, commonalities, and shared values.

Maybe living in CA we have a skewed sense of gay acceptance, since we are definitely on the more tolerant end of the spectrum (Prop 8 aside). Of course it's not like gays are getting lynched (at least not as often as blacks), but let's remember that public acceptance of homosexuality is not a given in America. Over half the states ban any sort of gay unions (like all of the South and Midwest). And "progressive" states like MI, WI, and OR also ban gay marriage. Only CT and MA have legal gay marriage, which is like 5% of America. Gays live pretty well in CA (not 100% equal, but who is?). I know they always have the right to ask for more, but let's be reasonable. Getting a black president elected was already a big step in 2008 - and blacks have been here from the start! Change is slow (especially social acceptance) and America might need more time with gay marriage.

But people often forget that it's a two-way street. If gays want more acceptance and equality, they need to do a much better job with PR and outreach to non-gays. Like half of Obama's campaign was about convincing America that he was one of us. Obama campaigners across the country "embedded" themselves in communities that might not have been very receptive to a black Democrat with a funny name. The locals came to like them, so they figured, "Well this guy is alright, and if he is so gung ho for Obama, maybe Obama is ok too." It's unfortunate that he had to go to such lengths, but at least he succeeded. Nothing breeds support for gay rights than non-gays having gay friends (or at least gays trying to reach out to non-gays and make a good impression).

Gay marriage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081106/us_time/whygaymarriagewasdefeatedincalifornia

Currently, only MA and CT legalize gay marriage, but many other states offer same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships that cover most of what marriage is in the legal definition. After 18,000 gay marriages performed in CA this year, its status is now uncertain (but it will be argued in the courts for years). I guess after the slim passing of CA's Prop 8, gay rights groups are wondering WTF happened and if they are still living in "liberal CA" (just last week it looked like the prop would fail 44-49, but it passed 52-48). And in Florida (Miami has another large gay community), a similar measure passed by a whopping 62-38. In 2004, 11 states passed bans (some going further, banning any sort of same-sex legal union, not just marriage), even blue states like MI and OR. Arizona, not the most gay-friendly state, rejected a constitutional ban on gay marriage just 2 years ago, but this week changed its mind and passed one. Actually, AZ is the only state on record to have ever rejected a gay marriage ban by vote, so such initiatives have at least a 93% success rate in recent history.

I guess with a potentially larger black voter turnout for Obama (this has been debated in the press), it might have been tougher for gay marriage to pass, since blacks are the most anti-gay-rights voting group in America, and 70% voted pro-8. Obama, the most popular and visible politician in years, didn't really address gay rights in his campaign (maybe fearful of the backlash Kerry incurred, and opposed to gay marriage from his religious beliefs), which was dissapointing to gays. Confusingly, he has publicly opposed both gay marriage and Prop. 8. Maybe he doesn't believe in gay marriage, but doesn't think that constitutional amendments are the proper way of addressing the issue? Gov. Arnold also opposed it, while McCain supported it.

Maybe a lot of the "silent majority" living in rural or suburban areas, who may have been overlooked or avoided participating in the polls, also favored bans. Well, their loss in CA can't be chalked up to money, since the "No on 8" side spent almost double what the pro side did ($44M to $25M). It was the most expensive campaign ever for a social issue. While the "No on 8" side got huge donations from Hollywood and other gay/liberal elites, the "Yes" side was funded by religious groups and families concerned (justifiably or not) that legalized gay marriage would erode the traditional family model and confuse their children. Some also consider it an abomination. The Sacramento Bee reported on a blue-collar Mormon family in CA that gave its entire savings ($50,000, and amidst a bad economy) to the "Yes on 8" campaign, after much agonizing and prayer. That is half the amount that rich Brad Pitt gave to the other side. The Mormon and Catholic churches, as well as Dr. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family", were large donors too, and many Christian preachers discussed it in their sermons (either for or against).

Legally, pro-gay groups are challenging if it's fair to have popular votes decide whether to amend state constitutions to block a minority group from having various benefits/rights such as marriage. Because obviously a minority group doesn't have the numbers to represent itself in a vote. A positive facet of American democracy is protection of minority rights, but not at the expense of the majority's "greater good" of course. It's a tough balance that we have and will struggle with for decades, but it's much better than Saudi Arabia or Russia. The CA constitution and others prohibit any sort of discrimination based identity characteristics, so is this discrimination? I'm not going to debate whether marriage is a right, a religious institution, or whatever, but obviously it's a sensitive, divisive, and challenging issue.

Some gays feel especially persecuted in America, and think that they are much less accepted than other minority groups (even illegal immigrants). I find that bizarre and maybe inaccurate, since the majority of hate crimes reported by the FBI are still against blacks and Jews (only 15% against gays). Obviously some discrimination does occur, but are they victims any more than other groups? There have been some very high-profile sucides and murders involving gays which may affect perceptions. But there are also several gay mayors and other politicians starting with Harvey Milk in the 1970s (unfortunately assassinated), and most recently the first gay man elected to Congress. Gays have been successful in the entertainment industry (as well as most other industries besides sport and military), and gay media is everywhere and similarly prevalent versus women's, black, or Latino media. There is no obvious education gap with gays (no stats on this, just my feeling), and a smaller income disparity between gays and straights (12% less, according to a recent study in Canada), versus whites and blacks (40% less) and men and women (20% less). We're not the most tolerant society, but we are very gay-friendly compared to other nations. Of course this varies by state and community. Religion obviously confounds the situation, since many faiths oppose homosexuality to various degrees (since it's generally viewed as a sin), while others have gone out of their way to be accepting, even at their own peril. This has caused a major rift in the American Episcopal Church (that allows gay preachers and elected a gay bishop). Some members have threatened to leave the church and join the International Anglican Communion instead (who prohibit gay preachers and marriages).

What also makes the matter more politically complex and high-stakes in America is the vast amounts of cash infused by a new elite gay lobby (see link below). I guess they recognize that money = power in politics, and they can't go about their struggle in the old grassroots ways that MLK and Cesar Chavez did (marches, sit-ins, etc.). Or maybe money achieves results more expediently than those other methods? I guess it worked for the Right, so why not? They've injected millions into gay groups and political races across the nation, namely in NY where they hope to expand Dem representation in their legislature to legalize gay marriage.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854884,00.html

From Time:
The Cabinet [a small, secretive, wealthy group of pro-gay advocates and political donors] is emblematic of a larger shift on the left since 2004 in the direction of big-money politics, a shift most clearly seen in Barack Obama's refusal of public financing for his campaign. The Cabinet is only one of several flush, members-only liberal groups that have formed since 2004, the most famous (and richest) being the Democracy Alliance, whose sponsors include billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis (father of Cabinet member Jonathan) and Pat Stryker (sister of Cabinet member Jon).

That raises questions: What does a civil rights movement look like in an era of massive wealth? Can you still inspire a grass-roots movement when all the street troops know that the billionaires can just write bigger checks? And is it possible that the left has become a movement as coldly obsessed with money as it always assumed the right was?

But I am not sure if this "big money shadow movement" is the best way to gain more gay acceptance in the US. I think it may make some average people more suspicious and hostile to them, even if it does get more pro-gay people elected. Like some perceptions of Jews, I don't think it benefits gays if some believe that gay puppet masters are pulling the strings of their leaders to advance a "gay agenda". People will be less likely to accept gays if they feel that gays only care about their own community needs. If you only care about yourself and your kind, you may find that no one else will either. If gays want non-gays to treat them better and give them more equality, I think they have to be sensitive and considerate of non-gay sensibilities too, and many are - if not for decency then for survival. I know it's frustrating that gays may have to placate and bend over backwards to accommodate non-gays, but that is the curse of minority status. Plus the alternative is much worse. Instead of just proclaiming that gay marriage is their right and no one should stop them, they could demonstrate to others that gay marriage really isn't a threat to non-gay values, live and let live, etc. Then everyone gets what they want, right? It shouldn't be about "I can do this because it's legal, so too bad for you", because obviously people can change the laws to stop you. So why not send the lawyers home and instead focus on a social movement for coexistence and understanding? It won't be easy, but it's better than our current standoff. After the results in 2004 and this year, I just hope it's not too late for both sides to work together.

It's easier to make friends of enemies than fight enemies (not that gays and straights are enemies, but just as a metaphor). Sometimes you have to fight for your rights, and fight to the death, but hopefully things haven't gotten that desperate for gays. You can fight injustice by sitting down and talking too, and sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot. Obama succeeded where the "angry black man" failed, and I think the same has to be done in the gay community. Defiance and militant pride may accomplish some goals, but also do harm. You have to reach out, and empathy for others breeds empathy for oneself. I am not sure if gay advocacy groups are doing that with their opponents, or just preaching to the choir. The sobering result in CA should make them rethink their approach. I think minorities have success and get more of what they want when they attempt to integrate with the mainstream and merge their interests, while hopefully not losing their heritage and unique identity in the process. So then, it's not "us-versus-them", but "what's good for you is good for me too". This applies to illegal immigration, La Raza, and whatnot.

Like that famous anti-gay marriage commercial in CA where SF Mayor Gavin Newsome said, "[Gay marriage] is going to happen, whether you like it or not!" I think that turns off a lot of centrist or previously ambivalent people. Some people may not like gay marriage at first, but at least they are willing to talk about it and may be open to change. But if you approach a sensitive issue so dominantly and egocentrically, it may harden your audience's hearts and make them less receptive to compromise/understanding. Then you just shot yourself in the foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto