pageok
pageok
pageok
Nationwide pro-SSM demonstrations tomorrow:

Simultaneous protests are planned for small and large cities in all 50 states tomorrow in reaction to the passage of Prop 8 in California. The sites of the protests will be government buildings -- mostly city halls and other municipal facilities. (Mormon churches, I'm pleased to say, are not on the target list for tomorrow's events.)

For info on times and locations for protests in your area, go to the Join the Impact website.

Carolina:
Honestly curious here: what is the point of protesting in, say, Oregon, the passage of Proposition 8 in California?

Who are the protesters trying to influence and what do they want them to do or not do?
11.14.2008 5:12pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
OK.... a prop passes in California that we don't like.... let's go protest in Hawaii..... Alaska..... NY..... anywhere the prop wasn't. I mean, at the very least, they could target the states that did pass that or something similar.

Do they think that the opinion of someone outside those states is going to influence anyone in California? Oh, puleeez!
11.14.2008 5:13pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
Carolina..... we must be each others' sock puppet :)
11.14.2008 5:14pm
MCM (mail):
"Do they think that the opinion of someone outside those states is going to influence anyone in California? Oh, puleeez!"

If I could draw a diagram, I would indicate "the point" by means of a black dot, and then I would draw a large arc, labeled "your post", and nary the two should meet.
11.14.2008 5:22pm
krs:
One of the three targets in Maryland is the Mormon Temple in Kensington.
11.14.2008 5:24pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
MCM: "....If I could draw a diagram, I would indicate "the point" by means of a black dot, and then I would draw a large arc, labeled "your post", and nary the two should meet...."

Huh? I could have stated it a little clearer, but the point is this: WHY protest in a state that isn't California when the people you are protesting around didn't vote for, against or anything else that particular proposition? The people who were permitted to vote on Prop 8 MUST be residents of California...... if I live elsewhere, why protest around me? I won't have any impact on California or its politics, right?

If you see it otherwise, please enlighten me and please explain how protesting in say New Mexico is going to have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of Prop 8.

DC: I think the point of the protests is actually two-fold. First, the obvious catalyst for the events is the passage of Prop 8 in California, and people want to register their strong disagreement with it regardless of whether they can directly influence a future vote in that state. People care what happens in other states on issues they feel are important. Second, the spread of these protests indicates an effort to turn the shock and anger about Prop 8 into a broader political movement for the recognition of same-sex marriage in other states. Whether these protests will have the necessary staying power, or will actually coalesce into a more enduring movement, is very much an open question.
11.14.2008 5:30pm
Paul Zrimsek (mail):
I suppose the demonstrations might look paradoxical if considered solely as protests against the (ahem) four states that passed anti-SSM ballot measures last week. But it needn't be considered that way; those of us who support SSM may simply consider this a timely moment to publicly reaffirm our support.

Weren't a number of the 2004 anti-SSM initiatives in other states triggered by the activism of the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts?
11.14.2008 5:41pm
MCM (mail):
I understood your post perfectly. What you fail to understand is that these protests are not merely about Proposition 8, but about same-sex marriage in every state.

I would assume you are aware that same-sex marriage are only legal in a couple of states, and that almost every other state has banned same-sex marriages, either by statute or by constitutional amendment. I say "I would assume" but your own post also said:

"I mean, at the very least, they could target the states that did pass that or something similar."

which basically encompasses every state, even by your own limited perspective on the purposes of political speech.

Or perhaps you just don't like people to engage in political speech with which you disagree.
11.14.2008 5:43pm
Honestly?:

Huh? I could have stated it a little clearer, but the point is this: WHY protest in a state that isn't California when the people you are protesting around didn't vote for, against or anything else that particular proposition? The people who were permitted to vote on Prop 8 MUST be residents of California...... if I live elsewhere, why protest around me? I won't have any impact on California or its politics, right?

If you see it otherwise, please enlighten me and please explain how protesting in say New Mexico is going to have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of Prop 8.


Although it is being tagged as a protest against Prop 8, it is really a broadening of the civil rights movement for the LGBT community. Prop 8 is the first time that people are shocked that a ballot measure passed. People expect states like Arkansas and Florida to pass these measures, but not California. So while it is called protesting Prop 8, it is really backlash against all the ballot measures of this election and past elections.

I have always believed that protests are in large part not helpful. However, there seems to be a critical mass of people who will show up to this event. And when enough of your neighbors head out to city hall to ask for increased civil rights, people are likely to pay attention.

As for protesting Mormon temples, I think it is energy directed away from the people who most need to hear it: our elected officials.
11.14.2008 5:44pm
EricH (mail):
I've read a great deal on this topic - from all sides (there are, of course, more than two) - but haven't been able to find an answer (or at least, a proposed one).

Q. Is SSM an example of Berlin's concept of "positive liberty" or "negative liberty"?
11.14.2008 6:02pm
smitty1e:
I think this is all a giant ruse to distract people from the mult-billion dollar larceny occurring inside the beltway.
Unfortunately, the Media Electoral College is going to play along nicely and refuse to serve the people with the news that matters.
11.14.2008 6:12pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
DC and Honestly, thanks. That's true enough.

MCM: You didn't need to get snarky. No, I didn't realize that "most" states had passed some sort of ban. More importantly, I have been paying more attention to constitutional amendments because once made, the state courts cannot say it is unconstitutional. You have to admit that is much more important (or permanent, if you will) than some ordinance or simple law. Honestly, I hadn't seen too many of those yet. Not that we won't.

And yes, I believe in political "speech," but I have a problem with people tying up traffic (which the anti-war crowd does here ALOT) and/or placing their hands or bodies on me or my property...... again, happens alot, but not without consequences when they touch (assault) my family members. I take that quite seriously, too. Having been in the military and sworn to protect and defend for over 25 years, I think I have a bit of skin in the "rights" game. I was (and am) willing to die for them! You, MCM?
11.14.2008 6:18pm
MCM (mail):
"MCM: You didn't need to get snarky. No, I didn't realize that "most" states had passed some sort of ban. More importantly, I have been paying more attention to constitutional amendments because once made, the state courts cannot say it is unconstitutional. You have to admit that is much more important (or permanent, if you will) than some ordinance or simple law. Honestly, I hadn't seen too many of those yet. Not that we won't."

I apologize for being "snarky" but your ignorance is astounding. The majority of US states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. You obviously haven't been paying as much attention as you think.

"And yes, I believe in political "speech," but I have a problem with people tying up traffic"

couldn't continue reading because i could not stop laughing
11.14.2008 6:28pm
MCM (mail):
To be more specific, the state constitutions of a majority of states disallow gay marriage, whether they were initially written that way or later amended to do so. I'm not sure on exactly which ones were written that way originally or later amended to do so, but I'm sure someone could provide a more accurate count than I could.
11.14.2008 6:34pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
MCM... right! I suspect you just didn't want to answer the last question. Fine.

BTW, a recent protest here cost a person their life due to snarled traffic. The ambulance couldn't get through in time. I guess you would laugh at that, too.

I am going to look to see if the majority of states, that would be at least 26 of them, have SSM amendments. If not, you'll hear from me. If so, I certainly did miss them. Not that it impacts me, personally, and not that I consider marriage a right (for anyone). I don't care that a judge made an offhand remark, which is what it really amounts to. If it isn't in writing, it isn't a right! That is my particular take on it.

Plus, I am still waiting to see if sexual orientation makes for a protected class. If not, then it isn't discrimination, no matter how you slice it.
11.14.2008 6:39pm
andrewdb:
I don't find this any more odd then out-of-state contributions that flooded into California ('tis true, on both sides of the issue).
11.14.2008 6:39pm
SecondAmendmentSister:
I seem to recall reading in some story somewhere (how vague can I be) that the law passed in California that allowed for same sex marriage to be recognized by the state weakened existing legal benefits that many companies/governments were granting to people of any sex who were living together but not married.

Did I dream that? And if not, what was the impact of that voting block on the passage of Proposition 8? I've never seen it addressed since that one mention. (Which I may not have seen at all...)
11.14.2008 6:45pm
MCM (mail):
"MCM... right! I suspect you just didn't want to answer the last question. Fine."

"You, MCM?" was an actual question? What are you asking? Am I willing to die to defend my rights and those of my fellow Americans? Are you asking if I've served in the military? Are you asking if I am annoyed or inconvenienced by people exercising their right to "speech"? (And why is "speech" in quotation marks, by the way?)

If you have an actual question, feel free to ask it. If you'd like to continue shaming your own service by using it as a rhetorical bargaining chip, feel free to do that as well.
11.14.2008 6:46pm
Crunchy Frog:

Although it is being tagged as a protest against Prop 8, it is really a broadening of the civil rights movement for the LGBT community.

The ick factor is high enough for the LGB portion for the general populace - the tiny T subset will always be looked on with a combination of morbid curiosity and abject horror.

Full disclosure: I voted for Prop 8, and Prop 22 before it, but I fully support civil union/domestic partnership arrangements. For now, I suggest working toward expanding those to all 50 states. Marriage will come, in time. My 14-year-old couldn't figure out what the big deal was, anyways.

Enough with the protests. Enough with the gay pride parades with the drag queens molesting each other down Hollywood Blvd. (If orientation is fixed, then what's to be proud of? I might as well be proud of being right-handed. It is what it is.) If you want to be accepted as normal, then act normal. Playing to folks' worst stereotypes is not the way to win friends and influence people.
11.14.2008 6:46pm
MCM (mail):
Mr. Crunchy Frog,

I believe the problem with your approach is that 19 state constitutions bar not just same-sex marriage, but ANY type of same-sex union. So you'd have to modify the state constitutions of states like Arkansas:

Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman.


or Kentucky:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.


even to allow civil unions. And doing that in some states is clearly going to be a lot harder than getting gay marriage in other states.
11.14.2008 6:51pm
John425:
We don't allow polygamy, incest and child-bride weddings. Same-sex "marriage" is in the same pot.
11.14.2008 6:58pm
Honestly?:

I am going to look to see if the majority of states, that would be at least 26 of them, have SSM amendments. If not, you'll hear from me. If so, I certainly did miss them. Not that it impacts me, personally, and not that I consider marriage a right (for anyone). I don't care that a judge made an offhand remark, which is what it really amounts to. If it isn't in writing, it isn't a right! That is my particular take on it.

Plus, I am still waiting to see if sexual orientation makes for a protected class. If not, then it isn't discrimination, no matter how you slice it.


First, A quick look at wikipedia shows that an easy majority of states have either a constitutional ban or statutory ban on same-sex marriage.

Second, if a something is not in writing, there can still be a right (eg abortion). You may not agree with it, but courts have found it to be true and the rights are enforced.

Third, LGBT folk are not a protected class under the Federal Constitution. But that is irrelevant because these measures are defined under state constitutions, so what the federal constitution doesn't mean much here.


Enough with the protests. Enough with the gay pride parades with the drag queens molesting each other down Hollywood Blvd.


Really? Would you say to stop 4th of July Parades, because we're all Americans, and it is just like being right handed? Or my alma mater's homecoming parade? I celebrating the things I love, like being American, gay, and alum of a great school. So I go to the parades. I may leave the normal life you suggest I live, but I don't ask others to live their lives just like mine.
11.14.2008 6:58pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
MCM: The question was obvious. Some folks seem to think that they have the lock on what a right is, who should have them, etc, etc. My comment was just to have you understand that I darned well know what a right is and that I have some skin in that game. I put my life on the line for them and was simply asking if you have, would or whatever. Not that important.

I put speech in quotes because I don't consider snarling traffic, especially when it costs someone their life or could do so, actual speech. Speech is speaking. Assaulting someone, by intentionally touching them during a protest is not speech, it is assault. That is why I put it in quotes. I wanted to make it clear that I think you should be able to SPEAK anything you wish. I don't even have a problem with speech that could be characterized as sedition..... as long as it isn't acted upon, it is just speech. But that is my take and I do indeed, as I have just said, believe that you should be able to say whatever you wish.

So if you wish to make fun of my service, please be my guest. Your speech doesn't impact my service, the quality of my service or, even, the amount of retirement pay I now receive. My self worth, in that regard, doesn't hang on anything you can say now or ever.
11.14.2008 6:59pm
jj08:
This is good news, if for nothing more than the fact that the LGBT lobby - easily the meanest and dirtiest lobby to be found in the halls of state governments - has been forced to back down on its Mormon-bashing a little bit.

I guess that's what counts as progress in the Obamanation.
11.14.2008 7:03pm
MCM (mail):
I'm not mocking your service in the slightest. I'm mocking you going on the internet and you using your military service as rhetorical ploy to enhance your argument.

I don't care who you are, and you shouldn't care who I am. In short, less arguments ad hominem, please.
11.14.2008 7:03pm
Honestly?:

And doing that in some states is clearly going to be a lot harder than getting gay marriage in other states.


Don't forget that what it takes to draft contracts to fake a civil marriage is highly expensive and still does not fully replicate all the rights that a couple can get by filling out some paperwork at the court house.


I seem to recall reading in some story somewhere (how vague can I be) that the law passed in California that allowed for same sex marriage to be recognized by the state weakened existing legal benefits that many companies/governments were granting to people of any sex who were living together but not married.

Did I dream that? And if not, what was the impact of that voting block on the passage of Proposition 8? I've never seen it addressed since that one mention. (Which I may not have seen at all...)


I don't think you dreamed it totally, but I believe the ban in Florida from this election eliminates rights held by opposite sex couples. I believe Virginia, and a probably other states, have similar bans.

The language: This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
11.14.2008 7:05pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
Honestly..... you are right. I wasn't all that interested in the states that ban based upon a statute. I was more interested in states that were amending their constitutions and didn't really realize that some (quite a few it appears) had it written into the original.

Guys, that surprises me because those constitutions have been around a long time and that would seem to indicate there was some overriding reason for them to place that stipulation in the original constitution. Look at it this way, and it is the reason it surprises me, gay folks were certainly WELL into the closet in those days, so why would the issue og SSM even come up? Again, I am talking about the original constitutions. My guess would have been, and was, that all the states were going to have to amend because there would have been no way I would expect that to be there in the first place.

Call me ignorant, if you wish, but that is why I was only watching for amendments and there aren't that many of those that I am aware. Again, it certainly doesn't impact me like it does those who are the target, but that doesn't mean I am totally uninterested or intentionally ignorant.

Oh, Honestly, do you really mean to say this? "....Third, LGBT folk are not a protected class under the Federal Constitution. But that is irrelevant because these measures are defined under state constitutions, so what the federal constitution doesn't mean much here....." If they WERE a protected class it darned well would make a difference and what the fed says certainly wouldn't be irrelevent. And that is my point. The states can do this because they aren't a protected class. It isn't discrimination, in the federal sense of that word, so the word shouldn't be used to describe this.

If gay folks really want this to stop, they need to go to the federal level and become a protected class. That would, I believe, put an end to all of it. Those state amendments and even the ones that have that in the original would be declared federally unconstitutional, right?
11.14.2008 7:15pm
Gilbert (mail):
@EricH

Q. Is SSM an example of Berlin's concept of "positive liberty" or "negative liberty"?


That depends on your perspective. For those who believe in SSM because of a concept of a Due Process right to marriage as a fundamental right (eg. Hawaii) it is a positive liberty. For those who believe in SSM purely on simple Equal Protection (eg. Massachusetts) it is a negative liberty. For those states like California that based its theory on Equal Protection with heightened scrutiny, I think it is still a negative liberty, but someone might argue that intermediate/strict scrutiny makes it more a positive liberty.
11.14.2008 7:20pm
Cornellian (mail):
the Mormon Temple in Kensington

Why do they call them temples rather than churches? Not exactly at central issue, obviously, but I'm mildly curious.
11.14.2008 7:21pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
MCM: How does what I said about my service enhance my argument. The discussion, at least the subplot, is about rights. I am telling you that I know well and care very much about them.... to the point that I was and am willing to die for them. For all I knew, you would have answered that question YES and we would definitely have something significant in common.

I wasn't trying to use my service for any other purpose. None whatsoever. Just making a point that you are talking to someone who really cares about our collective rights. Military service, in general and in my opinion, just puts an exclamation point on that..... nothing more or less.

BTW, calling someone "ignorant" is incredibly offensive. So please practice what you preach and there won't be any ad hominem. Funny thing is, I cannot find a place where I called you anything, ignorant or otherwise..... so not sure where that is coming from. If I did, I certainly didn't mean to. Calling people names doesn't prove a thing..... I well know that.
11.14.2008 7:22pm
Orson2 (mail):
WHY should I care if LBG, etc get married? I don't. Why should I want the state to recognize your "marriage." I don't - UNLESS you have kids! (ie, state recognized marriage is to benefit children, not a couples "love," not "give me my rights!" narcissism.)

My closest cousin is gay, partnered for many years, and could care less about this needless "equality." I'm with my cousin. So if you want me, via the state, to recognize your marriage (whatever that means to you), have kids first.

Somehow, the real issues never get discussed in this stupid, self-centered "rights" grab. Now, get back into the closet and STFU! Parenting is such f-ing hard work I won't do it! (And no, I'm not married.)
11.14.2008 7:25pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
And be sure to wear lots of sequins and feathers to drive it home that this is about venting issues rather than influencing voters!
11.14.2008 7:26pm
Cornellian (mail):
Third, LGBT folk are not a protected class under the Federal Constitution.

They may have some minimal level of protection under the equal protection clause per Lawrence v. Texas. Nothing like the strict scrutiny for racial classifications and not even intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications, but probably something more than the effective absence of any protection against discrimination based on, for example, how much money you have. It's highly doubtful that that minimal protection has any impact on a state's recognition of same sex marriage, or lack thereof. That's a state by state issue.
11.14.2008 7:27pm
Order of the Coif:
Like most Americans I couldn't care less about SSM. I'm on the sidelines.

But, ... the first church burning by the proponents and I'm likely to come off the sidelines and it won't be to support the firebrands.
11.14.2008 7:28pm
Cornellian (mail):
So if you want me, via the state, to recognize your marriage (whatever that means to you), have kids first.

Why does that standard apply only to gay people? Straight people aren't required to have kids before their marriages are recognized. They don't have to want kids or even be capable of having kids.
11.14.2008 7:29pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
Cornellian: Temple.

The reason is that it is supposedly patterned after the Jewish temple in Israel. That is to say, the temple proper has an "inner sanctum" and all the rest. Actually, there are tabernacles, too. The "temple" is a very special place to a mormon. I think some descriptions can be found on the net, including ones they really don't want you to see. Oh, one odd side note, even a mormon cannot just walk into the temple.... they have to have a temple "recommend" that basically indicates they have been "good"

No, I am not one nor was I ever one, but I have relatives who are, so some of that stuff rubbed off. I like the choir.... that I do indeed like.
11.14.2008 7:30pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
Crunchy Frog,

But that's the point. They're not trying to influence voters or win friends. Their identity is bound up in their perceptions of themselves as victims. Social acceptance is the last thing these demonstrators want.
Playing to folks' worst stereotypes is not the way to win friends and influence people.
11.14.2008 7:32pm
MCM (mail):
"MCM: How does what I said about my service enhance my argument."

You need me to point it out? Ok:

Having been in the military and sworn to protect and defend for over 25 years, I think I have a bit of skin in the "rights" game.


Sorry, but you're wrong. You get the thanks of a grateful nation. And a pension. Nothing more. You don't get any more or less rights than anyone else and your opinion doesn't mean any more or less.

"The discussion, at least the subplot, is about rights. I am telling you that I know well and care very much about them.... to the point that I was and am willing to die for them. For all I knew, you would have answered that question YES and we would definitely have something significant in common."

But who cares if we have anything in common? If this discussion is about RIGHTS, then it's bigger than you and me. It doesn't matter who I am or who you are; right and wrong don't change depending on who's making the argument.
11.14.2008 7:33pm
wm13:
As krs's comment demonstrates, Prof. Carpenter is displaying economy with the truth. Proper blogging etiquette would require that he post an update indicating that his original post is, basically, not true. But I'm betting that Prof. Carpenter deletes this comment before he posts a correction.
11.14.2008 7:34pm
Adam J:
MCM- you should know that at least one poster appreciated your responses to ForWhatItsWorth rambling dialogues.
11.14.2008 7:39pm
MCM (mail):
"As krs's comment demonstrates, Prof. Carpenter is displaying economy with the truth. Proper blogging etiquette would require that he post an update indicating that his original post is, basically, not true. But I'm betting that Prof. Carpenter deletes this comment before he posts a correction."

It would appear that anyone can go to the website linked and post a new protest location:

"*Create a new page for each city (click Add page) and then link the city name to the city page.
**to add a new row, click EasyEdit, then right click on the last row. Select Add row, and voila!"
11.14.2008 7:40pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
Everyone in the world was affected, not just people in California. People from every jurisdiction now have the right to fly to Boston and marry someone of their same sex, and of course there have been lots of same-sex marriages already that had been recognized in California. Those people just were told that their marriage will not be recognized in California, so if they might want to ever go to CA on vacation or to move there, they're affected.
11.14.2008 7:47pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
We don't allow polygamy, incest and child-bride weddings. Same-sex "marriage" is in the same pot.

John425, that's exactly right.
11.14.2008 7:50pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
MCM, that quote certainly didn't enhance my argument. Sorry, but that is a stretch. It said what it said. I have some skin in the rights game, not just YOU or someone who thinks theirs are being stomped. The so-called victims are not the only people who know what a right is. Often they come off that way. But that is neither here nor there.

And to me, yes that would have made a difference to me if you had said "yes." Military people have something pretty dear in common. And, I admit, I am closer to military people than I am to the average civilian. Just for the reason stated. So I was interested. Guess I didn't quite ask it the right way, but it appears you would have taken it wrong and been overly sensitive, although I have no idea why, no matter how I said it. And that is ok, too, because this is apparently a very sensitive subject to you. I can certainly understand that.

What part of the so-called argument do you think I was trying to enhance? I didn't claim to know more about them than you, in fact I have made it quite clear all over the place that I am not a lawyer. If you are, then you probably know just a might bit more about the mechanics of it than I do.

Too, I don't even think there is an argument, not from my point of view anyway. What am I "arguing?" That I wonder why people are protesting all over the place when the issue is California passing a Proposition..... I wasn't considering all the other states at the time, I thought we were talking about Prop 8. However, we could be talking about AZ 102(?) and whatever the one in Arkansas was called. I would expect, under the discussion, to see protests in those places. Not an argument.... just wondering and then a couple of folks, without insulting (DC and Honestly in particular) took the time to lay a little education on me and ..... ding ding.... lights came on.
11.14.2008 7:50pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
Orson2: So if you want me, via the state, to recognize your marriage (whatever that means to you), have kids first.

Cornelian: Why does that standard apply only to gay people? Straight people aren't required to have kids before their marriages are recognized. They don't have to want kids or even be capable of having kids.


Right the marriage gives approval to having more kids. A brother and a sister might have a kid together, but that doesn't qualify them for marriage, because the issue is whether they are allowed to try to have more kids together, which they aren't.
11.14.2008 7:54pm
hooleehootoo:
Can anyone point me to discussion about the following aspect of SSM: It might create (has created?) a bureacracy to certify certain SSM's and disallow platonic SSM's entered into for purely financial reasons.

I also would like to read arguments from defenders of SSM against polygamous marriage (for example 3 females, A loves B, B loves C, C loves A, no two of which want to mutually marry) that don't essentially reduce to "It's different", because that seems to be the argument of people against SSM.
11.14.2008 7:55pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Although it is being tagged as a protest against Prop 8, it is really a broadening of the civil rights movement for the LGBT community."

I presume the protesters are trying to communicate to a local audience. Now, the first thing I would ask if I was walking down the street in Miami and saw a protest about a vote in Oregon is, "Huh?"

Make life easy for the rest of us in the audience. If it's a rally in favor of SSM, then just say so. Don't bitch at me about what voters did in California. I'd just dismiss that as a bunch of cranks.
11.14.2008 7:58pm
CDR D (mail):
>>>a bureacracy to certify certain SSM's and disallow platonic SSM's entered into for purely financial reasons. <<<


Interesting point. Suppose an aged widow and her spinster daughter live together for mutual support and financial reasons. I have no problem with them being granted the benefits of "domestic partnership" equal to the benefits of marriage.

But should they need to get "married"?

Or does their relationship have to necessarily include....
11.14.2008 8:11pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
CDR D, that mother-daughter couple should not be given the right to attempt to conceive a child together. That is why they should not be allowed to get married. If there were CU's defined as marriage minus conception rights, that's what they should be eligible for, but not the rights of marriage, which should continue to include the right to attempt to conceive children together, with the couple's own genes.
11.14.2008 8:41pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
BTW, calling someone "ignorant" is incredibly offensive.

Unless it is in regards to something specific that someone doesn't know about, such as "the legislature was ignorant of the potential for same-sex procreation using genetically modified gametes", or, "the parties were ignorant of the fact that they were brother and sister". Then ignorance is an important legal defense, and a reason to rethink legislation.
11.14.2008 8:46pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
Can anyone point me to discussion about the following aspect of SSM: It might create (has created?) a bureacracy to certify certain SSM's and disallow platonic SSM's entered into for purely financial reasons.

Why when we don't do that for OSM? Although marriage is a natural state tied to biological mechanisms tied to sex, the social and civil contracts no longer demand that sexual attraction or activity be a part of it if both parties agree regardless of the respective genders. The problem isn't that the state can license some contracts for a sexless union but rather that those that want that sexual component have the option to license too.
11.14.2008 8:48pm
Sarah (mail) (www):
Mormons have:

a) churches, generally called meetinghouses, on an individual basis called a "ward building" or "stake center" or what have you, which are open to the public, host weekly Sunday services (often more than one congregation occupies a given building, but if the building is church-owned, generally only LDS groups meet there,) and serve, to varying degrees, as community centers for local Latter-day Saints: like a typical Christian church. Every Sunday meeting is divided into three components - one is for the entire congregation and lasts ~70 minutes (and falls into the same category as Mass and other "going to church" gatherings;) one is divided up more or less strictly by age (year-by-year for folks under 18, and then a few general classes for all adults) which lasts about 50 minutes and is called Sunday School; and the third is divided by sex for everyone over 12 (adult men into two groups, adult women into one group, and teenagers into as many as six age/sex-specific groups,) and into two large age groups for kids 3-8 and 8-11; with this last section also lasting about 50 minutes. We also have

b) a tabernacle, which is a really big building useful for very large gatherings and acoustically nice for singing groups and organs, seen weekly on Music And the Spoken Word, but having no theological significance, and lastly we have

c) about 120 temples throughout the world, heavily concentrated in the Intermountain West (there are temples in Logan, Vernal, Manti, Monticello, St. George, Ogden, Bountiful, Salt Lake City, Jordan, Draper, Mount Timpanogos, Provo, AND Oquirrh Mountain, Utah, but until 1999 people in Ohio had to drive eight hours to the closest temple, in Washington DC) but with one on every significantly populated continent. Some are very very large (the LA, Salt Lake City, and Washington DC temples, for instance) while others are tiny (Columbus Ohio, Detroit Michigan, Winter Quarters Nebraska, Vernal Utah, etc.) All of them have facilities to perform baptisms on behalf of the deceased, rooms to perform weddings in, and various spaces to engage in other ceremonial rites and rituals. Anyone can tour a temple before it has been dedicated, but once it has been dedicated, it's off-limits except for people with the recommends mentioned earlier (you generally have to have a reason to go, too - someone to do work for, or a wedding to attend, or whatever.) To get a recommend you have to have been baptized as a Latter-day Saint, and you need to pay 10% of your income to the church (or at least tell your bishop that you have been doing so,) treat others honestly, be nice to your family, "follow the Word of Wisdom" (they don't test you or anything, but most people assume this means you at least don't drink coffee/tea/alcohol, don't smoke, and don't do drugs,) generally obey the usual Ten Commandments/Golden Rule type stuff, and, refrain from supporting organizations that oppose the Church (that's another loosely defined one.) Basically, you could lie through your teeth to get in, but why bother?

Anyway, we have churches and temples. As a practical matter, it's a lot easier to find a temple (and easier to stage a protest, since there are a LOT of meetinghouses and they're usually in residential areas.) Also, in some phone books it's hard to tell whether a particular listing is actually a meetinghouse or if it's where some of the missionaries live.

(we also have d) other structures, like the bishop's storehouse, and distribution centers, and the old welfare farms and historical sites and such, but they receive VERY little attention.)


But don't take my word for it.

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/

Note that persecution drove Mormons out of America altogether, causing the loss of the first two temples (in Ohio and Illinois.) Also note that in 1999, a new temple was built in Ohio, and in 2002, the Illinois temple was rebuilt on its old footprint. Back in those days governors liked to sign death warrants against Mormons... as I said elsewhere, I don't think that protesting LDS temples is going to accomplish anything useful for the people doing the protesting. We're too used to it.

(Oh... and I didn't have a strong enough opinion one way or another on Prop. 8 to protest, donate, or move back to California to vote on the matter. I have friends - including Mormon friends - on both sides. I'm trying hard not to let post-Prop. 8 behavior affect my opinion on the general concept of gay marriage. The powder hoax letters aren't exactly promoting tolerance and a live-and-let-live attitude on my part, though.)
11.14.2008 9:00pm
CLS (mail) (www):
I may go tomorrow but since it is city hall I may not. If they were picketing the local Mormon Temple I would be there and on the phone recruiting others. Contrary to Dale's fear of picketing a church it was this church particularly that acted as a recruiting center for Prop 8 volunteers and which had to the ability to find thousands of donors to fund the campaign. Without the Mormon leadership doing this the campaign would have had a budget of about one-third the size and that may have lost it for them.

I don't see the reason that a religious group that is bigoted should be given a free pass. I don't want laws to strip them of rights (though I'm very open to taxing them on the same basis as everyone else). I don't want hate speech laws or anti-discrimination laws. But just because people pretend some deity is telling them to be bigots doesn't give them an exception from criticism. In lieu of state laws private pressure is the proper way to deal with bigots but Mr. Carpenter apparently doesn't want private pressure when people pretend that god is telling them to act like jerks.
11.14.2008 9:00pm
Smokey:
I'm certainly not a Mormon, but targeting Mormons is incredibly cowardly and dishonest. Here are the facts [based on CNN's exit polling]:

Whites and Asians voted AGAINST Prop 8 by a very thin margin, 51/49%

Hispanics voted FOR Prop 8 by 53/47%

The tiebreaker? African-Americans, who voted FOR Prop 8 by an overwhelming 70/30%. The African-American vote made the difference between 8 winning or losing. Had they voted anywhere near 50/50, Prop 8 would have lost.

To my knowledge, no exit polling was done regarding Mormons. The fact that some people in that group [like some people in every group] supported 8 is no excuse to demonize all Mormons -- especially since it was clearly African-American voters, following Obama's stated view that marriage is only between a man and a woman, who made all the difference.

Are gays that afraid of the African-American backlash if they criticize blacks for their vote?

YES.

Because they know there would be a major backlash. So they hypocritically go after a relatively small group that didn't make any difference in the outcome one way or another.
11.14.2008 9:13pm
Smokey:
I don't see the reason that a religious group that is bigoted should be given a free pass.
You cannot see this because you are morally blind, but it is you who are bigoted.
11.14.2008 9:17pm
Hrm:

I don't see the reason that a religious group that is bigoted should be given a free pass.


Except that you can't treat all LDS as a whole, just like you can't treat the entire gay community as a whole. Otherwise YOU come across as prejudiced and bigoted.

And when you even make suggestions that you're "open to taxing them on the same basis as everyone else", I hope you realize that door can swing the other way. There's more than a few gay non-profits, and I suspect they need the non-profit status a good deal more then the religious groups do.

Finally, I'm back to the fact that you singled out the LDS. I don't see your rant against anyone else. This is starting to look more like you were looking for an excuse to attack them for something, since if you were really upset about the defeat of this proposition, you'd go after all the people who, you know, VOTED. I'm still waiting for that march on Compton.
11.14.2008 9:24pm
MarkField (mail):

Except that you can't treat all LDS as a whole, just like you can't treat the entire gay community as a whole.


I get the argument that it's not fair to blame all Mormons for the position of the church. What, though, is "bigoted" about blaming the corporate entity of the church for a position the church took?
11.14.2008 9:49pm
whit:

That depends on your perspective. For those who believe in SSM because of a concept of a Due Process right to marriage as a fundamental right (eg. Hawaii) it is a positive liberty. For those who believe in SSM purely on simple Equal Protection (eg. Massachusetts) it is a negative liberty.


what about those of us (e.g. me) who believe same sex marriage is the fair and just policy, but neither of the above rationales apply?

i don't believe either of your two reasons are valid, but i still support SSM. and I am certain plenty believe as i do.
11.14.2008 9:50pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Enough with the protests. Enough with the gay pride parades with the drag queens molesting each other down Hollywood Blvd.

You obviously know nothing about actual Pride Parades, because if you knew anything about them, you would know that they occur on Santa Monica Blvd. (the main thoroughfare in West Hollywood), not Hollywood Blvd.
11.14.2008 9:53pm
trad and anon (mail):
Right the marriage gives approval to having more kids. A brother and a sister might have a kid together, but that doesn't qualify them for marriage, because the issue is whether they are allowed to try to have more kids together, which they aren't.
Gay people are eminently free to try to have kids together, the problem is that it won't work. At least it won't work right now: in ten or fifteen years it will be big business. Which makes same-sex couples pretty much exactly like infertile straight couples were a few decades ago.
11.14.2008 10:02pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"I get the argument that it's not fair to blame all Mormons for the position of the church. What, though, is "bigoted" about blaming the corporate entity of the church for a position the church took?"

In that case I would expect demonstrations to be limted to the corpoarte HQ in SLC. But that's OK. However, I'd be interested in how this will advance the cause of SSM?

But, let's presume going after the Mormon corporate entity advances SSM. Wouldn't going after the pope advance it even more? Why sacrifice the cause of SSM to give the Catholic corporate entity a pass?
11.14.2008 10:07pm
Hrm:

I get the argument that it's not fair to blame all Mormons for the position of the church. What, though, is "bigoted" about blaming the corporate entity of the church for a position the church took?


I think that's fine, but that's not what I'm seeing or reading much of. Even in the post I responded to, while it started out talking about the leadership, it devolved into "religious group". That's the entirety, not just the leadership.

For instance, as a Catholic, if someone protested at my church, I would take it as a protest against Catholics, since it's just the rank and file and a Priest. We don't set the rules of the religion, we simply choose to follow them (and I'm NOT saying you can't protest a church, I'm just saying that doing so is protesting the followers, not the leaders). If they protested at the Diocese office, on the other hand, I could see that it was just against the leadership of the church.

I'm not saying that means I would magically agree with them, but it's a major distinction, as you point out, to be at odds with the leadership of a group, instead of at odds with the entire group.
11.14.2008 10:15pm
Stephen M (Ethesis) (mail) (www):
BTW, what is the right debate, a question being discussed at Mormon Matters.

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/13/gay-marriage/
11.14.2008 10:20pm
AntonK (mail):
A nationwide protest of the democratic process in action in one state...interesting.
11.14.2008 10:27pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
Dilan,

I was eating brunch with my family at Hoffman's a few years ago, while visiting my children at UC Santa Cruz, when a Gay Pride parade rolled down Pacific. The normal Sunday morning crowd in Santa Cruz was more colorful and interesting-looking than the parade participants.

Admittedly this was Santa Cruz, but there really are some things in California which you can't make up.
11.14.2008 10:34pm
MarkField (mail):

In that case I would expect demonstrations to be limted to the corpoarte HQ in SLC.


Seems to me that major temples (like the one in LA) would be legitimate targets. As long as the protests reasonably conveyed the message that they objected to the corporation and not the individual members.


However, I'd be interested in how this will advance the cause of SSM?


I'm not sure it will. Then again, that could be said of all protests. You might have asked that question about lunch counters in Greensboro, SC.


Wouldn't going after the pope advance it even more? Why sacrifice the cause of SSM to give the Catholic corporate entity a pass?


Whether accurate or not, common wisdom seems to give the Mormons a larger role in the Prop. 8 fight. If protesters picketed the Catholic Church, I imagine people would complain that they were going after a secondary target.


A nationwide protest of the democratic process in action in one state...interesting.


There were nationwide protests against segregation -- established by law only in particular states -- as well. Do you think those were .... interesting?
11.14.2008 10:45pm
Elliot123 (mail):

"Whether accurate or not, common wisdom seems to give the Mormons a larger role in the Prop. 8 fight. If protesters picketed the Catholic Church, I imagine people would complain that they were going after a secondary target."

I'd suggest the common wisdom lacks perspective. The Catholic Church has been far more effective in fighting against SSM than the Mormons. I don't live in California, but I'd be interested in what the Catholic bishops of California had to say about Prop 8.

But we have to remember it's much less risky to attack the weaker opponent. The Mormon Church can't hit back nearly as hard as the Catholics can.( worldwide: 13 million vs 1 bllion, US: 6 million vs 65 million)
11.14.2008 11:21pm
Cornellian (mail):

But we have to remember it's much less risky to attack the weaker opponent.


Obviously. Why do you think the Mormons "defend" marriage by targeting gay people instead of straight, divorced people?
11.14.2008 11:39pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
Mark,

Mormons are a secondary target. Black churches are the primary target because there are A LOT more black voters and black churches in California than there are Mormons and Mormon church equivalents.

I used to be a California Democrat, and can safely say that the most homophobic comments in any Mormon church equivalent in California the Sunday before this month's election made those preachers sound like cooing doves compared to what was preached in Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco. It is a very, ummn, hmmm, (colorful?) primarily non-white church with a reputation for really ah, inflammatory preaching.

Diane Feinstein, as Mayor of San Francisco, had to fire the Reverend Cecil Williams from ALL his official city appointments for homophobic comments. That sort of thing made San Francisco politics interesting.

So yes, targeting Mormon churches about Proposition 8 while giving a pass to black and Catholic Churches absolutely proves the hypocrisy of the people who participate in, or approve of, the targeting of Mormons.

Just don't complain when Mormon peace enforcers act. They make the Jewish Defense League seem like cub scouts. And they don't go in for publicity because they have their own source of funds.
"The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!"
11.14.2008 11:57pm
The General:

I don't see the reason that a religious group that is bigoted should be given a free pass.


When will you people learn that insulting people and accusing them of having the basest motives isn't going to win over any converts to your argument?
11.15.2008 12:07am
MarkField (mail):

I'd suggest the common wisdom lacks perspective. The Catholic Church has been far more effective in fighting against SSM than the Mormons. I don't live in California, but I'd be interested in what the Catholic bishops of California had to say about Prop 8.


From what I could tell, the Mormons were FAR more active in support of Prop. 8 than the Catholics. I have no doubt the Catholic Church supported it, but apparently not with as much enthusiasm. At least that's my subjective impression.


Black churches are the primary target because there are A LOT more black voters and black churches in California than there are Mormons and Mormon church equivalents.


It's not quite the same because there's no central "black church" the way there is a Mormon or Catholic Church. Thus, there's no official "black church position". Each black church presumably took its own position (or not -- the IRS rules on this are a little unclear to me). If a particular black church did support Prop. 8, it could be targeted, I suppose. But from a tactical perspective it probably makes more sense to focus on a central organization that's easily identifiable and certainly did take a strong position in favor.

Personally, I'd protest at city hall.
11.15.2008 12:17am
Elliot123 (mail):
"Obviously. Why do you think the Mormons "defend" marriage by targeting gay people instead of straight, divorced people?"

Of course. Most groups will act against the weak when they have a chance. Gays do it. Mormons do it. Catholics do it. They all do it. Then they turn around and whine about their rights when they get hit with the same tactics. It's a big Kabuki play.
11.15.2008 12:19am
David Warner:
This is cultural muscle-flexing, and will be leveraged many times over by the sympathetic media.

Any real social change needs both good cops and bad.
11.15.2008 12:33am
Thomas_Holsinger:
The Mormons are being targeted because of the perception that they are safe to attack. This perception will change.

The bullies will not be missed.
11.15.2008 12:37am
Greg Q (mail) (www):
Prop 8 is the first time that people are shocked that a ballot measure passed. People expect states like Arkansas and Florida to pass these measures, but not California.

That's amazing ignorance, then. Given that Prop 22 in CA (which banned SSM) passed 61 - 39 in 2000.
11.15.2008 12:53am
Cornellian (mail):
The Mormons are being targeted because of the perception that they are safe to attack. This perception will change.

Hopefully the Mormon church hierarchy's perception of gay people as "safe to attack" will undergo a similar evolution.
11.15.2008 1:02am
Honestly?:
ForWhatItsWorth,

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant, "If LGBT is not a protected class, then they should have no rights." I was probably projected my misperception on you, and I apologize. You are right, it would all be easier if I was a member of the protected class. But right now, I'm just a white gay guy. So, I'm currently out of luck. Instead, I will continue to persuade my fellow Americans that I have no ill intentions, and just want to raise my own family, and hope that they will have full protection under the law.

Thanks for the dialogue. I just came back from dinner and doing some research to find the thread spiraling downward. Also, thank you for your service.

Cheers!
11.15.2008 1:17am
Thomas_Holsinger:
Cornellian,

Note my post above to Crunchy Frog. You might also check out the last paragraph of this one on another thread.

Two adages apply here. Don't start something you can't finish. And be careful what you ask for because you might get it.
11.15.2008 1:21am
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
Gay people are eminently free to try to have kids together, the problem is that it won't work. At least it won't work right now: in ten or fifteen years it will be big business. Which makes same-sex couples pretty much exactly like infertile straight couples were a few decades ago.

Trad and Anon, the question is, should we allow labs to try to create kids for same sex couples or not? We don't have to allow labs to try it, we can say it is bad public policy to allow it, the "big business" aspect being one of the reasons to prohibit it. And we don't have to wait until someone has done it to address this question, we can decide right now if people should have a right to try it or not. I think we should prohibit it. It would be really terrible to allow labs to try it, and really good to preserve natural conception.

You are correct that right now it is not prohibited and same-sex couples are eminently free to try to have kids, by any method, and indeed that is why the courts have so far held that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. If the legislature or Congress prohibits it by limiting the right to have kids to a man and a woman using their unmodified genes, then the courts would have come to very different conclusions about same-sex marriage.
11.15.2008 1:29am
Light Hearted (mail):
The discussion is primarily around what the best location to protest is. I question whether a protest is the way to go at all. Seems to me it would be more effective (if not emotionally more satisfying) to start making documentaries:

1. Every day for the next two years have a gay couple (different each day) go to the City Hall and request to be married. Be turned down while the video tape rolls. Be interviewed afterwards about their relationship, hopes, dreams, sadness at being unable to marry, etc.

2. Have it well edited by Hollywood professionals.

3. Have it in theaters a few months before the next election.

4. Have each gay person who cares about this issue harrangue at least one straight friend (esp. black straight friends) to see the documentary.

Easy win in 2010. People don't like voting against individuals they recognize. They vote against stereotypes that frighten them.
11.15.2008 1:37am
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
Which makes same-sex couples pretty much exactly like infertile straight couples were a few decades ago.

I forgot to address this part. No, they're not comparable. All married couples should definitely have the right to try to have kids together, and if they can't for some reason, they just won't. Having a right does not guarantee having the ability. But having the right means they should be allowed to privately use medicine to restore their health if they are privately unable to combine their genes to conceive together. But two people of the same sex would not be using medicine to get healthy, since it is perfectly healthy not to be able to conceive with someone of the same sex. Nor would it be a matter of privacy that they were unable to conceive, since it would be public that they were the same sex, and public knowledge that they would have to use genetic engineering to conceive together. So they're not comparable to a man and a woman that are privately infertile at all.
11.15.2008 1:57am
John D (mail):
1. Every day for the next two years have a gay couple (different each day) go to the City Hall and request to be married. Be turned down while the video tape rolls. Be interviewed afterwards about their relationship, hopes, dreams, sadness at being unable to marry, etc.

2. Have it well edited by Hollywood professionals.

3. Have it in theaters a few months before the next election.

4. Have each gay person who cares about this issue harrangue at least one straight friend (esp. black straight friends) to see the documentary.

News Item: Log Cabin Republicans president, Patrick Sammon will leave his position to return to documentary filmmaking.

Light Hearted, are you Mr. Sammon?
11.15.2008 2:19am
Perseus (mail):
"And yes, I believe in political "speech," but I have a problem with people tying up traffic"

couldn't continue reading because i could not stop laughing

I put speech in quotes because I don't consider snarling traffic, especially when it costs someone their life or could do so, actual speech.


I agree with FWIW. The "No gays for a day" approach seems less destructive.


If this discussion is about RIGHTS,

As you said, "I couldn't continue reading because I could not stop laughing."
11.15.2008 3:07am
Brett:
I'm with Light Hearted. While I'm sure that everybody will have lots of fun exploding in hissy pink sparks and screaming themselves hoarse at these protests, on Monday the electorate will still oppose gay marriage by at least a 5% margin.

I think pro-SSM activists need to come to the realization that the pro-Prop-8 votes break down roughly into two groups:

(1) People who voted for Prop 8 out of animus against gays; and

(2) People who voted for Prop 8 out of benign traditionalism, or to rebuke what they perceived as judicial activism, or out of concern for exacerbation of social pathologies created by previous liberalizations of marriage laws, or out of concern that sanctioning SSM will lead to mainstreaming of counterculture deviancy, et cetera.

Or, in other words, Persuadable People and Unpersuadable People.

Once pro-SSM activists realize that Persuadable People exist, I think they ought to consider whether calling the Persuadable People inveterate bigots is likely to be productive.
11.15.2008 6:19am
David Warner:
Light Hearted,

"Easy win in 2010. People don't like voting against individuals they recognize. They vote against stereotypes that frighten them."

So are you not a person? Why then they, not we? Or do you not fit your own stereotype?
11.15.2008 7:04am
Joel Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Given the number of lesbian couples with kids that I've met, I really, really doubt that the "gays can't make kids" theory works. Seems that sperm is not terribly difficult to get. Adoption is, of course, more difficult to do than find sperm and a turkey baster, but gay male couples often seem to manage.

I don't accept the notion that a marriage is invalid if the couple is unable to produce children, btw; but . . .
11.15.2008 7:41am
DADvocate (mail) (www):
Being curious, I checked the protests for Ohio. The protest will be at City Hall on 90 W. Broadway at 1:30 PM. The other three streets that border city hall in Columbus? Front St., Marconi Blvd, and, YES, Gay St.!

The organizers are framing this as an equality issue. I'd rather see it framed as a freedom issue. People in prison are all equal but freedom is something better all together.
11.15.2008 8:50am
David Warner:
DADvocate,

"The organizers are framing this as an equality issue. I'd rather see it framed as a freedom issue. People in prison are all equal but freedom is something better all together."

Hear, hear. The young are on the SSM side largely from a libertarian perspective.
11.15.2008 10:04am
richard cabeza:
The organizers are framing this as an equality issue. I'd rather see it framed as a freedom issue. People in prison are all equal but freedom is something better all together.

I would argue that equality over freedom is the point, and that Leftist "social justice" is the organizing princple to bring that about.

That is, it is believed by some that equality of income by way of "freedom from risk of failure" is more important than equality of treatment by way of freedoms against government. In actuality, the former has led and will continue to lead to the conclusion that totalitarian control is crucial to achieving fairness under a law that mandates unnatural conditions.

As far as I can tell, the whole fallacy of the importance of equality of income comes from the false hypothesis that any form of trade -- and, by extension, all economies -- are zero-sum in nature (we needn't even require that "envy" be a motivation, though that does go toward explaining related emotional derangements). This hypothesis pictures a world where almost all interpersonal transactions are designed to manipulate some fixed amount of wealth and power over the others; and it posits that government's role is to prevent unfair power accumulation in groups and individuals by allowing only equal amounts of power (that is, all the same or all none, and the most power by necessity granted to an all-encompassing government).

Which is to say: the government has no business involving itself in the institution of marriage; and some of those who disagree with that tend to appeal to emotion and fear in order to subject others' to their will, in the efforts to allay their own fears.
11.15.2008 10:15am
Uncle Creamy:

When will you people learn that insulting people and accusing them of having the basest motives isn't going to win over any converts to your argument?

This legend should probably be inserted between the OP and comment thread on any VC post that's remotely political so commenters of all persuasions can simply cut paste.
11.15.2008 11:19am
DanO29 (mail) (www):
On the other hand......Even Better.....

Seems to me it would be Even more effective (if not visually more entertaining) to start making a documentary:

1. Every day for the next two years have a gay couple (different each day) go to the City Hall and request to be married. Be turned down while the video tape rolls. Exit the City Clerks Office, both stand upon the steps of City Hall, drench one another with a conveniently available canister of Gasoline, give one another a loving embrace and light a match. Whoosh! Now that's ENTERTAINMENT.

2. Have it well edited by Hollywood professionals.

3. Have it in theaters a few months before the next election.

4. Just for meanness, have each Straight person who could give a damn about this issue, harangue at least one gay friend (esp. those that are incessant snivelers) to go see the documentary. Nothing strains a tenuous relationship like gratuitous violence.

Easy Oscar Winner for best Documentary. People like like watching individuals they recognize, self-ignite. It would be a block buster. The video sales alone could be reach into the 100s of Millions.
11.15.2008 11:23am
Horatio (mail):
I will trade SSM from one state being recognized under the Full Faith and Credit clause in exchange for the exact same thing for Concealed Carry of Firearms with no exemption permitted for any municipality to override the State.

After all, fair is fair, right?

So, all SSM advocates from California, NY, Mass, Conn care to get on board? I think you will find some natural allies in the RKBA movement. Now as to the practical details...
11.15.2008 11:34am
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
Joel, it's not about ability, it's about rights. A brother and sister have the ability, they don't have the right. People should not have the right to attempt same-sex conception either, now that the ability is becoming a possibility with stem cell derived gametes. It's too unethical, dangerous, expensive, wasteful, and would be bad pubic policy. We should enforce male-female cooperation and enforce that all people are created equal, as the union of a man and a woman.
11.15.2008 12:33pm
R Nebblesworth:
Horatio, I'll take that deal. You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Guns and Dope party, would you? ;)
11.15.2008 12:39pm
MarkField (mail):
FWIW, it looks like my resident's sense of the importance of the role played by the Mormon Church was correct.
11.15.2008 4:56pm
FlimFlamSam:
Please point me to the Anti-SSM demonstrations.
11.15.2008 4:56pm
whit:

and would be bad pubic policy


lol

pubic policy!
11.15.2008 5:55pm
Horatio (mail):
Horatio, I'll take that deal. You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Guns and Dope party, would you? ;)

Not these days, although I always liked that moniker
11.15.2008 6:20pm
Gary McGath (www):
They're demonstrating in favor of surface-to-surface missiles? What warmongers!
11.15.2008 8:32pm
ccoffer (mail):
I won't be able to make it to the prop 8 event. I'm busy advocating for the normalization of pedophilia. Pedophiles are just like you and me and can't help how they were born. After all, who would CHOOSE to be a pedophile in a country that discriminates against their life choices in such a bigoted way? No one would, of course. Its genetic, and its beautiful. Until the pedophobes are defeated, none of us are free.
11.15.2008 8:53pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"FWIW, it looks like my resident's sense of the importance of the role played by the Mormon Church was correct."

Well, you have to respect a job well done. I didn't know they could mount such a well organized and effective campaign outside of Utah.
11.15.2008 9:07pm
Jerry F:
It is truly unbelievable that we have just elected the most left-wing radical President in U.S. history, the most far-left Congress in U.S. history, and yet it is primarily liberals who are protesting the outcome of November 4. Conservatives should be the ones to call for a revolution right about now.
11.15.2008 9:22pm
MCM (mail):
"You might have asked that question about lunch counters in Greensboro, SC."

Just a quick note: I think you meant Greensboro, North Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins
11.15.2008 9:35pm
R Nebblesworth:
Yep, liberals are protesting the entire "outcome" of Nov. 4, definitely not the outcome of a particular ballot measure.

And ccoffer, children can't legally consent to sex or anything else. Find another strawman.
11.15.2008 9:46pm
James D. McMichael (mail):
Mormons do not hate lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people. The Mormon people, and their Church, preach love.

Why not see what the Church says about Prop 8 and about family and marriage before assuming that Mormons are motivated by hate? Can't hurt can it?

Go to the "Newsroom" of the Church's website www.lds.org and read the August 2008 document "The Divine Institution of Marriage" and the 1995 document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World".

You will find that the Church and the Mormon people are motivated, not by hate, but by their theological understanding. Furthermore, you will see that the Church is emphatic that LGBT people are deserving of the same respect as anyone else.

It is convenient to demonize those with whom you disagree. But it accomplishes nothing. Honesty to your own cause requires an honest appraisal of your opponents. So, get beyond the uninformed "hate" and "bigot" slogans, and learn a little about the Latter-day Saints. You will not find them to be haters.

The Mormon people have endured persecution that LGBT people, while longtime victims of discrimination, cannot even imagine. Yet, the Mormon people have been able to maintain the biblical injunction to love their enemies. Thus far, LGBT people have not shown such strength of character.
11.15.2008 9:51pm
guest:
Dale, people who are not as "in to" the gay and homosexual scene might not understand that "SSM" is shorthand for "same sex marriage." Admittedly, it's not my thing; however, I will suggest to you that the best way to communicate is to do it clearly. ... The old "same sex marriage (SSM)" way would do it.
11.15.2008 10:06pm
MarkField (mail):

Just a quick note: I think you meant Greensboro, North Carolina.


I did mean NC, of course. Thanks.
11.15.2008 11:40pm
Robert West (mail) (www):
the Church is emphatic that LGBT people are deserving of the same respect as anyone else.

It's hard to reconcile that with financial support, and activism in favor of, a constitutional amendment demanding that LGBT people be treated differently by the state.

It's hard to believe what they say when what they do results in LGBT people not being treated with the same respect as straight people.
11.16.2008 12:54am
Greg Q (mail) (www):
David Warner,

The young are on the SSM side largely from a libertarian perspective.

No, the young are one the Gay marriage side because they're young and clueless..

When I looked at the exit polls for Prop 8, this was the set of number that jumped out at me:
Are You Married With Children?
Yes (31%) 68% 32%
No (69%) 45% 55%
Why are "the young" in favor of SSM? Because they're not married (60 - 40 in favor), they don't have kids (64 - 36 in favor), and so it's all a big game to them. The pro SSM say "just wait til they get older, and vote more, then we'll win." I think that what's more likely is that when they get older and get responsibilities, their votes will change.

And a big part of the reason for that the reasons giving for supporting SSM are all so pathetic. "Change the definition of marriage because teh current one hurts my feelings" isn't "equal treatment", it's special treatment. If you're not willing to argue for it (rather than merely demand it), the rational assumption is that you know you don't actually have any good arguments you can make.

"Change the way society has viewed marriage for all of human history because it will benefit me" is not a good argument. (Especially when it comes as a demand, rather than a request.) You want SSM? Fine. Tell the rest of us how we will benefit from giving it to you. Tell us why it is that changing the definition of marriage to include SSM will benefit society.

If you can't, don't expect to get what you want. Mainly because you won't deserve it.
11.16.2008 1:25am
MCM (mail):
"Why are "the young" in favor of SSM? Because they're not married (60 - 40 in favor), they don't have kids (64 - 36 in favor), and so it's all a big game to them. The pro SSM say "just wait til they get older, and vote more, then we'll win." I think that what's more likely is that when they get older and get responsibilities, their votes will change. "

An alternative explanation would be that younger people are less likely to think there's anything wrong with homosexuality because they grew up in a society where homosexuality was at somewhat tolerated. By contrast the very idea of "gay rights" didn't exist for those growing up before Stonewall. I mean as late as 1943 the Florida Supreme Court indicated that the death penalty for consensual sodomy would be constitutional.

Younger generations of Americans increasingly don't see anything different about gay people in comparison to straight people, for whatever reasons. After all, you yourself quoted that 32% of voters married with children support gay marriage. Would you guess that 32% to be evenly distributed across age categories, or would you guess that perhaps those 32% are mostly the younger third of those voters married with children?
11.16.2008 2:50am
MCM (mail):
"I did mean NC, of course. Thanks."

No problem... having originated in NC I felt it my duty to point out. :)
11.16.2008 2:52am
hazemyth:
In response to James D. McMichael...

"The Church does not object to rights ... so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family ... The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony ... The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members' Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people. "

--from "The Divine Institution of Marriage"

The LDS Church position clearly regards gay relations as 'improper'. Despite it's polite phrasing, I don't doubt its intent is severe. Clearly, it states gay relations have no place in the church or many institutions of civil society (such as marriage). Likewise, it implies that gay marriage somehow threatens straight marriages and families. This is baseless vilification.

The word "hate" gives an ugly name to an ugly thing. Maybe the Mormons that espouse this philosophy don't 'feel' hatred in their hearts. Yet, it is no kindness to unjustly disparage and prohibit the well-being of gay people (and gay people do find their well-being in gay relationships, as any honest and intimate look at real gay people will show you). And it is not love to declaim people's intrinsic traits, to mark them as deviant or sick or sinful. This is the polite rational that segregates and thus victimizes people by their differences. It is the kindly-faced cousin of the most venomous bigot and it has no greater basis in reality.

I don't doubt that most Mormons are well-meaning people but they have been misguided by an abominable doctrine of prejudice, which blinds them from the reality of gay people. By ostracizing gay people from legal marriage, Mormons are treating gays as perverse, unwelcome, and reviled.
11.16.2008 3:54am
richard cabeza:
and yet it is primarily liberals who are protesting the outcome of November 4

Malcontents. Don't be surprised, or soon they'll make you void the warranty on your gasper.
11.16.2008 7:04am
R Nebblesworth:
Greg, did you just invoke the "you'll understand when you're older" argument? Most people stop buying that one around middle school or so... maybe it's just your kids who are particularly "clueless"?
11.16.2008 10:09am
evergreen (mail):
Homosexual advocates want to achieve special rights status, but also want to restrict the basic freedoms of speech and conscience for others. So I have to laugh when they hold up the signs saying "Your Rights Next." That's what would have happened if Prop 8 had not passed.

Just ask Boston Catholic Charities.
11.16.2008 12:09pm
Elais:
James Michael, evergreen,

Boo hoo for religious groups claiming oppression because they oppress and hurt gays and lesbians. That's like rapists claiming they are oppressed by the women they rape.

Gays should have the same rights as me, including the right to marry the person they love.

Equal rights are not special rights, evergreen, to think otherwise is idiotic.
11.16.2008 12:22pm
John D (mail):
Evergreen,

Boston Catholic Charities stopped placing children in the households of gay couples as a protest against marriage. They had no qualms about letting unmarried gay people adopt children.

Catholic Charities was working under a license from the state. In that they were receiving state funds, they were obligated to operate without discrimination. Before the Goodridge decision, they were happy to do so.

Catholic Charities was already helping gay people adopt children.


Their choices were:
1. Continue to help gay people with adoption.

2. Stop taking state funds and become a private adoption agency.

3. Attempt brinksmanship with the state.


There's a Mormon adoption agency in Massachusetts. They accept no state money, so they can work only with Mormon families. They are not subject to the Massachusetts discrimination laws, since they operate as part of their religious mission.

Catholic Charities had that option. Certainly on this blog, people should be aware that no on is obligated to state money and that the state often attaches strings to cash.
11.16.2008 12:28pm
jb (mail):
"not by hate, but by their theological understanding."

Personally I oppose secular law based on either hate OR theological understanding.
11.16.2008 12:53pm
evergreen:
CC did arrange a small number of adoptions to gays, but this is owing to lack of direction on the part of the Vatican. After a Vatican directive in 2003, they could no longer do so.

As for the private vs. public issue, that cuts both ways. Homosexual couples are free to contract privately; they don't need state recognition of their unions.
11.16.2008 1:04pm
AFJ (www):
"Gays should have the same rights as me..."

They already do.

"...including the right to marry the person they love. "

That has never been a right for any individual. If the person you love is already married to another person, if they're a blood relative, if they're under a certain age, or if they're the same sex as you, then you can't marry them. These limitations apply equally to every American.

Defining marriage as it has always been defined, as the union of male and female, is not hate. It isn't bigotry against gay people any more than it's bigotry against single people, or against polygamists. On the other hand, a great deal of hate and bigotry is coming from the "no on 8" side.
11.16.2008 1:14pm
Observer:

Defining marriage as it has always been defined, as the union of male and female, is not hate. It isn't bigotry against gay people any more than it's bigotry against single people, or against polygamists. On the other hand, a great deal of hate and bigotry is coming from the "no on 8" side.


Amen
11.16.2008 3:02pm
ccoffer (mail):
What about the rights of every other sexual deviant? Don't they deserve the same "respect" that so called "gay" people do? Why discriminate against them in favor of only the gays?

Its certainly not equal in any honest sense of the word.
11.16.2008 4:37pm