|
Post by Squeemonster on Nov 6, 2008 20:34:48 GMT -5
And just in case y'all were thinking that the new guy was kidding when he talked about the work ahead of us: today we have a to-do listOh, cool! *bookmarks*
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 6, 2008 20:52:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 6, 2008 21:43:32 GMT -5
I just realized (watching Rachel Maddow) that Nate Silver looks like he could be Sweets, the psydoc from Bones, brother.
Julia, this disturbs me
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 6, 2008 22:17:58 GMT -5
I just realized (watching Rachel Maddow) that Nate Silver looks like he could be Sweets, the psydoc from Bones, brother. Julia, this disturbs me I just wish he could learn to smile.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 6, 2008 23:13:03 GMT -5
I'm at a loss to explain why a state that is pretty much completely "blue" (see results for the presidential election) and socially progressive in so many ways would vote to ban gay marriage. What is up with that? Why does anyone care who gets married, unless they think it effects something economically? That's pretty specious from, say my standpoint. Maybe not an employer that pays for health insurance but hey, they can change that option for everyone if it's a money thing. Make co-pays bigger, whatever. I don't get it. I would rather see unions of all kinds (between humans until such time as other humanoid life forms are found, I do have my limits) legalized and "legitimized" in the eyes of society than make a group of people feel they have to deny their chose family arrangement. That has all kinds of bad potential. What am I missing? Two things, IMO: First, the bigotry against homosexuality goes deeper even than racism, it seems. It's thought by many, still, that you can't help but be a different color, but you could stop being gay if you really wanted to. Further, at least openly, people here don't think of persons of a different race as inherently inferior, but the vast majority of straights still feel like there's something "wrong" with gays. So the prejudice exists even in otherwise liberal, progressive people. But then I wonder - why does anyone care? How does it affect you whether the guys next door get married? In this case, they opposition LIED. They made their entire campaign about "your children". As in, if gay marriage stays legal, they're gonna teach homosexual marriage to your children in school. I kid you not. The Mormon Church pumped HUGE amounts of money into the "Yes" fund, and they just bombarded us with lies about children. People fell for it, and then suddenly it DOES affect you. Third, it's hypothesized that Barack Obama's candidacy indirectly hurt us - he brought out the black and Latino votes in record numbers, and they tend to vote against gay rights initiatives due to traditional value structures. Also, remember that this is actually progress, for us. The citizens of CA have never voted to approve gay marriage. The first "ban it" bill passed by a 20-point margin. Then the State Supreme Court deemed it Unconstitutional. This initiative passed by only 4 points. We're getting there, just slowly. We'll have to repeal a Constitutional amendment now, but we can do that. Hell, we used to have Prohibition in this country.... Penknife in ljland wrote a very interesting post about the reasons behind the opposition to gay marriage and the dialogue we need to establish to resolve this issue. ETA: Also, homophobia in the black community and what to do about it.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 7, 2008 7:47:29 GMT -5
Two things, IMO: First, the bigotry against homosexuality goes deeper even than racism, it seems. It's thought by many, still, that you can't help but be a different color, but you could stop being gay if you really wanted to. Further, at least openly, people here don't think of persons of a different race as inherently inferior, but the vast majority of straights still feel like there's something "wrong" with gays. So the prejudice exists even in otherwise liberal, progressive people. But then I wonder - why does anyone care? How does it affect you whether the guys next door get married? In this case, they opposition LIED. They made their entire campaign about "your children". As in, if gay marriage stays legal, they're gonna teach homosexual marriage to your children in school. I kid you not. The Mormon Church pumped HUGE amounts of money into the "Yes" fund, and they just bombarded us with lies about children. People fell for it, and then suddenly it DOES affect you. Third, it's hypothesized that Barack Obama's candidacy indirectly hurt us - he brought out the black and Latino votes in record numbers, and they tend to vote against gay rights initiatives due to traditional value structures. Also, remember that this is actually progress, for us. The citizens of CA have never voted to approve gay marriage. The first "ban it" bill passed by a 20-point margin. Then the State Supreme Court deemed it Unconstitutional. This initiative passed by only 4 points. We're getting there, just slowly. We'll have to repeal a Constitutional amendment now, but we can do that. Hell, we used to have Prohibition in this country.... Penknife in ljland wrote a very interesting post about the reasons behind the opposition to gay marriage and the dialogue we need to establish to resolve this issue. ETA: Also, homophobia in the black community and what to do about it.I don't get the statement that, like Rachael, I've also heard in the press: That blacks and latinos tend to vote against gay marriage due to "traditional value structures." Am I reading too much into it, or is the implication that when blacks and latinos vote against it, it is somehow different - more OK, less to do with prejudices, more understandable - than when whites vote against gay marriage? 'Cause that I do not buy in any measure. I do agree with the article that people in general don't seem clear on the difference between civil and religious unions. But even if they got crystal clear, I'm not sure it would make that much difference. I do think that it has to do with comfort levels and old conditioning and prejudices, and that younger generations are more comfortable with it all. I heard somewhere that people under 30 voted in a large majority against 8.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 7, 2008 10:09:17 GMT -5
I don't get the statement that, like Rachael, I've also heard in the press: That blacks and latinos tend to vote against gay marriage due to "traditional value structures." Am I reading too much into it, or is the implication that when blacks and latinos vote against it, it is somehow different - more OK, less to do with prejudices, more understandable - than when whites vote against gay marriage? 'Cause that I do not buy in any measure. I do agree with the article that people in general don't seem clear on the difference between civil and religious unions. But even if they got crystal clear, I'm not sure it would make that much difference. I do think that it has to do with comfort levels and old conditioning and prejudices, and that younger generations are more comfortable with it all. I heard somewhere that people under 30 voted in a large majority against 8. It's not that it's more OK...it's that it helps make sense of a huge group of voters who vote for Obama, against strictures on abortion, and yet FOR a marriage ban. IMO, it's not any more OK. It's invoked to help explain to the world "how this could happen in California".
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 7, 2008 12:20:14 GMT -5
I don't get the statement that, like Rachael, I've also heard in the press: That blacks and latinos tend to vote against gay marriage due to "traditional value structures." Am I reading too much into it, or is the implication that when blacks and latinos vote against it, it is somehow different - more OK, less to do with prejudices, more understandable - than when whites vote against gay marriage? 'Cause that I do not buy in any measure. I do agree with the article that people in general don't seem clear on the difference between civil and religious unions. But even if they got crystal clear, I'm not sure it would make that much difference. I do think that it has to do with comfort levels and old conditioning and prejudices, and that younger generations are more comfortable with it all. I heard somewhere that people under 30 voted in a large majority against 8. Regarding the red, some of that confusion is caused by the gay community insisting (for their own reasons) on framing the issue using the word "marriage." It may probably sound ridiculously trivial but personally I think some of the problem is purely semantical. Whether ridiculous or not I know of a number of religious conservatives who might be willing to support laws allowing for "civil unions" between gays to stand but would vote vigorously against gay "marriage." Perhaps an entirely trivial distinction but there you go. It's not that they are against equal civil rights for gays but that they feel they must protect what is (within the church) a sacrament equal to baptism, last rites, and communion. Allow me to stress that: Marriage is a Sacrament on the same level as Communion. It's not a simple matter of "civil rights." It's something ordained by God as a matter of great holiness. [Do NOT get me started on the fact that they should therefore be equally incensed by adultery---if you are going to hold a position, people, hold it consistently.] (((Of course, these positions can be slowly eroded over time----most denominations' hard line stance on divorce has softened considerably in the past 50 years.))) If the homosexual community were willing to start the push for legislation framing it entirely in "civil union" terms (at least publicly) they might gain a slight advantage. Once the law is in place they can use whatever term they want. Religious institutions will, of course, have to decide on a one by one basis (and I'm sure it will lead to nasty denominational battles and splits) whether to perform such unions and/or recognize them within their faith or congregation. But by insisting on the immediate "right" to use the word marriage I do believe that they are making the legal battle unnecessarily more difficult on themselves. Why not do this in smaller, perhaps more winnable steps? Of course, I speak for no specific constituency, it's just an observation made based on conversations within a tiny sliver of the Christian community. [But these are primarily evangelicals who enthusiastically supported Obama and view themselves as "social liberals" and so in some sense want to support equal civil rights, while still believing privately that homosexuality is a result of living in a fallen world. And, as I said, many view MARRIAGE as a God-ordained sacrament. By constantly framing the laws using the word marriage, the gay community makes it unecessarily more difficult on these folks to support the legislation or to come to grips with their own moral world views in attempting to do so.] You can think this is a silly semantical argument. But it exists for many people. ================ Last comment. It's like I've said about evangelicals and abortion. If you start with a CORE BELIEF that life starts at conception, therefore abortion is murder of a human being, what choice do you have but to oppose it. [Although, I think the decisions in South Dakota and Colorado can be used to hopefully convince some folks that this is not something that is going to be changed via politics or law. For more on that read (and I can NOOOOOOOT believe I am saying this, Cal Thomas' editorial today (I can count on one finger the number of times I have agreed with Cal Thomas) on how Christian evangelicals ought to be seeking to impact the world: here (**I"ve typed /url here, but I just can't seem to make the link work) (sorry, I couldn't find it on The Tennessean website so I had to go to his personal website. I don't recommend going elsewhere on the site---your eyeballs might be burned out of their sockets.) Back to topic. So, if you take as a CORE BELIEF that marriage was set up by God to be between one man and one woman then you have no option buy to oppose gay marriage---as many churches will do. But if one of your core beliefs is also equal civil rights for all people then you are in a bind. Hence the (extremely) thin line of supporting secular civil unions but not (in your own personal church) gay marriage. This makes sense in my own brain, but maybe not to some of you with highly different world views and core belief systems?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 7, 2008 12:45:01 GMT -5
I don't get the statement that, like Rachael, I've also heard in the press: That blacks and latinos tend to vote against gay marriage due to "traditional value structures." Am I reading too much into it, or is the implication that when blacks and latinos vote against it, it is somehow different - more OK, less to do with prejudices, more understandable - than when whites vote against gay marriage? 'Cause that I do not buy in any measure. I do agree with the article that people in general don't seem clear on the difference between civil and religious unions. But even if they got crystal clear, I'm not sure it would make that much difference. I do think that it has to do with comfort levels and old conditioning and prejudices, and that younger generations are more comfortable with it all. I heard somewhere that people under 30 voted in a large majority against 8. Regarding the red, some of that confusion is caused by the gay community insisting (for their own reasons) on framing the issue using the word "marriage." It may probably sound ridiculously trivial but personally I think some of the problem is purely semantical. Whether ridiculous or not I know of a number of religious conservatives who might be willing to support laws allowing for "civil unions" between gays to stand but would vote vigorously against gay "marriage." Perhaps an entirely trivial distinction but there you go. It's not that they are against equal civil rights for gays but that they feel they must protect what is (within the church) a sacrament equal to baptism, last rites, and communion. Allow me to stress that: Marriage is a Sacrament on the same level as Communion. It's not a simple matter of "civil rights." It's something ordained by God as a matter of great holiness. [Do NOT get me started on the fact that they should therefore be equally incensed by adultery---if you are going to hold a position, people, hold it consistently.] (((Of course, these positions can be slowly eroded over time----most denominations' hard line stance on divorce has softened considerably in the past 50 years.))) If the homosexual community were willing to start the push for legislation framing it entirely in "civil union" terms (at least publicly) they might gain a slight advantage. Once the law is in place they can use whatever term they want. Religious institutions will, of course, have to decide on a one by one basis (and I'm sure it will lead to nasty denominational battles and splits) whether to perform such unions and/or recognize them within their faith or congregation. But by insisting on the immediate "right" to use the word marriage I do believe that they are making the legal battle unnecessarily more difficult on themselves. Why not do this in smaller, perhaps more winnable steps? Of course, I speak for no specific constituency, it's just an observation made based on conversations within a tiny sliver of the Christian community. [But these are primarily evangelicals who enthusiastically supported Obama and view themselves as "social liberals" and so in some sense want to support equal civil rights, while still believing privately that homosexuality is a result of living in a fallen world. And, as I said, many view MARRIAGE as a God-ordained sacrament. By constantly framing the laws using the word marriage, the gay community makes it unecessarily more difficult on these folks to support the legislation or to come to grips with their own moral world views in attempting to do so.] You can think this is a silly semantical argument. But it exists for many people. The problem is that the laws that exist refer to marriage, so marriage has a legal definition as well as a social and religious one. Or rather, there is civil marriage and there is religious marriage. I think the best thing to do would be to say that "civil union" is the legal term and leave the term "marriage" to religions and society. But that would require rewriting thousands of lines of legal code, and I don't even know if that is possible. To grant gay couples civil unions which are the equivalent of civil marriages but yet not actually called the same thing would be great in terms of granting equal rights but there's still a lack of equality, which may be only symbolic but could be hurtful nonetheless in a "separate but equal" sort of way. It is a real big semantic mess.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 7, 2008 12:47:25 GMT -5
Regarding the red, some of that confusion is caused by the gay community insisting (for their own reasons) on framing the issue using the word "marriage." It may probably sound ridiculously trivial but personally I think some of the problem is purely semantical. Whether ridiculous or not I know of a number of religious conservatives who might be willing to support laws allowing for "civil unions" between gays to stand but would vote vigorously against gay "marriage." Perhaps an entirely trivial distinction but there you go. It's not that they are against equal civil rights for gays but that they feel they must protect what is (within the church) a sacrament equal to baptism, last rites, and communion. Allow me to stress that: Marriage is a Sacrament on the same level as Communion. It's not a simple matter of "civil rights." It's something ordained by God as a matter of great holiness. [Do NOT get me started on the fact that they should therefore be equally incensed by adultery---if you are going to hold a position, people, hold it consistently.] (((Of course, these positions can be slowly eroded over time----most denominations' hard line stance on divorce has softened considerably in the past 50 years.))) If the homosexual community were willing to start the push for legislation framing it entirely in "civil union" terms (at least publicly) they might gain a slight advantage. Once the law is in place they can use whatever term they want. Religious institutions will, of course, have to decide on a one by one basis (and I'm sure it will lead to nasty denominational battles and splits) whether to perform such unions and/or recognize them within their faith or congregation. But by insisting on the immediate "right" to use the word marriage I do believe that they are making the legal battle unnecessarily more difficult on themselves. Why not do this in smaller, perhaps more winnable steps? Of course, I speak for no specific constituency, it's just an observation made based on conversations within a tiny sliver of the Christian community. [But these are primarily evangelicals who enthusiastically supported Obama and view themselves as "social liberals" and so in some sense want to support equal civil rights, while still believing privately that homosexuality is a result of living in a fallen world. And, as I said, many view MARRIAGE as a God-ordained sacrament. By constantly framing the laws using the word marriage, the gay community makes it unecessarily more difficult on these folks to support the legislation or to come to grips with their own moral world views in attempting to do so.] You can think this is a silly semantical argument. But it exists for many people. The problem is that the laws that exist refer to marriage, so marriage has a legal definition as well as a social and religious one. Or rather, there is civil marriage and there is religious marriage. I think the best thing to do would be to say that "civil union" is the legal term and leave the term "marriage" to religions and society. But that would require rewriting thousands of lines of legal code, and I don't even know if that is possible. To grant gay couples civil unions which are the equivalent of civil marriages but yet not actually called the same thing would be great in terms of granting equal rights but there's still a lack of equality, which may be only symbolic but could be hurtful nonetheless in a "separate but equal" sort of way. It is a real big semantic mess. It is a mess. But I also think it helps to explain how the same people would vote to elect Obama and still vote in favor of Prop 8.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 7, 2008 13:19:00 GMT -5
The problem is that the laws that exist refer to marriage, so marriage has a legal definition as well as a social and religious one. Or rather, there is civil marriage and there is religious marriage. I think the best thing to do would be to say that "civil union" is the legal term and leave the term "marriage" to religions and society. But that would require rewriting thousands of lines of legal code, and I don't even know if that is possible. To grant gay couples civil unions which are the equivalent of civil marriages but yet not actually called the same thing would be great in terms of granting equal rights but there's still a lack of equality, which may be only symbolic but could be hurtful nonetheless in a "separate but equal" sort of way. It is a real big semantic mess. It is a mess. But I also think it helps to explain how the same people would vote to elect Obama and still vote in favor of Prop 8. Coming from the state that helped put the term "civil union" into the national vocabulary, I can tell you that from what I've observed using that phrase didn't necessarily have a huge impact on the debate or on the nature of people's opposition to the idea. My dad's a reasonably intelligent guy, and yet I myself had a conversation with him that involved him asking "why should gay people have a special type of union? What if a man and a woman want the same rights a civil union grants—why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?" and me saying "well, Dad, that's because they can just get married." The other main problems with calling it a civil union are that a) unlike marriage, civil unions are generally not recognized legally outside of the state that granted the union—a couple who gets a civil union in Vermont would lose all the rights and benefits that entails the moment they're outside of Vermont, and b) because it is a state-sanctioned union and not recognized as a legal union by the federal government, any benefits of marriage which fall under federal jurisdiction (like filing joint tax returns) are not applicable to folks in a civil union. So, it's really not just a matter of semantics—a civil union truly isn't the same as a marriage in terms of the legal rights the folks entering into the union gain once the process is complete.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 7, 2008 14:22:34 GMT -5
It is a mess. But I also think it helps to explain how the same people would vote to elect Obama and still vote in favor of Prop 8. Coming from the state that helped put the term "civil union" into the national vocabulary, I can tell you that from what I've observed using that phrase didn't necessarily have a huge impact on the debate or on the nature of people's opposition to the idea. My dad's a reasonably intelligent guy, and yet I myself had a conversation with him that involved him asking "why should gay people have a special type of union? What if a man and a woman want the same rights a civil union grants—why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?" and me saying "well, Dad, that's because they can just get married." The other main problems with calling it a civil union are that a) unlike marriage, civil unions are generally not recognized legally outside of the state that granted the union—a couple who gets a civil union in Vermont would lose all the rights and benefits that entails the moment they're outside of Vermont, and b) because it is a state-sanctioned union and not recognized as a legal union by the federal government, any benefits of marriage which fall under federal jurisdiction (like filing joint tax returns) are not applicable to folks in a civil union. So, it's really not just a matter of semantics—a civil union truly isn't the same as a marriage in terms of the legal rights the folks entering into the union gain once the process is complete. So the semantics thing doesn't work so well in the RW. Still, I stand by my observation that if there was some way to get all of the same legal protections at the federal level without using the term marriage that it would pick up a few votes. Oh, plenty of people wouldn't change their minds anyway, because they'd feel like the govt shouldn't recognize any type of homosexual union -- civil or otherwise. Who was it, Rachel or Liz, who said---just call all of the secular agreements/ceremonies "civil unions" and let the churches sort out which of these they will bless under their faith umbrellas. But I do see that since the word marriage has been used in laws written for the past 200 years it's kind of hard to change that now.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 7, 2008 15:22:48 GMT -5
I think, in regard to the racial breakdown of the vote on Prop 8, that viewing it as assigning blame is the least useful way to approach it. It's a to-do list, the audience who must be addressed, not the enemy or the bad guys. A way to start is to spread Coretta Scott King's words about it (and of course I've lost that link, darn it) when she stated that gay equal rights are the equivalent of racial equal rights, because the acceptance of different levels of legal protection for different people is the thin end of the wedge for increasing the number of groups on the list of less-than-full participation.
Julia, I wish Coretta could have seen this year- and Shirley Chisolm, Barbara Gordon, and Rosa Parks
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 7, 2008 15:51:02 GMT -5
Coming from the state that helped put the term "civil union" into the national vocabulary, I can tell you that from what I've observed using that phrase didn't necessarily have a huge impact on the debate or on the nature of people's opposition to the idea. My dad's a reasonably intelligent guy, and yet I myself had a conversation with him that involved him asking "why should gay people have a special type of union? What if a man and a woman want the same rights a civil union grants—why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?" and me saying "well, Dad, that's because they can just get married." The other main problems with calling it a civil union are that a) unlike marriage, civil unions are generally not recognized legally outside of the state that granted the union—a couple who gets a civil union in Vermont would lose all the rights and benefits that entails the moment they're outside of Vermont, and b) because it is a state-sanctioned union and not recognized as a legal union by the federal government, any benefits of marriage which fall under federal jurisdiction (like filing joint tax returns) are not applicable to folks in a civil union. So, it's really not just a matter of semantics—a civil union truly isn't the same as a marriage in terms of the legal rights the folks entering into the union gain once the process is complete. So the semantics thing doesn't work so well in the RW. Still, I stand by my observation that if there was some way to get all of the same legal protections at the federal level without using the term marriage that it would pick up a few votes. Oh, plenty of people wouldn't change their minds anyway, because they'd feel like the govt shouldn't recognize any type of homosexual union -- civil or otherwise. Who was it, Rachel or Liz, who said---just call all of the secular agreements/ceremonies "civil unions" and let the churches sort out which of these they will bless under their faith umbrellas. But I do see that since the word marriage has been used in laws written for the past 200 years it's kind of hard to change that now. Yeah, that was me. I think that even were it to become truly equal in terms of rights, across the board, it would still not be okay with me that one class of people gets a marriage license and another gets a civil union. For one thing, we've got legal precedent that "separate but equal" isn't Constitutional, and lots of practical data showing that separate is rarely equal. It's still discrimination, even if only in words. And words matter. They're how we define our reality. If words didn't matter, then no one, on either side, would care whether gay people get to legally call themselves "married". The very fact that it bothers some people so much proves that the semantic argument is an important one. Because, as our culture is today, a "civil union" will never be viewed (by most people) as being as committed or stable as a "marriage". That said, I also believe in baby steps. I'll take civil unions first, then federal recognition of civil unions, then gay marriage, over the course of a decade or two, if that's what it takes. I'd really, REALLY love to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed....
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 7, 2008 17:06:50 GMT -5
So the semantics thing doesn't work so well in the RW. Still, I stand by my observation that if there was some way to get all of the same legal protections at the federal level without using the term marriage that it would pick up a few votes. Oh, plenty of people wouldn't change their minds anyway, because they'd feel like the govt shouldn't recognize any type of homosexual union -- civil or otherwise. Who was it, Rachel or Liz, who said---just call all of the secular agreements/ceremonies "civil unions" and let the churches sort out which of these they will bless under their faith umbrellas. But I do see that since the word marriage has been used in laws written for the past 200 years it's kind of hard to change that now. Yeah, that was me. I think that even were it to become truly equal in terms of rights, across the board, it would still not be okay with me that one class of people gets a marriage license and another gets a civil union. For one thing, we've got legal precedent that "separate but equal" isn't Constitutional, and lots of practical data showing that separate is rarely equal. It's still discrimination, even if only in words. And words matter. They're how we define our reality. If words didn't matter, then no one, on either side, would care whether gay people get to legally call themselves "married". The very fact that it bothers some people so much proves that the semantic argument is an important one. Because, as our culture is today, a "civil union" will never be viewed (by most people) as being as committed or stable as a "marriage". That said, I also believe in baby steps. I'll take civil unions first, then federal recognition of civil unions, then gay marriage, over the course of a decade or two, if that's what it takes. I'd really, REALLY love to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed.... Agreed. But the baby steps part is what I was talking about. Notice attitudes about divorce, birth control, planned parenthood teaching birth control to teens, the bans on smoking, seat belt use, the laws beginning to govern use of cell phones while driving, society's attitudes toward unmarried mothers, pre-marital sex, etc. Still, I am uncertain whether things change more quickly if this kind of careful, slow assault is planned or if the agents of change simply scream and yell and protest and demonstrate and resist. I guess it can come either way, and maybe both are needed.
|
|