Or you could say that marriage equality just wasn’t that big an issue in 2006, because Republicans didn’t make it an issue. And you’d be right about that, too.

A fact that always gets lost amidst all the finger-pointing after a Dem loss is this: We queers did not turn same-sex marriage into the divisive issue it is today — the Republicans (specifically, evil genius Karl Rove) did.

As I wrote to someone who questioned “the big [marriage] movement at that particular point in time” in 2006, which served only to strip gay and lesbian Americans of rights we never had in the first place:

You have to understand something.

There was no “big movement” from the LGBT side; we were quite aware that full equality was a process of baby steps. The “big movement” was a [right-wing] attack tactic, and once they dropped it in our laps, what were we supposed to say? “Thanks, but no, we don’t want to get married” - ?

I feel quite confident in stating that most of us would have been quite happy with “just” equal rights in housing, employment, hospital visitation, inheritance, and (my personal issue) immigration, et al., and then, ultimately, civil unions. To be honest, I never thought we’d get full-fledged marriage in the U.S. (and now, I know we never will, at least not in my lifetime), and I for one wasn’t pushing for it when the whole anti-marriage movement came crashing down on our heads.

It wasn’t strange timing at all. It was perfectly timed, by the anti-gay brigades.

I stand by that, and I’ve repeated it countless times: There was no concerted effort on the gay side to win marriage equality; we were just trying to make inroads in the areas of basic protections, when the Rove Machine came up with the bright idea of making marriage the issue to whip the radical religionists into a frenzy. And now that the marriage war has been foisted upon us, we can’t very well sit back and not fight.

In any case, by 2006, the Republicans had overplayed the anti-gay card — they downright wore the damned thing out. It’s not that the country suddenly came to its collective senses and stopped passing anti-gay legislation (although there has been some progress in making John Q. Public understand that “gay” does not equate to “Baby-Jesus-hating child molester and sworn enemy of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet”) — it’s that we’ve been legislated into permanent second-class citizenship in so many states, there just aren’t that many left where wholesale persecution of gay and lesbian Americans is going to fly with the general public. About the only thing left is to put us on the trains and send us to the camps. (Nah, don’t worry; I’m not giving the haters any new ideas — there are plenty who already propose doing just that.)

In 2004, the Radical Right managed to get same-sex marriage bans written into the constitutions of twelve states (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah). In 2006, another seven states (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin) jumped on the bigotry bandwagon. (As of today, a total of 25 states have constitutional marriage bans. Twelve prohibit recognition of any form of same-sex unions, and 20 more have statutory DOMAs. Put them all together, and 37 states have some form of prohibition on marriage equality; that’s just one less state that would be needed to ratify a federal constitutional ban.)

The message was (and is) clear; as my better half put it: “They hate us. They really, really hate us.”

But a curious thing happened in 2006: voters in Arizona defeated a constitutional ban — albeit narrowly (51.4% to 48.6%). Proponents (and their far-right cohorts) blamed the loss on the fact that in addition to banning same-sex marriage, Proposition 107 would have also denied all unmarried couples any legal status whatsoever (similar to Virginia’s draconian amendment, which prohibits recognition of any legal contracts between “unmarried individuals” conferring benefits that could be interpreted as “marriage-like”).

In other words, explained the disappointed righties, heterosexual Arizonans realized the amendment would invalidate their relationships, so the straights voted it down in their own best interest, and not out of any solidarity with, or even compassion for, their gay and lesbian neighbors.

That may be true, but if it is, it doesn’t explain why heterosexual Virginians didn’t vote down their amendment. Oh, you can debate the reasons if you like, but at some point, the argument is going to come down to one of two things: Either 1) Arizonans are better informed than Virginians, or 2) Virginians are more mean-spirited than Arizonans.

Or is it all about religion… as usual? Anybody who knows Arizona knows that while the Grand Canyon State fits like a puzzle piece into California’s southernmost nether regions, the only thing the two states have in common is a whole lot of empty, hot desert.² (If proximity to California had any influence on a state’s level of tolerance for diversity, Oregon wouldn’t be filled with wild-eyed fundy radicals. In terms of the state’s climate for queers, Oregon is nothing more than Colorado with an ocean view.) Arizona is chock-full of Mormons; last time I checked, Arizona (23rd in population out of the 50 states) hovers around the number-four or number-five spot among states with the highest number (close to 200,000 in 1990) and percentage (over 5%) of Latter-Day Saints. And, as we all know (or should), Mormons are among the most actively anti-gay religious factions in the nation.

Yet, in 2006, Arizona became the first state in the union to reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In the meantime, and in the wake of victories both large and small (such as the passage of civil unions in Connecticut, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s order for the city to recognize out-of-state and out-of-country same-sex marriages) both in the U.S. and elsewhere (e.g., all-encompassing legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada and South Africa, passage of the U.K.’s Civil Partnership Act), New Jersey passed its “near-beer” civil unions, causing nary a ripple in the results of the 2006 mid-terms.

The optimistic view is that straight society has finally figured out that acknowledging our right to be just as happily (or miserably) wed as everybody else does not result in legions of heterosexuals suddenly waking up and deciding they want one-a them homer-sex-shul weddings too, ’cause, goldurnit, it’s just so much easier to be a queer. And they’ve had four years to observe that the Bay State has not been consumed by God’s wrath and disappeared into the Atlantic.

That doesn’t mean that certain factions of the Democratic Party aren’t still predicting doom and gloom for the 2008 presidential election. You’d think, what with the Iraq War now in its sixth non-stop year and the U.S. economy in the toilet, Americans might find another whipping boy besides us uppity homos — like the Republicans, maybe. You know, the people who started the war, and murdered the economy.

Of course, if your side loses, you can be brutally honest and examine where you went wrong: Has the party been dragged too far to the right, alienating the center-left (and further cementing the likelihood of never winning back the far left)? Did we nominate the wrong candidate? Did the supporters of the nominee alienate (and humiliate) the supporters of the opposing nominee so badly that, human nature being what it is, the latter dug in and simply refused to vote for your party’s candidate? (I’m not naming any names; I’m just looking in the direction of the Obama camp and waving.)

But brutal self-examination is just too humbling — the obliteration of one’s own cognitive dissonance is just too much for most people to stand without a near-psychotic break. So you’ve got to make sure you have (to mix metaphors) all your scapegoats in a row, pre-game.

That said, if the Dems lose the White House (and if Obama is the nominee, we’re likely looking at President McCain for the next four years), the “my party, right or wrong” types will disburse the blame, like the world’s largest lawn sprinkler, far and wide.

After they wear out the obligatory meme “The Republicans stole the election!”³ they’ll turn to a number of other tried-and-tried defenses.

First up will be to pin the blame on Hillary Clinton and her supporters. It’s entirely possible that enough HRC supporters refusing to vote for Obama will indeed cost the Dems the White House; whether that will be the “fault” of Hillary supporters for refusing to jump on the bandwagon, or Obama’s fault for failing to win over the HRC supporters, or his supporters’ fault for doing everything in their power to alienate HRC supporters — well, I’ve written about all this extensively, so you know what I think: Obama’s loss will be the result of all three factors, albeit with the first caused directly by the second and third. (In other words, I will fault both Obama and his supporters.)

But I’m certain that we queers will not escape the wrath of (some as-yet-unknown number of) Dems looking for someone else to blame for any Democratic loss.

Predictably, some have already begun to line up the scapegoats. Here’s a sampling of doom-and-gloom predictions from Democratic Underground, culled from the first three days after the California Supreme Court ruling on May 15th:

Handing a huge wedge issue to the GOP … let’s see how the gay community feels knowing they helped put McCain in the White House this November. they will be lucky to have civil unions, much less gay marriage, when that happens.

This is 2004 all over again. Talk about history repeating itself. WOW. Kerry had his Massachusetts. Obama will have his California. I knew this was going to happen. Well, it was a nice dream anyway.

MA did not help in 2004 … Facts are facts.

I’m All For Gay Rights, Women’s Rights And Getting Our Privacy rights back but I think it would be better to wait till after the election to push these issues.

If we lose the election, none of the rights will come to pass and we will lose even more. Grow up and have some patience. What the hell is another 6 months when you’ve waited this long already?

Perhaps, you [gay] guys should calm down, quit putting down your supporters, shut up and lay the necessary ground work to make gay marriage a reality.

After we win, we can press Obama and the Congress to do what is right and long over due.

“Personally I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”
–Barack Obama

I think he speaks for most of us. I have nothing against gay rights, but marriage is something that should be reserved for man and woman. But to press for it during an election in this country is the best way to lose it, both the election and not just gay rights, but EVERYONE’S civil rights. It is political suicide. You have to be an imbicile to not see that. At least Obama and Hillary are much more supportive of gay rights. But if you want to inflame the social conservatives by making gay marraige an issue this election season and help McCrazy get elected in the WH, then you won’t have any gay rights left to speak of, never mind gay marriage.

Obama supports states rights in regard to gay marriage. McCain and the republicans want a constitutional amendment to ban it. Therefore, your priority should be to get a Democrat in the WH first. THEN make gay marriage an issue. Self-righteous indignation accomplishes nothing for gay rights except handing the GOP a massive divisive wedge issue that will almost guarantee another democratic defeat in November.

And the Democratic Party just possbily lost California in November

Can We Just Win First

Then we can take on all the civil rights issues. Why throw fodder for the GOP in before the election?

And my favorite:

The gay community is fucking it up for everybody else.

I think that answers your question, Will: The ruling will fuel the fire of Democrats who were never our allies in the first place, looking for a scapegoat in a loss that hasn’t happened yet.

As to whether it will actually affect the outcome of the presidential election, I think the 2006 Dem sweep of Congress is a fair indication that any impact will be negligible.

The real concern is how the presidential election will impact the California ruling. As I’m sure you know, the radical gay-haters are in the process of getting a constitutional amendment on the state ballot in November; if this were only a mid-term election and not a major general election, its chances of passing would be much less than they already are. As presidential elections bring more voters to the polls, there will be more voters deciding whether or not we deserve the same rights they already have.

I’ll tell you something that’s very disheartening, ‘though: I’ve already seen certain Obama supporters using the November referendum as blackmail fodder against gay Hillary supporters.

I don’t think I’m reading too much into this recent comment:

you should hope that [we Obama supprters will] be out in force in November, too…

That’s when the referendum that threatens to overturn this ruling will come up for a vote.

That sure sounds like a veiled threat to me. But then, I’m naturally far more attuned to this sort of thing — and in light of the Obamaites’ constant citation of Roe v. Wade in an attempt to scare female voters into voting for Obama, I don’t think I’m reading too much into comments like that at all.

Well, all I can do is hope that the Obama supporters — even those who stoop to the level of suggesting, oh-so-subtly, that they might turn against California LGBTs out of revenge for not supporting Obama — will live up to their own standards of doing what they think is the right thing, and voting down the marriage ban.

Otherwise, that would be like me taking out my anger on women who support Obama by actively trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned (which I wouldn’t do, no matter how much the Obamanauts piss me off).

But whether the Obama people do the right thing or not, you have to ask if the November ballot measure can have any effect on last week’s marriage ruling.

I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read the ruling from beginning to end, and it appears to my layperson’s eyes that the court did a damned good job of pre-empting any attempt to invalidate the decision.

In short: How can you enact, by any means, a constitutional amendment in a state where any such amendment has already been ruled a violation of that state’s constitution?

Green Greenwald has written one of the most reasoned opinions on the ruling I’ve seen so far, addressing both the extent of the ruling itself, and the potential for overturning it by referendum:

California’s marriage ruling — what it means and what it doesn’t mean

Given the controversial nature of this ruling, there are certain to be all sorts of myths being spouted by pundits and various advocates who object to the outcome here. Thus, it is vital to note:

(1) No rational person can criticize the Court’s decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.

As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that “marriage” should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state’s Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of “marriage”?

To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I’ve written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court’s decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure “judicial activism” (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one’s preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of “judicial activism” without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of “judicial activism.”

(2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue. …

(5) Each time there is a court decision recognizing the constitutional rights of gay couples, all sorts of hysterical political commentary ensues. In October, 2006 — right before the midterm elections — the New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that its Constitution requires same-sex couples to be given the same set of marital rights and privileges granted to opposite-sex married couples (though it ruled, by a 4-3 vote, that it need not be called “marriage”).

As I noted at the time, all sorts of pundits and right-wing hacks shrilly predicted that the New Jersey gay rights ruling would lead to a major voter backlash that would mobilize social conservatives and destroy the Democrats’ chances for victory in the midterm elections. Needless to say, for reasons I pointed to at the time, nothing of the sort happened. Our national elections are simply not determined by a decision by the state of California — or New Jersey, Vermont or Massachusetts — to extend equal rights to their gay citizens. …

Just to underscore how exaggerated is the significance of gay marriage as a political weapon, here is a 2006 fear-mongering ad run in Arizona — featuring John McCain — urging Arizonans to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage…

Despite scare-mongering ads of that sort, conservative/libertarian Arizona voters became the first to reject a state-wide ban on same-sex marriage, reflecting the fact that exploitation of this issue is far less politically potent than it once was. And, of course, the 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling weeks before the midterm elections did nothing to help the GOP stave off crushing defeat.

Futhermore, notes Lambda Legal:

Can the court’s decision be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?

No. The decision was based on the California Constitution, and the California Supreme Court has the final say in cases brought under the California Constitution. …

Will the federal government recognize marriages of same-sex couples who marry in California?

No. Under current federal law, the federal government does not recognize marriages of same-sex couples. This means that married same-sex couples currently do not have any of the rights, benefits, or protections that federal law gives to married heterosexual couples, such as the ability to file joint federal income taxes or receive federal spousal benefits through social security or other federal programs.

However:

Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?

Yes. Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.

These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California Constitution to reverse the court’s decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.

Already, many state leaders are expressing their opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, in a public statement on April 11, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay and lesbian couples from marriage was “a waste of time,” adding “I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.”

We agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that these outsiders are wasting their time and money trying to turn California into a state that would use its Constitution to take away civil rights and hurt families. But it will take every one of us to stop this antifamily initiative. For more information about how to get involved, contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com.

What can we do to help preserve the freedom to marry we have just won?

We urge you to get involved today! For more information about how you can help, please contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com. Now that we have won this victory, all residents of California are better off, because strengthening any group of families makes stronger communities for everyone. All people who value families and fairness have a stake in preserving the freedom to marry for lesbian and gay couples. We cannot afford to wait, please act now.

For more information about the court’s ruling, legal information for couples, and action steps to help protect the freedom to marry, please contact:

National Center for Lesbian Rights: www.nclrights.org

Equality California: www.eqca.org
Lambda Legal: www.lambdalegal.org
The American Civil Liberties Union: www.aclu.org

Related articles for retrospect:

Sean Cahill, Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, “No Matter What Happens, Blame the Gays,” October 30, 2006:

Since 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down archaic sex laws and the Massachusetts high court ruled that gay couples had a right to marry, we’ve heard right-wing activists and politicians, including President, Bush denouncing “activist judges” and “judicial tyranny.” But even when a state court allows the legislature to decide whether or not to call family protections for gay couples “marriage” — as was the case in Vermont seven years ago and is the case in New Jersey now — right wing leaders cynically complain.

The Christian right’s reaction to the New Jersey court ruling on marriage for same-sex couples proves that no matter how our governmental institutions address this issue, right-wing leaders will attack these institutions and scapegoat gay people.

When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples deserved equal benefits, leading to the creation of civil unions in 2000, former Family Research Council director and then-presidential candidate Gary Bauer called the decision “worse than terrorism.” When Republican Governor Jane Swift offered Massachusetts state workers domestic partner health insurance in 2001, the Bay State Republican Council denounced these limited benefits as “special privileges” for “homosexuals.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued for years that it is the legislatures, not courts, that should decide how and whether to recognize same-sex couple families. But when the California legislature passed a bill legalizing marriage for gay couples in 2005, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying — without the slightest sense of irony — that the issue should be left up to the courts. …

Wayne Besen, “The Wedge Issue That Wasn’t,” October 31, 2006:

One of the biggest election stories of 2006 was the non-story of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to offer the equivalent of Civil Unions to gay couples. What was most striking about the ruling was the lack of shock value compared to the tidal wave of raw emotion that gripped the nation when Vermont’s high court mandated a similar judicial remedy in 1999.

The news broke at 3PM, so I expected major coverage that evening on the network news. However, the story did not air on NBC until the broadcast was more than two-thirds finished. And, when the topic was finally addressed, it was a short reader from anchor Brian Williams. If you quickly pranced off to the bathroom or momentarily zoned out, you might have missed the story altogether.

Meanwhile, the mess in Mesopotamia dominated the first two blocks of that same newscast, with October’s death toll of American troops surpassing one hundred. This is a nightmare for a Republican party desperate to make hay out of all things gay by focusing obsessively on New Jersey. But things are now so bad in Baghdad that even Karl Rove, the master of homophobic campaigns, is having a difficult time averting the nation’s gaze to focus on the gays.

The laughable line that conservative pundits are now pushing is that the Garden State ruling will mobilize previously depressed social conservative voters. The conventional wisdom is that this was a shot in the arm that will jumpstart the Pat Robertson crowd to vote in force.

This expectation is as irrational as it is unreasonable. Why would a weak and politically safe New Jersey civil unions ruling provide motivation to vote if 8,000 real marriage licenses already issued in Massachusetts weren’t doing the trick? Sure, it did put the issue back in the headlines, but it was merely an ephemeral two day story that likely had no lasting impact. I’m not saying that the timing of the ruling was helpful, but it is turning out to be more of a wedgie than a wedge issue — a minor annoyance, but certainly not a divisive debate that could determine the outcome of a crucial election.

If anything, the New Jersey decision weakened the religious right’s overplayed hand on this issue. It is hard to make the case that Kansas is in danger of honeymooning homos when the GLBT community can’t even win full marriage rights from one of the most liberal courts in the nation.

The dust is nearly settled and it appears that the path to marriage rights will run through state capitals. In the next fifteen years we are likely to hear less about marriage, while we see the enactment of Civil Unions or domestic partnership laws.

This is because the GLBT community has finally convinced mainstream Americans that they are worthy of similar relationship benefits, such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights. However, we have not cleared the tall hurdle of persuading a majority that we can share the M-Word without wrecking the institution more than they already have.

Of course, we will eventually win this battle. But it is increasingly apparent that GLBT people will be forced to run the requisite minority obstacle course until the masses finally understand that creating a system of different laws for different people is inherently unfair and discriminatory. …

Pam Spaulding, “Wrap-up on the International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference,” November 19, 2006:

As you can see, there’s a running suggestion here that LGBT folks need to be patient and to wait, lest there be a backlash of some sort in two years if we push too hard for pro-gay legislation that has languished under Republican rule. This, of course, was after [Howard Dean] mentioned more than once during his speech that no Dems who took a position against the federal marriage amendment lost — a real disconnect, huh?

I hate to say it, but the room was also full of too much backslapping during Dean’s speech over the Dem takeover of the House and Senate; I couldn’t believe it when Chairman Dean positively glowed over the fact that a third of evangelicals crossed over to vote Dem in this election. I hate to break it to him, but in the states with amendments on the ballot, those evangelicals, even as they crossed over because they were digusted with the GOP, still chose to vote for a marriage amendment. Is he ok with that? While that crossover might bring on cheers in another venue and encourage the party to further court The Base, for LGBT folks that’s not exactly comforting.

What we can celebrate is that the changeover in Washington and many state houses means no active legislation further eroding our rights, but whether we will see actual gay-positive legislation passed is another matter with the historically gun-shy, spineless Democratic Party that has run from serious discussion of gay issues as fast as it can in the past. As we’ve said before here on the Blend, Dems at the national level will only advocate once the coast is clear, having had their fingers in the wind to see which way it’s blowing. Leading isn’t a strong suit in this area; they’ve been content to take our money and do zero as amendment after amendment has passed.

Dean cited the Arizona amendment as a victory for the community, not mentioning of course that the organizations responsible at the grassroots level for successfully defeating the ballot measure, almost immediately released a statement saying it received no help from national organizations. It’s hard to take credit for a “win” when they had to work in isolation.

The big national gay organizations have been notably absent there, and the campaigns have been smart about attracting voters from both conservative Phoenix and liberal Tucson with targeted messages and tactics. “We did this with no national help,” says [Cindy Jordan, chair of No on 107], “this grassroot’s effort was local.”

The amendment failed because of a couple of factors, which I mentioned while at the conference: 1) the voters were targeted about how the amendment would affect unmarried seniors and heterosexuals, and almost completely ignored the “fairness” argument, avoiding the use gay couples in promotional materials, and 2) Arizona has a libertarian, government-out-of-my-business streak that further eroded support for the amendment. The latter is one of the reasons that the amendment nearly failed in South Dakota.

The fairness argument was used extensively in Wisconsin; gay families were prominently featured by Fair Wisconsin, and the anti-amendment forces were well-funded and organized, yet the measure easily passed. The difference? — people vote their self-interest. Sad, but true, fairness really isn’t enough of an argument unless you have a critical mass of het allies who are well-informed and motivated to do the right thing — our movement, desperately needs to educate our allies; way too many straight folks simply don’t have equality issues on their radar even in states like Wisconsin, where people thought there was a chance to defeat an amendment.

Which brings me to the other matter that Dean didn’t talk about — the party’s “endorsement” of putting the civil rights of gays and lesbians on the ballot — Howard Dean giddily mentioned how “the voters have spoken” in tossing out the GOP control of the Hill. Unfortunately, the voters have also spoken on our rights because both the Democrats and the Republicans at the national level have no problem with “leaving it to the states.”

This is morally wrong, and the responsibility for the strategic political decision to punt on the civil rights of gays and lesbians by allowing candidates to hide behind a position of “leave it to the states” lies at the Democratic Party’s door. We have 27 states that now have marriage amendments in place, many that precluding any civil unions or domestic partnerships. Those measures profoundly affect the lives of everyday, working class gay families who don’t have any political power aside from their vote — and they are in the minority.

The overarching view from the establishment perspective is that the patchwork of rights granted will end up in SCOTUS and eventually be resolved there, which is true OK, then what do you say to gays in Tennessee, for example — its amendment passed with 80% of the vote? Move? “I’m sorry, but it’s too damn bad?”

Christianne Noble Walker, “We play politics with gay people’s lives, December 4, 2006:

Are we done yet?

Now that eight more states have gay-marriage bans written into their constitutions — 45 states ban it through amendment or statute — are we done playing politics with gay people’s lives? Is the public done being duped to vote for those measures because they think two women committing to each other for life before the law somehow threatens their own marriage or commands their churches to reinterpret their Bible? …

“One man, one woman: let the people vote!” chant those in Massachusetts who want to reverse the right gays and lesbians have had for more than two years to marry. Yes, yes, our civil rights should always be subject to the personal prejudices of the masses — that’s democracy. But for the decision of some “activist judges,” blacks might still be legally considered two-thirds of a person. …

To paraphrase what an openly gay state senator from Massachusetts, Jarrett Barrios, said recently in a debate that, I hope, finally, ended their gay-marriage debate: You don’t have to like me, you don’t have to live next to me, but I have every right to enjoy the same rights that you have enjoyed for time immemorial.

I am done with those who hold that only in the case of gays and lesbians can separate be equal. If it’s not called marriage, it’s not recognized across state lines and not by the federal government. That means my marital status depends on which state I’m standing in, I cannot file a joint tax return with my wife, I would not be able to receive her Social Security benefits if she dies, and I would not automatically be considered the legal parent to our child if my wife is the one who gives birth. Take your pick — there are 1,138 rights that the federal government confers upon married, not civil-unioned (is that even a word yet?) people.

Do you still think civil unions are plenty good enough for gay folks? I challenge any married heterosexual person to trade in his or her marriage certificate for a civil union certificate. Would you do it? When you got engaged, would you have squealed with delight at telling your family and friends, “We’re getting civil unioned!” …

^{1 Yes, John Kerry was a resounding failure of a candidate. His campaign was laughable: He let himself be swiftboated with nary a peep, his duck-hunting photo-op was his Dukakis-in-a-tank moment, and — this is absolutely unforgivable — after promising that every vote would count, he conceded the race to Bush without a fight, and then disappeared. He abandoned the Democrats who worked so hard for him — as well as those of us who voted for him solely because we would have given anything to get Bush out of the White House. See, folks, Kerry is what you get when you let the DLC-controlled DNC pick your candidate for you: an unelectable figurehead with no backbone. But more about Barack Obama later.}

² Mind you, I love all that empty, hot desert, and so does Buffy. Thanks to a near-lifetime of four-wheeling and ghost town hunting, I doubt there’s a single square mile of Nevada I haven’t explored. As for Buffy, on our cross-country trip to move her and her car out west, I had to keep distracting her with singalongs and car games every time we passed another Native American outpost, all the way from Oklahoma to the Mojave Desert, or it would have taken us another week to get home. Yes, I’m lying about distracting her, just because I know she’ll be reading this, and I feel like being a brat — but she really does love the Southwest, and all that Southwestern arty stuff that goes with it. Which is fine with me; I think we can work out a rather nice decor scheme by blending Kokopelli in with the Mission and Stickley furniture I’d love to buy (but can’t afford yet).

³ Election theft is, of course, a very valid complaint, when it’s very likely true. I don’t doubt for one second that the 2000 presidential election was rigged, and the results of the 2004 election were highly questionable. Bottom line is, however, that if an election so close that it could be tipped by nefarious means, then it was too close to begin with — i.e., the Democratic Party did not do its job, whether by running the wrong candidate, failing to sell the right candidate in the best way, or any number of other reasons — and in the end, the Democratic campaign just wasn’t good enough to win by such a wide enough margin that no amount of chicanery could negate that win.

In my experience, it’s only been within the past year or so that you could opine online, without getting flamed alive, that John Kerry is a good Senator but a lousy choice for President, and that his campaign “strategy” was flawed from the outset. After you finish railing against the swiftboating and the Ohio results, you have to admit that in the wake of the first term of the Bush regime, Kerry should have won by a landslide. Bottom line is, he just didn’t convince enough voters that his way was the right way, and he lost. (Yes, I’ve said the same of Al Gore; while he did indeed win the popular vote, and while SCOTUS handed Bush the presidency on a silver platter, Gore’s win should not have hinged on a mere couple-hundred thousand votes in Florida.)

A lot of Dems will call me a traitor for saying that, but I’ve grown so accustomed to being labeled a “traitor to the Democratic Party” lately — smiling and waving at the Obamanauts) — I really don’t care.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Permalink |  |

Filed under: Barack Obama, California, Democrats, Election 2004, Election 2008, George W. Bush, Howard Dean, Karl Rove, Marriage, Oregon, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Republicans, SCOTUS, U.S. Congress

                                

---

---