Bid to let gays wed is losing

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, June 2, 2005

Legislation to make California the second state to permit gay marriage appeared to be dying late Wednesday night, marking the latest twist in a fiercely contested national movement.

The bill failed passage by six votes on the initial Assembly tally, though proponents were trying to rally support as lawmakers worked late into the night on scores of bills to meet a Friday deadline...

Democrats, who control the Assembly, were split on the measure. Five Democrats voted against the bill on Wednesday's first vote, while one other Democrat was absent and seven did not cast ballots...

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/story/12993912p-13840622c.html

The question in my mind is to what extent were the dems who voted here against equal civil rights for gays emboldened by Kerry's statement (of a couple months' ago) against adding gay marriage to the Massachusetts' dem platform? And to what extent were the dems who abstained from voting for equal civil rights enabled by that same statement? After all, if your leadership speaks out against equal civil rights - regardless of the reason, whether it's political realism or bigotry or whatever - it's easier for you to point and say, "this isn't about what I want - this is the direction our leadership wants us to go, so I have my marching orders."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. If this were November or earlier, you might've had a point.

But I doubt Kerry's comments have a lot of sway in California state politics.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

3. Consider if, say, Daley and Hillary and Kennedy withheld support as Kerry

did, and actually spoke out. It sets a trend, gets a ball rolling in the wrong direction.

I see your point, but I'm just curious about these CA dems who seem to feel comfortable voting against equal rights or feel comfortable not caring enough to show up and vote. What are the factors that motivate them and what can people who care about the issue do to influence them?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. You might have a point about that.

Quite frankly, though, anything a Presidential candidate says is close to dogmatic law. No one's going to derail a Presidential campaign over one issue - that's just ludicrous. It's throwing out the baby with the bath water.

As for your question, that's a major problem of the gay rights movement. Quite frankly, there are a lot of people who DO fully support gay marriage, but it's not in their list of top 5 or 10 issues (and I have to admit, I'm one of those people). If it doesn't directly affect you, it's not going to be a priority, and there's precious little you can do to change that. Magnifying the problem is the fact that the opposition believes it DOES directly affect them (ie. bullshit arguments like it destroys the sanctity of marriage, they're scared their kids are going to be "converted", and it's against the Bible). Thus, they ARE motivated to get to the polls.

The task, therefore, is that people advocating gay marriage have to completely abandon the argument "it doesn't affect you" or "what I do in my home is none of your business". The gay community is not large enough for that to work. Conversely, you have to make your supporters believe it DOES affect them directly even if they are not gay. You have to make it more clearly a civil rights issue. I think an advertising campaign where you depicted two straight people who were in love and denied the right to marry, and then just switch it to two gay people, maybe that would hit home with more people. Show a hospital denying you the right to see a dying wife/husband, and at the end, make the parallel to gay people. The bottom line is that if you can't make people see how this could impact them personally, they're not going to be energized, even if they are on your side already.

I know where you might head from here... what if someone like Kerry took a stand? The way politics works is that for a politician to make a stand, they have to be ensured that they're not committing suicide on it. That means the PR campaign needs to done in advance of getting a major politican to champion your cause. That is the case for EVERY issue, even seemingly insignificant ones. You have to help them help you. Create a groundswell for them to ride, and someone WILL eventually ride it. The support is there, it just needs to be rallied. This, of course, is also where the gay community is at a disadvantage, however, as the groundswell of the opposition has been established for literally centuries. It is, like most progressive agendas, an uphill climb.

Side question - what is the 12th wagon?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

9. Thanks for the input! I don't know...

what the 12th wagon is, but I suppose I'm supposed to, right? :D :hi:

counter-question: Do you know what la deuxieme voiture is?

Oh! Wait a minute! That's what you're asknig me - actually in English, it's "the second car" as in the Paris Metro, and the second car is known among some people as being the car for those who are light in their loafers, it's supposedly the cruisy car (though i never noticed that when I used to live there, but I'm probably just dumb)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. lol, I had no idea what "voiture" meant. Had to look that up.

I knew what "deuxieme" meant, of course. Chalk it up to this American's ignorance!

[socoljam]

11. It's all politics.

Everyone on both sides of the aisle has a constituency. Perhaps those 12 or 13 Dems thought they couldn't get re-elected in their district if they voted for it. It's terrible, but it's evidence that we need grassroots education, and not just change from the top.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

12. Absolutely - good point!

:hi:

[slackmaster]

13. Wow - someone who understands California politics

Welcome to DU, socoljam.

[Newsjock]

2. Political asylum

Some motivated gay couple somewhere really needs to be a test case for getting declared political refugees by a more welcoming nation, thus opening the floodgates for us to go to a nation where we are fully 100% citizens.

[getmeouttahere]

4. I like this idea, Newsjock!

and I hope it happens soon. Can open, worms everywhere!!!

[sui generis]

8. amen to that

I'll be happy to take my life, professional skills and assets to a country that fully recognizes me as a citizen and doesn't treat me like a Jim Crow faggot.

And a note to those fucktard Democrats who couldn't be bothered to vote or who voted against it:

It's not my vote you need to concern yourself with throwing away.

It's the vote and money of my straight friends, and my family, my compadres inside my social circle, and even my employer. It is the vote and money of people who know that I'm "unlawfully" married already and would like to see me have the same protections under the law that they do.

That's more than just the "gay" vote. If you really are so stupid as to think that some forms of discrimination are acceptable just to keep your worthless asses in office, you don't deserve to be there anyway.

[Zhade]

14. "a Jim Crow faggot" - that's a keeper.

And I agree with your analysis. Good stuff.

[xxqqqzme]

5. caled Tom Umberg's office last

night - he abstained??? ABSTAINED?!!? Told the staffer I was very disappointed.

This was part of the platform at the CA DEM convention in April.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

6. If everybody who SAYS they support equal rights also did that,

progress would be made. I just think most people don't really care much about prejudice unless it affects them personally.

In some sense, I understand that - what's the incentive to care about something abstract like discrimination against a group of people of which you are not a member, nor do you personally know any members of that group of people? Sad, really.