Gay Marriage: The Republicans are preempting us

[LiberteToujours]

I just came to a realization.

The Republicans have intentionally moved the gay rights issue to a place where they can make gains. For years, gay people (myself included) have been working towards acceptance through small steps: anti-hate crime legislation, media exposure, anti-discrimination laws at the workplace, civil unions. And we have been wildly successful; it has been the most bloodless civil rights campaign ever. Just compare general attitudes towards homosexuality now to those twenty or even ten years ago.

The Republicans saw that, and that's why they created gay marriage as a wedge issue. They have effectively moved the debate another twenty years forward, knowing full well that the vast majority of the population isn't ready yet. And by pushing for gay marriage right now, we are playing right into their hands. The American electorate is not going to support it. Once again, we are letting the Republicans frame the debate. We have to be smarter than that. We need to continue working as we have been, slowly and methodically, gaining the acceptance of America.

[JuniperLea]

1. i'm glad you realize this

i'm wondering why it was pushed in the first place and by whom. was it gay rights people, or someone else?

[patrice]

2. Bush himself has said Civil Unions are okay.

Probably to inoculate the Republicans against SCOTUS votes striking down Civil Union bans that were included with the Marriage Ammendments in this vote.

[JAbuchan08]

3. Good analysis

The worst part is that, for example in Ohio, they ended civil union benefits in their entirety. Even straight couples CANNOT have civil unions. This is a mess.

On edit: I didn't mean anything by "even straight couples."
Power to the people brother... er ... sister... or brother.

[patrice]

4. They're getting ready to throw you a bone.

while the REAL DEAL goes down elsewhere.

That's Bush's style.

[juliagoolia]

5. I heard a great idea on here a couple days ago.

Lets push a keep the Govt out of Marriage completely.

WE keep govt out of all church marriages. Then its up to the church who can get married.

Govt can only deal with civil contracts between people and has no business in religious ceremonies? Then the marriage of all people would be totally a religious matter for the church, and the govt would have to extend civil contracts to any couple that wanted one?

Dunno but do you think the RW would go for
Keep the Govt out of marriage act?

[LiberteToujours]

6. I like this

The radical right will throw a huge fit, of course. But I think it's a worthy eventual goal.

[patrice]

7. I KNOW Libertarians would be with that.

It's attractive to me, except for the problem that we are also going to be talking religion and morals, so someone is going to peg us on the definition of marriage.

[juliagoolia]

8. Marriage is defined by the church

Civil contracts are defined by the state/federal govt.

[clydefrand]

11. I approve of this message. :-)

I want the government to stay out of all things that are religious including one nation, under God and in God we trust. Why do we need that in our pledge and on our money? What has either got to do with God. We pledge to uphold our country...and I do when it's right...but I won't if it's wrong which it has been a lot. If we want to uphold God, we do that elsewhere. God and the flag or the US are not the same, are they??? And on money...the root of all evil? Why should in God we trust be on money? It's beyond me that we do such stupid shit in this country.

[LiberteToujours]

12. You can thank Senator McCarthy for that

"In God we Trust" on your money. It was a snub at those evil Soviet bastards. And constitutionally illegal. We'll get around to overturning that eventually...

[clydefrand]

9. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone objects to

another person getting married unless there are parents and minor children involved. Then I can see the objections. Please tell me a reason that isn't religion based? Is there one?

I have always contended and will always do so that marriage was created by men for the benefit of men and NOT for the benefit of women. When people start telling me that GOD wants us to have marriage as one man and one woman, then how do they excuse all the Biblical babble about all those "patriarchs" that had multiple wives and concubines?? Those men wanted many women to do their work and have their children. Plain and simple! They needed offspring to herd up those damn camels and cows and goats and whatever else they had to herd and to help gather and grow food once they learned how to do that.

So tell me, those of you who are homosexuals (or others)..why don't they want you to marry? What will it do to this wonderful country if you do? Someone else's marriage has never affected mine. Has it yours?

[LiberteToujours]

10. Of course we want marriage

As an eventual goal, or as a previous poster stated, to eliminate marriage at a legal level altogether. It's a matter of equality. Most gay people aren't even religious (OK, I know that a lot are, but it's much less than the general population percentage-wise). My point is that, in this reality based world, it's not going to happen until we make the people more comfortable with gays through more of what we have been doing the last twenty years. The changes have already been incredible. When we are ready for the final fight, it will still be a battle, and there will still be people against it, but it won't be so ridiculously lopsided. And we will prevail. We can't let the Republicans move the battle grounds to their own territory, where they can win.

[BeFree]

14. Beautifully put

And I wish you success. Just have patience and keep working. You are on the right track, hopefully you will be able to convince others with your wisdom.

[sangh0]

13. And you are playing right into their hands

It was the Repukes who made "gay marriage" a major issue, and instead of fighting it, you have unintentionally played into their hands by calling the issue "Gay marriage"

It's "equal rights for all"

It's not "tax cuts" or "tax relief" - It's a "baby tax" our children are going to have to pay for.

[LiberteToujours]

15. I can agree to that

I will call it marriage for all from now on. Isn't it funny how the Republicans are always the ones complaining about political correctness, yet they're the ones who are so good at framing debates by choosing the language? One of those Freedom is Slavery things...

[sangh0]

16. No, "equal rights for all"

The rights you are fighting for are MY rights also. They belong to ALL Americans.

Do yourself a favor, and read Lakoff's "Dont Think of an Elephant". We need to take back the language