Why "Gay Marriage" as the #1 issue?

[qwlauren35]

In another post, someone wrote: "we are the only group in this country who can be fired, demoted, harassed, evicted, and segregated without any recourse from federal laws."

Why was marriage considered more important than issues around jobs & housing? Or rather, why was marriage prioritized as THE issue to push for instead of anti-discrimination laws around jobs and housing?

This is an HONEST question.

[Muttocracy]

1. you mean as the #1 gay civil rights issue? nt

[qwlauren35]

29. Yes. And I mean historically, i.e. starting 8 years ago.

It seemed to jump from overturning discrimination in the military and securing health care benefits for life partners to MARRIAGE.

And given that marriage won't prevent housing or job discrimination, or physical violence, I'm just scratching my head.

[Starry Messenger]

2. This is a good start.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4475230

[qwlauren35]

34. This explains the immediate issue, but not the historic one.

I understand completely that there is intense anger about what happened in California, i.e. a city accepted same-sex marriage, it was overturned, then the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, and it was reversed by state referendum.

And I agree that this seems to be a repeating pattern, i.e. states are attacking issues that its citizens are divided on, even though the courts have issued clear rulings. You can see it with abortion.

However, it's not clear to me why the backlash was not anticipated, especially after what happened in 2004. Was it because California has a sizable gay community? Or because many consider the state liberal?

(When Affirmative Action was overturned, I stopped thinking of California as liberal.)

And more importantly, I am having difficulty understanding the decision among many gay activists to shift the focus from clearly explored civil rights such as housing and job discrimination, military discrimination and hate crimes, to MARRIAGE.

To me, it seemed as though there was a very clear forward movement in rights being gained. Until the marriage issue came to the forefront.

I think the reasoning was explained to me about 8 years ago, but it's just not clear in my mind right now.

[verges]

37. Just a theory, but...

The right steered it away from actual rights, an argument they were obviously going to lose, to an argument they could twist to a religious basis. Once again, allowing them to frame the argument. A very big, very successful distraction.

[qwlauren35]

49. P.S. Thank you for respecting the sincerity of my question.

I really appreciate it.

[babylonsister]

3. Because it was denied to people who deserved it, and pissed thinking

people off?

[Karenina]

4. Equal protection under the LAW.

[LeftyMom]

5. Because until a better congress is seated, there's not much hope with the latter.

Some states have protection, what needs to happen is a national change to civil rights law clarifying that GLBT (and don't forget the T this time, Congress!) people are equal under the law.

Expect a big push for that in the next congress.

[qwlauren35]

35. Is it "Congress" or the President and the Supreme Court?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on a Constitutional Amendment. I don't remember if it was nationally voted on. Right now, I think that the issue of marriage for the GBLT community would need to be taken to the Supreme Court, and not Congress.

How would Congress address this?

[LeftyMom]

40. Replacing DOMA.

We could do it through the courts after we replace a few justices. We could do it in congress this spring.

[LeftyMom]

6. And what's with the fucking scare quotes?

Marriage. Period.

[qwlauren35]

33. I'm sorry - I went to bed before I had time to change it.

I had no intention of offending anyone.

If I could have, I would have simply said "Why marriage over jobs & housing discrimination?"
But putting in the word "gay" made the question easier to identify.

I always put quotes around a word or phrase that does not logically follow syntactically in a sentence. I realize that McCain has made it into something more, and I'll find another way to indicate that I'm talking about a particular word or a phrase that must be interpreted as a whole.

[JI7]

7. are there laws that say gays are allowed to be fired, harassed, evicted , segregated ?

marriage is a big issue because it includes many issues such as job benefits for couples, taxes, visitation rights etc.

[meowomon]

10. Yes, in the right to work states

I live in Florida. My employer can legally fire me for being gay. Oh, I can collect unemployment, but I have no other recourse if I can't prove discrimination based on the law, which does not include being gay.

[Quantess]

8. Who said it's the #1 issue? Not me. Gay marriage is not even in my top 10.

That said, gay marriage is important to a lot of DUers, and I'm not going to tell them what their priorities should be.

[kenny blankenship]

9. #1 issue?

[tblue]

11. Because it is a legal right that is being taken away.

It's impossible to prioritize the issues we care about. But the salvo was launched by people who wanted to amend the Constitution of the state of California to rescind people's rights. This attack, this nullification of rights -- rather than the advancement of rights -- is what prompted the response you're seeing. It is simply unacceptable to grant rights and then take them away.

[LaStrega]

12. I think the ban being written literally into the state's constitution ...

may have something to do with it.

It's fucked up to be sure.

[bluedawg12]

16. True. Actually enacting laws to take away rights, like the DOMA

and various State's that passed their own laws.

The entire notion that straight marriage needs defense from my gay marriage is a conservative ploy to fire up the base and keep the money and power in hand--hence wedge issues and cultural wars.

[last1standing]

13. If you're going to call me out, at least have the decency to link my post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7876124#7876368

Here's my response, again.

last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov-17-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #164
165. Are you joking?

Just in case you're not, I'll answer it seriously, but with astonishment.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. There is marriage equality or marriage for some and not for others. Marriage is a legal contract signed by two parties who wish to legally combine their assets, debts and create a host of rights and responsibilities between themselves for the protection of their property, their children and themselves. To allow certain people to enter into this contract but no others is to deny full equality under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

So it is not more important or less important. It is merely another example of how the GLBT community is denied basic human, civil rights.

Now please tell me you were joking in your post. Please!

Still suitable for this thread, I think.

[Newsjock]

14. We didn't make it the #1 issue

They did, when they worked to take it away from us.

And now, the #1 issue is not, um, quote-gay-marriage-unquote: It is that, for the first time in this nation's history, a well-funded group of extremists has amended a state Constitution to REMOVE rights from a group of individuals that already had those rights.

That should scare the living crap out of any decent person.

[trashcanistanista]

19. Bingo.

An out of state group of religious extremists succeeded in revising our Constitution to remove a cvil right from a minority so that our entire state is forced to conform to their religious beliefs. What if they had put this effort behind a candidate? Other civil rights? Freedom of religion, or not? This scares the shit out of me.

[enigmatic]

20. you get it

:thumbsup:

[JI7]

25. right, it's the gay bashers who put up the rights of people for a vote in the states

[racaulk]

43. ***Best reply of this thread!***

Thank you! :thumbsup:

[yardwork]

45. That's correct. The religious right made gay marriage an issue

when they started putting ballots in state elections to amend constitutions to include anti-gay clauses. This is the first time in the history of the United States that constitutions have been amended to take away people's rights instead of expand rights.

This was part of the religious right's Get Out The Vote efforts to get hard-right Republicans elected on "family values" platforms.

[qwlauren35]

48. More questions.

Were scare tactics used?

What did the Mormons do to convince California voters to overturn the decision?

Do you think that, if not for the Mormon funding, people would have overwhelmingly voted against the Proposition? Or that people simply would not have paid as much attention to it?

BTW, wouldn't prohibition be comparable, i.e. taking away rights? And after a few years of seeing the result, it was reversed?

I have no doubt at all that if enough Americans truly wanted Roe vs. Wade completely overturned, then it would be put into the Constitution in the same way. We (women) are just lucky that it's not the will of the Majority.

I saw a LOT of Pro-life literature aimed at electing McCain. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is a very strong Pro-Life minority in America. However, it heartened me to no end when neither Laura Bush nor Cindy McCain would second their husbands positions on Roe v. Wade.

[bluedawg12]

15. Discrimination in mariage is easy to identify - just try getting married if you are gay.

On the other hand, the excuses people give for not renting, selling a home, or hiring someone are hard to disprove and would effect say one person at a time, where as, same sex marriage discrimination affects everyone who seeks equal protection under law in regards to marriage, all at the same time.

I wonder if the legal beagles among us know the success of fairness in housing claims, or job discrimination claims, when they are based on the federally protected status of race, religion, ethnicity and nation of origin?

I bet those are hard ones to prove, case by case.

One other thought, as gay families are households more and more with children, the need to protect the children probably also has a lot to do with seeking legal marital status for same sex couples.

Oh, and ageing issues, inheritance, visitation, we ain't getting younger.

[qwlauren35]

53. If the obviousness is the reason, it makes a lot of sense - thank you.

You're right. The type of discrimination you're talking about is a b*tch to prove.

I am still struggling with the "children" thing across the board when it comes to step-parents, i.e. partners who follow the existence of the children, instead of preceding them. Whether gay or straight, I think there's an issue of adoption. What protection do children have when a parent dies, the other parent is estranged, but the step-parent survives?

I have a feeling that this issue is rather messy.

And I guess that leads me to why there doesn't seem to be more of a fight to ensure the right to adopt. But maybe it's going on and there isn't as much visibility.

I couldn't say why, but the obstructions to gay people adopting pisses me off more than most other issues. Well yes, I know why. The conservative right puts sooooooo much emphasis on the needs of children. But children have a need to be loved. And I don't see how this gets de-prioritized. Well, I do see it... and it pisses me off.

[Historic NY]

17. cause the only other thing is abortion....

[Cerridwen]

18. 'Cause the "only other thing" is women's autonomy. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

21. All in favor of revoking qwlauren35's right of free speech say "aye"

What, you don't like it? Why is that your #1 issue? Just because I want to revoke your constitutional right to free speech, why are you making a big stink? Shouldn't you be worried about the economy and your job and stuff?

[qwlauren35]

52. I'd trade free speech for a job and the economy any day.

If I can't earn a living, I starve to death. I learned long ago that if I was truly hungry, I would give up a lot of rights.

Ironically this is the same question that the Democratic party used to win the Election. "Do you put your moral concerns above the need for a job and a strong economy?" And after thinking about it, millions of Americans put their jobs and the nation's economy ahead of moral issues that they considered to be fundamentally important, and voted for Obama instead of McCain.

And others refused to put jobs and the national economy ahead of moral issues such as "rights for the unborn", and voted for McCain based on their religious conservatism. (Yes, there I go again with the quotes. It's a bad habit.)

If I had to choose between a strong candidate with a better financial plan who would possibly overturn Roe v. Wade vs. a candidate who was corrupt and incompetent, but would reinforce the ruling, I think I'd eventually go with the strong candidate and start revving up my feminist activism to combat his or her conservatism.

I guess what it boils down to is whether you would die, or at least seriously suffer, for your principles. I think that a number of Americans, including me, wouldn't. I'm not proud to realize this, but I have a low "pain" threshold, "pain" including hunger, cold, organ damage, etc.

I think that's why I have so much appreciation for the people who marched, and submitted to so much abuse to secure my right to vote, and to never have to experience Jim Crow.

[Heidi]

22. This is an HONEST answer: human rights are inextricably tied to jobs, housing,

health care and every other issue of importance to the Democratic Party. If our GLBT brothers and sisters can be denied their Constitutional rights, rest assured that you can also be denied _your_ Constitutional rights for one reason or another.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Exactly, Heidi. I agree. nt

[Bluebear]

23. Another "HONEST" question: what's with the obnoxious quotation marks around "gay marriage"?

[Heidi]

24. :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

[terrya]

28. It's a part of that elusive "equality" thing that those pushy gay people are whining about.

God, they can be SO tedious.

[Zuiderelle]

30. Like how McCain put air quotes around "Women's Health"

Some idiots just think that really important things aren't very important.

[qwlauren35]

31. I'll take them out.

I think of them as drawing two words together as one would do when Googling a phrase. But I realize that McCain has given them new meaning.

[gollygee]

32. How many anti-same-sex marriage talking point threads have we had lately?

This is really puzzling.

"Marriage is a religious term" - dozens on that

"Civil unions should be fine"

"If same-sex marriage is legal, then of course polygamy will have to be legal too" - that seems to be the new one

"Why is marriage such a big deal anyway?"

Hmmmmm.

[TexasObserver]

26. Because real gay rights will require a Supreme Court ruling.

There is simply insufficient legislative support to guarantee gays have full rights. Only a US Supreme Court decision can end this unconstitutional discrimination.

The answer to your question is: the votes are not there in congress or most state legislatures, but there are the votes to address the problems you mentioned, such as jobs.

[lligrd]

27. It Wasn't Gay Marriage Per Se

It was the rewriting of a Constitution to exclude a group of people that really upset so many of us.

[hunter]

36. Who knows? Maybe because some big religion throws you under the train next?

For being "HONEST" or something...

[NMMNG]

38. Do you understand how many rights and privileges automatically come with marriage?

It's not just being joined to another person nor is it "just a word" as some claim. It includes your partner's workplace benefits, child custody, death and/or SS benefits, estate inheritance rights and hundreds of other things. If we finally get federally recognized marriage we also get the 1,100 rights and responsibilities opposite-sex couples automatically get just by getting married.

Yes, we want full equality and marriage is but one step on that road. But it is a huge step that encompasses many rights. It's also the one state after state has purposely denied us via constitutional amendment. Never before have constitutions been used to take rights away from specific groups of citizens--to discriminate against them. That's what makes these bans so insidious. That's why we fight so hard.

[qwlauren35]

50. Yes, I do. It's a huge list.

The federal tax benefits alone are amazing. But it's another reason why I didn't understand the state-to-state approach. All that any national company would have to do to get around the rights issue would be to look at it in terms of one's income taxes. Since the marriage wouldn't be recognized by the IRS, it makes for a giant loophole.

[NMMNG]

51. If they do business in the state, and a person is employeed in the state

They have to follow state regulations as well as federal. (That's why people in CA have to pay sales taxes on Internet purchases made from places in other states if the company has even one tiny franchise/warehouse/etc. in CA. State law must be obeyed.) Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are a problem because some companies like to use the "we only provide those benefits to spouses/married individuals" line (and that's just one of the issues). As to the state-to-state approach you can thank DOMA for that.

[jmg257]

39. Because some dickhead thought it would be fun to make basic rights a popularity contest.

And this time marriage happened to be the right that was left subject to a vote.

We should always prioritize our concerns as long as any concept such as marriage can be used to give rights and responsibilities to some and deny those same benefits to others. NO ONE should have to suffer the fear of losing any rights, any equality to the state, or to an over-reaching majority.

[Romulox]

41. OP is inaccurate, btw.

"we are the only group in this country who can be fired, demoted, harassed, evicted, and segregated without any recourse from federal laws."

This is simply incorrect. The basic law is that one may be fired, harassed, segregated, etc. except for on the basis of a short list of enumerated characteristics: race, sex, national origin, religion.

In most states: one can be fired for being ugly; one can be fire for being fat. Of course one may be discriminated against on the basis of social class in every state in the union.

[Karenina]

42. It would sure be nice if Amuikkka addressed the rights of her own

as she begins to consider, with the NEW ADMINISTRATION, those whose rights, hopes, dreams and she has DEVASTATED and DESTROYED,
BEFORE justifying ANY MORE ATTACKS on the ROTW.

[AntiFascist]

44. I'm glad this issue is getting exposure....

but its only the #1 issue in the minds of the Religious Right. There may be some Mormons facing bankruptcy because they feel so strongly about it. Go figure.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Because civil rights denied for some are civil rights under threat for all

It's that simple, whether everyone wants to recognize that or not.

Today, gays and lesbians are under attack - tomorrow those same attacks are used on someone else.

So long as civil rights aren't safe for everyone, they're not safe.

And so long as our most basic rights aren't in place, there's no mechanism with which to fight for jobs and housing with any strength or hope to succeed.

Don't let them trick you into separating these issues - divide and conquer only supports those who would continue to deny some people their rights and continue to see a perpetual underclass live in poverty.

It's all the same issue at bottom.