Join 3,496 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Million for Marriage.
August 1, 2003 7:22 AM   Subscribe

Million for Marriage. "Mobilizing a million people for the right of every American to get married."

Tired of just talking about it? Then do something about it.
posted by grabbingsand (35 comments total)

 
Not really tired of just talking about it, because I havn't really been. This is, of course, because I don't care.
posted by delmoi at 7:35 AM on August 1, 2003


cool, delmoi. I was wondering if you cared or not and this saves me from having to ask.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:38 AM on August 1, 2003


Bad timing for me. I'm in the middle of getting a divorce and therefore don't think anybody should be getting married, ever.
posted by JanetLand at 7:38 AM on August 1, 2003


I thought every American (over the age of consent) already had that right.
posted by trharlan at 7:46 AM on August 1, 2003


I have a friend that could use your advice JanetLand. Couple more months and he's a goner. Not that I oppose marriage or anything... I'm just opposed to HER. What a nightmare.
posted by Witty at 7:53 AM on August 1, 2003


Danger of overkill...on the front page - surely, that ain't gonna last.

4 (!) Gay marriage posts in 2 days...Wow! OTT, I fear.

posted by dash_slot- at 7:57 AM on August 1, 2003


ott?
posted by signal at 8:01 AM on August 1, 2003


Has an online petition ever mattered for anything?
posted by callmejay at 8:06 AM on August 1, 2003


OTT = Over the top = overkill.

YMMV. (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 8:07 AM on August 1, 2003


Why dash-slot, because it's an issue not important to you? So stop reading the posts if it's too much for you.

All you critics out there, just for a minute, close your eyes and imagine what it would be like to be an oppressed and hated minority. I know you can do it. Imagine what it must be like to have a whole religion against you and what it must feel like to fear for your life and personal safety, fear for the possibility that laws can be made to restrict your rights, based on how you were born.

Is this a good feeling?
posted by archimago at 8:15 AM on August 1, 2003


Snopes' analysis of online petitions
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:22 AM on August 1, 2003


Okay. I knew that someone would point out the ineffectiveness of online petitions as a means to affect change, but where online petitions fail as a tool, they seem to succeed as a touchstone for further discussion and debate. And perhaps someone will take this first step of "slacktivism" and find themselves compelled to voice their opinion more effectively and productively.
posted by grabbingsand at 8:29 AM on August 1, 2003


Arch, I understand, and - if you've been keeping up - you'll know my position on this subject, and it's pretty strong.

however...

In the normal course of conversation there's only so much one can say about any topic in 2 days. It doesn't matter how important it is - your views are pretty well burnt through.

Over the course of all of these, you've posted only one other response, which I found incredibly reasoned. It's not that nobody cares - it's simply what else can we say?
posted by Perigee at 8:37 AM on August 1, 2003


You ain't heard nothing yet. If Howard Dean gets the nomination (like if someone hits the DLC over its collective head with a big rock), expect this to become the most divisive issue of the election, because the repubs will use it, and it's a lot easier than talking about Enron, lying for war, tax cuts for the wealthy, stupendous deficit spending, etc. etc. etc.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:40 AM on August 1, 2003


Why dash-slot, because it's an issue not important to you? So stop reading the posts if it's too much for you.

Uh, no. It's clear from my comments in recent threads that that is not the case. And those threads are still active. In fact, you and I posted consecutive comments in one thread. Today. We have very similar outlooks, for similar reasons.

This is a website, with conventions, guidelines and history. I am trying to respect them. I won't go out of my way to attack allies - that plays into the hands of the reactionaries.
posted by dash_slot- at 8:59 AM on August 1, 2003


Perigree, my point was --- then don't say anything rather than tell the people who this is important to that you are tired of talking about it.

Consider: For the people who this is a serious issue to, there will never be enough discussion until it's a non-issue.

I'm not sure if you meant that I only posted once or only posted one reasoned response, but I have been all over the "gay" stuff the last couple of days, particularly the stuff re: the pope.

It's really not hard to ignore the posts that you feel are talked out or are of no concern to you. Where is the value in telling others that something they feel is important and worth discussing more is overkill? If no one wanted to discuss it more, the threads would just die out. They don't need someone else telling other people to essentially get over it already and talk about something else.
posted by archimago at 8:59 AM on August 1, 2003


What I meant was that over the course of all these arguments, you have posted once. And it was a reasoned response. I, on the other hand am embarrassed to admit to more than 17 of them, some of which were not reasoned at all.

This post has 3 "on-point" posts - grabbingsand's, Devils Advocate's, and callmejay's. This would have made a far better post inside any one of the other discussions than its own FPP, with a limited discussion range not already covered by recent and ongoing discussions.

Dash_Slot was right to point this out - Meta has always relied on self-policing as a policy. Just because it is a topic close to your heart does not mean that good form has not been breached.

Think if, instead, we had these four posts:

"Is Starwars finally dead?"
"Has George Lucas over-retrofitted his series?"
"What's with Obi-Wan and the shag haircut?"
"What do you get a wookie for chirstmas when he already owns a comb?"

It may be your campaign, arch, but the fact is too much Is too much.
posted by Perigee at 9:46 AM on August 1, 2003


I thought every American (over the age of consent) already had that right.

I can't marry my first cousins, and some of them are seriously hot and cool.
posted by namespan at 9:48 AM on August 1, 2003


I don't think it's too much, perigee. I'm grateful for the posting, since it gave me information I didn't have before. I agree that it's possible to ignore postings you don't want to discuss. I do it all the time.
posted by divrsional at 10:09 AM on August 1, 2003


namespan, I'm pretty sure that in many states, you can.
posted by callmejay at 10:21 AM on August 1, 2003


So I take it, that as far as MetaFilter is concerned, Gay Marriage is the new Iraq?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:57 AM on August 1, 2003


While this issue interests me, has it occurred to anyone else that this is yet another 'wag the dog' type issue?

It's important and it's relevant, but it certainly seems to be distracting a lot of people from the foreign policy chaos that's been gripping us for months now.

Does anyone else get this feeling?
posted by wells at 11:07 AM on August 1, 2003


Marriage for all may have the moral high ground, (and I think it does) but domestic partnership is the horse to bet on. It's the only politically realistic way to win equal rights and recognition. Also, marriage sucks: look at the numbers and look around you. Progressives ought to begin aspiring to higher societal roles than husbands and wives. We need new institutions.
posted by squirrel at 11:32 AM on August 1, 2003


As much as I agree that "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" or whatever you want to call them -- basically marriage by another name -- are far more likely to gain acceptance and recognition, the idea still leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. It's very "seperate but equal," and we all know what they say about that.

So, I'm torn. Go for what I want, or go for what I can get?
posted by CrayDrygu at 1:43 PM on August 1, 2003


I hear you, CrayDrygu. My partner and I have determined that marriage isn't a model we want to apply to our life, so I'm coming from an angle skewed against marriage per se. That said, I feel for those who for whatever reason love the idea of marriage but who are forbidden it. I don't think Christ would have sanctioned this mean-spirited exclusion, regardless of what that book about him says.

Still, this isn't only a religious bigotry issue, it's also just a bigotry issue. My experience with bigotry, (including my own) is that direct slams in the face--as good as they feel--often fail as an education strategy. A sympathetic approach that plays on commonality achieves concession better. In this case, I would say that a simpler message of equal rights and recognition would play better in narrower minds if it weren't wrapped in a sticky layer of religion.
posted by squirrel at 2:17 PM on August 1, 2003


This is one of the most ridiculous debates going on at the national level. The two sides have not agreed on terms, and the resulting rhetoric is circular and irritating.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman."

Great. If that's what you want to call it. But does this mean that you will NOT recognize any domestic union between members of the same sex and offer corresponding tax/legal benefits?

"Marriage is between a man and a woman."

Ok, I understand that. But let's forget about marriage. What about some other domestic union that's not called "marriage" but is also recognized and respected by the state?

"Marriage is between a man and a woman."

In other words, the conservatives are saying "No no no," and the liberals are saying "You're not answering my question, you're not answering my question..."

What pisses me off:

1) The liberal side won't just come out and state what they want. Is it equivalent tax/legal status? So you can visit your partner in the hospital, etc? Or is it full-blown: I'm ok, you're ok, marriage is marriage and we're all the same? Make it clear whether the word "marriage" is essential, or some other form of domestic partnership is good enough.

2) The conservative side is paying increasing lip service to gays, but slitting their throats under the table. "We're not judging anyone... but marriage is between a man and a woman." Don't look at the speck in someone's eye, etc etc etc while blocking any meaningful reform.

There's so much bullshit in this rhetoric that you can only conclude nothing is getting done, and it will be a while before anything changes. For chrissake, you still can't even join the military, and gay sex was only just declared constitutionally ok.
posted by scarabic at 3:42 PM on August 1, 2003


The liberal side won't just come out and state what they want

There is no 'liberal side' - no consensus has emerged around which we can unite.

This 'liberal' says that I will be content to have the right to express myself in any way which is available to those of a heterosexual orientation. In other words, if the UK Gov't. allowed straight folks the right to register their partnership under the proposed new legislation, which accords all significant 'marriage' priveleges to those who choose it, then I would have equality. If gays only have the right, or straights only have the right, it is not equality and will not be seen to be equality.

All western nations have civil, non-religious ceremonies which are called 'marriage', usually performed under the auspices of the local authority - eg, the Mayor. Religion is a red herring. Any straight couple who wish it can choose civil or religious, and in some places, have both: no matter, as long as there is equality (as there is between a couple who marry at City Hall, or the Cathedral) in the eyes of the law.

It's that simple: God is a voluntary presence; access for all willing couples; equality in the eyes of the law.

Get it?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:15 PM on August 1, 2003


It's really not hard to ignore the posts that you feel are talked out or are of no concern to you. Where is the value in telling others that something they feel is important and worth discussing more is overkill? If no one wanted to discuss it more, the threads would just die out. They don't need someone else telling other people to essentially get over it already and talk about something else.

Personally, I've ok with the amount of gay/marriage/rights discussion going on.

But what's up with the damn duck topics? I mean really, WTF? ducks?

heh
posted by shadow45 at 4:33 PM on August 1, 2003


Get it?

Did it. The church had absolutely nothing to do with my wedding, why should they have to have any input whatsoever, into anyone elses?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:43 PM on August 1, 2003


Exactly. (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 5:15 PM on August 1, 2003


gayFilter. Enough already. let's get back to the important stuff like talking about how stupid George Bush is, or new movie trailers, or rubber ducks.
posted by seanyboy at 5:26 PM on August 1, 2003


It's that simple: God is a voluntary presence; access for all willing couples; equality in the eyes of the law.

Get it?


Sure, I get it, but then I already had it. Those who don't see "God is a voluntary presence" in our way don't get it, don't want to get it, and won't ever get it.

So long as we use the word "marriage," we're invoking religion for millions of people. And these folks are itching for opportunities to flex their beliefs. Push for equality under an explicitly non-religious framework, and you bypass their bible sensor. That leaves only the non-religious homophobes to contend with, and they aren't nearly as organized. Also, what scarabic said.
posted by squirrel at 5:36 PM on August 1, 2003


RE: Civil Union vs Marriage

Aren't we just entering the wide world of semantics here? Homo Sapien pair-bonding is much older than the concept of marriage and religion just codified natual behavoir (be it lifelong or limited: think divorce) into its own ethics.

Now we're going back to secularize the very same concept. Fine. But I certainly don't see why there should even be a distiction between marriage and a civil union. The day marriage became a legal status was the day it became a secular concept. Here in the US we are guaranteed protection from religious discrimination. Not delivering gay marraige is simply discrimination, regardles of what tradition or old holy books have to say.

In the real world, if gay marraige happens here in the US it will be cloaked in terms like Civic Union, only to appease the bigots, but at the end of the day its the same thing.
posted by skallas at 6:04 PM on August 1, 2003


... but at the end of the day its the same thing.

As long as legally, it is the same thing, I don't see a problem. Only people to whom it really really matters will make the distinction.

"So you're married?"
"Well, civil-unioned technically, but hey."
posted by inpHilltr8r at 6:21 PM on August 1, 2003


Marriage? Hell I could just use a date!
posted by Eekacat at 7:03 PM on August 1, 2003


« Older A bold paper published in the August issue of Foun...  |  Top Ten Urinals... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments