Join 3,425 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Please don't divorce my papa and daddy.
December 26, 2008 7:44 PM   Subscribe

Please don't divorce us. An emotional argument for overturning Prop 8.
posted by desjardins (112 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

 
FPP should have included: sponsored by Courage Campaign (sorry, I'm sleepy)
posted by desjardins at 7:48 PM on December 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


The flaw in this plan assuming that backers of Prop 8 have emotions other than irrational hatred.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:49 PM on December 26, 2008 [26 favorites]


Can't say I disagree with the message, but using children to make a political point is just so lamely maudlin.
posted by dhammond at 7:52 PM on December 26, 2008


Yeah, what possible difference could it make to children whether their parents are allowed to stay married.
posted by nanojath at 7:58 PM on December 26, 2008 [33 favorites]


Optimus Chyme: "The flaw in this plan assuming that backers of Prop 8 have emotions other than irrational hatred."

Histrionic much?
posted by alexei at 8:00 PM on December 26, 2008


No one's families are splitting up here so let's leave the exaggerated melodrama out of what is essentially a legal argument, mmmkay? It's not like these children are being wrested from their homes here. Besides, the whole meme of people taking pictures of themselves where everyone has the same message on a sign is just so tired. Again, decent message. Lame FPP.
posted by dhammond at 8:03 PM on December 26, 2008


Maybe it's one meme too far for me, but the site almost feels like LOLgays. Like the "I'm not a terrorist Gordon Brown!" photo group. At some point it kind of becomes a self parody. People are funny looking. Couples look silly together (gay or straight). People with signs often look like idiots.

Nice idea, but I question the efficacy.

Oh, and I am against gay marriage, but not in a bigoted way since I am against marriage for straight people too. Well, for at least as long as they get breaks single people (and childless people) are denied, but that's a different can of worms.

I think, rather than trying to get the right to marry, gay people should try to invalidate straight marriages. Equal protection under the law and all. Suddenly they might have more allies if people see an attack on the institution.

And yes, I half kid in this post, but it does chafe a bit when I pay the same property taxes and the couple next door with two kids, which will go toward their education, but when I sell my house I will get half as much of a tax exemption. And they get dependent exemptions just because they procreated. Good for them. Maybe if I paid a few less thousand in taxes a year I could afford to as well. I could give other examples.

Comments I've actually heard: "Gays should be allowed to marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us," and "Why would they want to get married? Don't they know the sex stops once you get married?"

I do actually believe people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to as long as you don't expect me to pay for it (and last time I checked no one's expecting me to foot the bill on the ceremonies).
posted by cjorgensen at 8:08 PM on December 26, 2008 [5 favorites]


Don't they know the sex stops once you get married?

I totally did not get that memo. As far as your points about financial parity, fair enough, but how about working to change the laws instead of ripping on married folks (gay or straight)? I certainly did not get married because of any tax benefits, or to screw over my single friends. I was one of you until 3 months ago.
posted by desjardins at 8:18 PM on December 26, 2008


Seems like the kind of argument that should have been made before the election but (mostly) wasn't.

The courts need to look at the facts, not emotional appeals.
posted by Paris Hilton at 8:19 PM on December 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm not going to harsh on this psot. I especially like the two guys with the shotgun.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:23 PM on December 26, 2008 [3 favorites]


Tough crowd tonight! I'm off to bed. :)
posted by desjardins at 8:24 PM on December 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


Prop 8 supporters often cite 'the health of our children/families'. So I don't see anything wrong with flipping that message against them.
posted by Corduroy at 8:24 PM on December 26, 2008 [12 favorites]


And, thus, 'using children', as you said dhammond.
posted by Corduroy at 8:25 PM on December 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think, rather than trying to get the right to marry, gay people should try to invalidate straight marriages.

Yes, that's surely the most realistic and progressive option!
posted by scody at 8:27 PM on December 26, 2008 [7 favorites]


This weak post should be divorced from MetaFilter.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:30 PM on December 26, 2008


I'm not going to harsh on this psot.


Psot, harshed!
posted by nola at 8:32 PM on December 26, 2008


Devils Rancher: I'm not going to harsh on this post. I especially like the two guys with the shotgun.

It's even better than I could have hoped for!
posted by blasdelf at 8:32 PM on December 26, 2008


Histrionic much?

There are few things worth histrionics, but perhaps bigots ruining the country, by taking away rights from regular, everyday folks, are worth getting angry about. Mormons and their hateful ilk are taking rights away from us today, and their successors will take rights from you tomorrow, once they find something they dislike.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:34 PM on December 26, 2008 [13 favorites]


Now, now, it isn't just irrational hatred. You forgot the overwhelming terror that God will reach down and declare all of California to be Sodom and burn even the God-fearing Christians to so much pious ashes because they failed to separate two people in love with the crowbar of justice.

Bonus Round: The Mormons, watching from nearby Utah, get turned into pillars of halite and, after a brisk rainstorm, the state gets a new Little Salt Lake.
posted by adipocere at 8:35 PM on December 26, 2008 [2 favorites]


You guys seem to be missing the point. Prop 8 supporters often denied they were attempting to nullify the 18,000 marriages already on the books, but now they have Ken Starr filing a legal brief to make that happen. Personally, I find that this is the one "people holding up signs" campaign that actually has a purpose - showing the faces of the people getting hurt.

And yes, despite the cynicism and "me first" mentality of some people and their opinions, divorcing these people is hurting them, as they obviously take marriage as seriously as the people who idiotically want to break them apart.

It's not like these children are being wrested from their homes here.

And you don't think that's next?
posted by fungible at 8:40 PM on December 26, 2008 [38 favorites]


The courts need to look at the facts, not emotional appeals.

Any court that doesn't take potential emotional harm when making this kind of decision is a joke.
posted by mightygodking at 8:45 PM on December 26, 2008 [2 favorites]


Dang, what's wrong with you people?

desjardins, don't let the harsh get your mellow. I thoroughly enjoyed the link. In fact, I just sat here and looked at all 407 pictures. It was nice to see a bunch of smiling faces. And people banding together with a simple idea. It's not like I have all this important crap to do right now where taking the time to look at some photos was going to be a waste of time or ruin my day. Quite the opposite actually, so thanks.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:46 PM on December 26, 2008 [4 favorites]


I'm not going to harsh on this psot.


Psot, harshed!


shhhhh... I'm memeing.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:54 PM on December 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


I can't even begin to imagine what it feels like being treated as a second citizen in your own country and being seen as a inferior human being by some people. On some level, it must be scary that bigots and ignorant people are given so much power over your life and freedom, and that they are able to deny you the very rights that they enjoy and take for granted.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:59 PM on December 26, 2008


This isn't a particularly weak post, sheesh. But yeah, good luck with overturning that. CA has the most fucked-up state legal system in the union. The state that can't pass a law allowing the government to spend money isn't likely to do much. Propositions are pretty much the only laws that get passed these days.
posted by GuyZero at 9:03 PM on December 26, 2008


Crap like Prop 8 makes me mad. If there were ever a group of people who deserved being punched hard with a knuckle right in the spot where the dick connects with the nutsack, it's those who voted to declare gay marriages null and void. Even the women.
posted by illiad at 9:05 PM on December 26, 2008


I think, rather than trying to get the right to marry, gay people should try to invalidate straight marriages. Equal protection under the law and all. Suddenly they might have more allies if people see an attack on the institution.

Huh? Maybe I'm just slow tonight, but this makes less than no sense to me. Other than three or four particularly rabid Ron Paul supporters, who on earth will be their allies? Last I checked, the "ban all marriages" movement was not exactly sweeping the nation.

Anyway, this campaign strikes me as being as well-intentioned and ineffective as the entire anti-Prop 8 campaign was. It's sort of like watching Dukakis run for president, again, and again, and again.

But hell, if you are going to be well-intentioned and ineffective, this is a great way to do it. Cute pictures, too.
posted by Forktine at 9:15 PM on December 26, 2008


> Oh, and I am against gay marriage, but not in a bigoted way since I am against marriage for straight people too.

Ah. I hadn't relized that I can hate Muslims and not be racist if I hate Jews, too.

On a serious note: How the fuck can you be oposed to letting any two people in love find happiness in any fucking way they so choose? If the tax incentives unfairly favor married couples, how in any way is that the married couple's fault?

Anyone who can't look at these pictures and see the love that this travesty of a law destroys can only be a cold, heartless douchenozzle.
posted by jacobian at 9:28 PM on December 26, 2008


Anyone who can't look at these pictures and see the love that this travesty of a law destroys can only be a cold, heartless douchenozzle.

Or someone who's switched their brain off in favour of pronouncements from an old book written by a bunch of long-dead zealots who were uncomfortable with the idea of two guys humping each other.
posted by illiad at 9:32 PM on December 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


Optimus Chyme: "The flaw in this plan assuming that backers of Prop 8 have emotions other than irrational hatred."
alexei: Histrionic much?


No, I wouldn't say so, all things considered. Patronizing much?
posted by Aversion Therapy at 9:40 PM on December 26, 2008


I thought it was really beautiful, actually. I just saw it linked to on another site, and was about to post it here when I saw this post.

These pictures put a face to facelessness. It makes concrete the idea of 18,000 marriages being nullified.

It makes specific the harm done to specific children and families, as opposed to just an abstract idea. It shows normal people doing normal things.

I found it very touching, actually. I was anti-Prop 8, but have been finding that the protests in my neighborhood, which have made driving around and getting places difficult at times, have pissed me off - I mean, why not go protest somewhere conservative? But this has reminded me what people are fighting for - the right to be a family. The right to be just like the rest of us, and fall in love, marry, have kids, the whole thing.

Why should anyone be kept from that? Love is the best thing there is.

Emotional appeals are the kinds of appeals that sway people.
posted by MythMaker at 10:17 PM on December 26, 2008 [3 favorites]


dhammond:
"No one's families are splitting up here so let's leave the exaggerated melodrama out of what is essentially a legal argument, mmmkay?"

It's not "essentially a legal argument" when the denial of the rights and responsibilities of marriage makes even a simple illness a terrifying proposition for a gay couple. Death of a partner turns into an absolute nightmare. Even adopting kids desperately in need of homes becomes complicated. These are things that do split up families, in addition to doing a pretty good job of making it harder to become one.

It doesn't hurt anyone for people to legally join their households, resources, and future efforts together. Seeing people rejecting other humans as being equal, as being deserving of equal treatment and possibilities in the world...it seems so shortsighted, selfish, miserly, bitter, and, yes, hateful.

These images are sweet and lean on the demographic that needs leaning on. I hope they do some good, show other people it's just about being able to do things the right way, like everyone else wants the ability to enjoy.
posted by batmonkey at 10:18 PM on December 26, 2008 [2 favorites]


Well done. This is what the web is for.
posted by telstar at 10:30 PM on December 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yes, Optimus isn't histrionic at all to say that the majority of the state of California (and 33 other states!) isn't capable of emotion other than irrational hatred. Glad see everyone defending that. That should really help win people over to supporting gay marriage.
posted by Heminator at 10:45 PM on December 26, 2008


To be fair Heminator, Optimus specified the backers of Prop 8 as the ones guided by irrational hatred, not the "majority of the state of California" as you put it. The majority of those who voted on Prop 8, yes, not the majority of the state.

Having said that, I don't give a fuck about winning over the people who supported Prop 8; I wager that the vast majority of them won't ever change their minds on this issue no matter what they're shown or told because they're blindly ignorant about homosexuality. What I do want is for them to stop fucking up other people's lives just because they can't handle the thought of two men or two women giving each other the Big O. And if they won't shut up on this issue, they'd better be prepared to be labelled for the hateful, ignorant, disgusting bigots that they are.
posted by illiad at 11:15 PM on December 26, 2008


batmonkey: These images are sweet and lean on the demographic that needs leaning on.

No, they don't. That demographic is angry the children are with them in the first place. It's irrational anyway, so you can't really convince it in the first place.

The ways I'd recommend advancing the issue is to convince people who don't care that they should, and to tie it onto other, more popular issues. Although you risk endangering them as well... that's probably part of what lost the 2004 election.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:18 PM on December 26, 2008


The idea of two people partnering together "officially" in the eyes of the community isn't solely a christian thing. Many, many cultures have various forms of traditional rites that end with a couple living together for better or worse. The Christian marriage ceremony happens to be one of many types of marriages. Two people should be allowed, regardless of gender, to be married in the eyes of the law. And they also have the right to preform whatever type of ceremony they want to to commemorate it. If you do not like this idea, that all people have equal rights that no one is a second class citizen because of their race, creed or gender, sexual orientation etc, then you are free to go.
Seriously. Go to one of the other countries that doesn't allow gay marriages. Oh wait. They have other rules too. Like they don't allow different castes to marry or women to work etc. Discrimination against a minority for personal religious beliefs is wrong. You don't get to pick and choose which people get equal rights.

/end rant.
posted by silkygreenbelly at 11:28 PM on December 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


Mitrovarr:
"No, they don't. That demographic is angry the children are with them in the first place. It's irrational anyway, so you can't really convince it in the first place."

I'm thinking the ads will be more effective for the fence-straddlers, the ones who can be swayed. Maybe just enough to break through the current majority. Or at least plant the idea in the heads of those who will be old enough to vote next time.

Other than that, though, I definitely agree with the rest of your statement. Certainly, very little works on those who are all the way over one side or the other, unless time or experience somehow manage to slip in a contrary lesson or two.
posted by batmonkey at 11:36 PM on December 26, 2008


Okay, illiad. So if Optimus was referring to the "backers" (whatever that was supposed to mean) rather than the majority of voters who supported the measure, but you think that these people are in fact "hateful, ignorant, disgusting bigots" for expressing their opinion. Good to know. We're really advancing the dialogue here. Progress is just around the corner.
posted by Heminator at 11:40 PM on December 26, 2008


err, that should read "So if Optimus was..."
posted by Heminator at 11:43 PM on December 26, 2008


Damnit! Stupid brain to keyboard thing no worky. "So Optimus was..."
posted by Heminator at 11:44 PM on December 26, 2008


Californians and others need to start pouring serious money into Utah politics fast and hard. Flood those ignorant motherfuckers and cold outspend them. Teach them a lesson about fucking around in the politics of a state with the world's 9th or 10th biggest economy - they've more than earned it. My personal wish is to see Sen. RuPaul (LGBT-Utah).

They took a shit in someone else's bed. Now's a good time to rub their noses in it.
posted by trondant at 11:49 PM on December 26, 2008 [8 favorites]


It's one thing to support same-sex marriage. It's another to call heterosexual marriage -- the standard in every society across time even with all of the variations we've seen with marriage (polygamy, arranged marriage, etc.) -- "irrational" or "bigoted". If you don't know why society supports marriage between men and women as the basic building block of society, perhaps you shouldn't try to change the institution.

And when every state that has voted on the matter has come down in favor of defining marriage as a heterosexual union, I think that perhaps it's time for supporters of redefining marriage to come up with better arguments.

Melissa Etheridge and her wife Tammy Lynn Michaels had a great take on the unnecessary demonization of supporters of traditional marriage. They equated it to "Smear the Queer."
posted by bunnie at 11:50 PM on December 26, 2008


[...] but you think that these people are in fact "hateful, ignorant, disgusting bigots" for expressing their opinion. Good to know.

What else would you call them? Enlightened?

They did demonstrably more than simply express their opinion. They brought into law a measure that creates a lesser class of citizen. This is unforgiveably vile behaviour.

There is no advancing the dialogue with the vast majority of people who can't handle the existence of homosexual couples simply because their position is irrational. I think that's pretty clear.
posted by illiad at 11:57 PM on December 26, 2008


bunnie - who called heterosexual marriage irrational or bigoted? I sure didn't.
posted by illiad at 11:59 PM on December 26, 2008


Nothing like getting your moral compass settings from people that use their religious beliefs like a hammer. I'm looking at you too, by the way.
posted by Ron Thanagar at 12:00 AM on December 27, 2008


trondant: Californians and others need to start pouring serious money into Utah politics fast and hard. Flood those ignorant motherfuckers and cold outspend them. Teach them a lesson about fucking around in the politics of a state with the world's 9th or 10th biggest economy - they've more than earned it. My personal wish is to see Sen. RuPaul (LGBT-Utah).

Money buys votes because it buys advertising. You generally cannot advertise someone into a position they would have never held. Plus, people dislike 'foreign' interference in their matters, so you can get backlash.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:02 AM on December 27, 2008


Rick Warren can wear a keyboard for a hat any time he wants. I kind of wish he would.
posted by trondant at 12:09 AM on December 27, 2008


Plus, people dislike 'foreign' interference in their matters, so you can get backlash.

You don't say.
posted by trondant at 12:16 AM on December 27, 2008 [5 favorites]


Californians and others need to start pouring serious money into Utah politics fast and hard.

In an extra-special irony, California's moronically low hurdles to getting an initiative on the ballot means it's easy for out-of-state bigots to fuck with our elections, but other states' higher hurdles to getting initiatives on their ballots means Californians can't fuck with their elections with similar ease. Awesome, no?
posted by scody at 1:02 AM on December 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


are in fact "hateful, ignorant, disgusting bigots" for expressing their opinion

Herminator, they didn't just express their opinion; they voted to create a group of second-class citizens who are not entitled to the same rights and protections as others on grounds that were based not on any concrete social harm but on (yes) irrational and unfounded prejudices. That's a little more substantive than holding a sign up that says "God Hates Fags" at someone's funerals. Indeed, a large part of the problem is that the prejudices that drive these opinions and choices are largely irrational; indeed, people's political choices are frequently driven by appeals to emotion rather than reason.

I don't want to wade into a morass of equating the gay rights movements with the movement for Black voting rights and equal access to public facilities, but one important way in which the analogy holds true is that sometimes the will of the majority is tyranny of the majority. If the Voting Rights Act were a proposition on the national ballot in 1963, I think you can guess what would have happened. Yes, people would have expressed "their opinion." And yes, they would have been bigots. And the Constitutional problems wouldn't go away by dint of majority vote.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 1:08 AM on December 27, 2008 [13 favorites]


And when every state that has voted on the matter has come down in favor of defining marriage as a heterosexual union, I think that perhaps it's time for supporters of redefining marriage to come up with better arguments.

Never mind Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire.

When Ms. Palin was kind enough to remind us states like these are not part of the "real America", she reminded us about the ugliness that lies underneath comments like those above.

I hope the rest of America learns to grow more careful of the fundamentalists in its midst. These bigots have and will again conspire to lie, cheat, dissemble, misinform and do whatever else dishonest that is required to steal your rights, too, once they find something they don't like about you.

Perhaps next time, the fundamentalists will go after anyone who isn't Christian. Someone who doesn't salute the flag quite the way they like. Someone whose skin isn't as white as they like. They will coerce the government into taking rights away from other minorities.

One lesson of Prop 8 is that reactionary elements mean to destroy people not like them, destroying any relationships, families, and children's lives to further their campaign of hatred. I hope Americans one day wake up and recognize these bigots for who they are, before innocent people get thrown in ovens.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:42 AM on December 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm probably going to offend more than a few people by saying this but, as a Canadian, I've always found that most Americans have been conned into holding their opinions with a subtle combination of false metaphors (Example: Iraq=Spilled Milk), twisted logic and outright lies. I have never been able to talk an American out of their opinion but I do believe it's possible.

Churchgoing fundamentalists could be swayed the other way by appealing to the very same family values which are being manipulated to sign Proposition 8 in the first place and perhaps also their fears that the government is persecuting them. Get them to see prop 8 for what it is: The government interfering with marriage and family. Their greatest fear... well, their greatest earthly fear anyways.

Despite popular belief, fundies aren't irrational. They actually act quite rationally on irrational beliefs. Example: they just believe that hell exists and that gays go there. Given those "facts" they seek to try and stop people from going there and believe they are doing good. All gays really need to do convince them that a child raised in a gay family is just as likely to be gay as anyone else. From there, just work the lesser of two evils argument. AKA the government forcefully divorcing people and (this may come later) taking their children away from them and putting them in the foster system is a much greater evil than disrupting a stable family, especially when the children produced from that family can still be "saved" and are not pre-disposed to "moral deviance" (at least not more pre-disposed than they would be in foster care).
posted by Pseudology at 3:08 AM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


NYS Domestic Relations Law -- Article 3

S 10. Marriage a civil contract. Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential.

NYS Uniform Commercial Code -- Part 1

S 102 5b. words of the masculine gender include the feminine and the neuter, and when the sense so indicates words of the neuter gender may refer to any gender.

QED.

Now that that piece of shit Bruno is out of the Legislature, maybe NYS will make some progress obeying the damn law now.
posted by mikelieman at 4:39 AM on December 27, 2008


Californians are funny-looking.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:38 AM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


In an extra-special irony, California's moronically low hurdles to getting an initiative on the ballot means it's easy for out-of-state bigots to fuck with our elections, but other states' higher hurdles to getting initiatives on their ballots means Californians can't fuck with their elections with similar ease. Awesome, no?

Has anyone in Calif. tested the water with the concept of an initiative to amend the initiative process? Seems like you could form a PAC, pour in $500 billion on TV ads, and convince the public in California that their system of initiative and referendum isn't so great. I've been watching this since prop. 13 in back in what -- '77? stripped the right of the state to raise money pretty much, and it seems like the concept of initiative and referendum in California has been a long string of failures that has pretty well stripped its representative government of power. If the legislature can't alter the initiative system, perhaps Californians could be persuaded to do so, for their own benefit.

As an ignorant cuss, I'll ask has it's US constitutionality been challenged in any way?
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:53 AM on December 27, 2008


Histrionic much?

The campaign against Prop 8 certainly was.

Oh, did you mean Optimus Chyme?
posted by Francis at 6:22 AM on December 27, 2008


That should really help win people over to supporting gay marriage.
posted by Heminator at 10:45 PM on December 26


You can't win people over to supporting marriage equality. You can only wait for them to to die. So being nice to them or treating them like human beings is a waste of time, as they are little more than dumb herd animals, hopelessly broken by the conditioning of their religious masters.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:46 AM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Optimus, it turns out you can win people over to supporting marriage equality.

For my grandmother, it was as simple as coming out to her a few years ago. My grandfather I'm a bit less sure about: he recently asked me if "lesbian women could marry gay men," so I think he's missing a bit of the point here. But he seemed to understand the idea that if I were to start a family (and I think my grandparents still want me to have kids, not really sure about that) I'd do it with another guy, and having some legal protections would be a good thing.

I've heard it said that if you could manage to convince young evangelicals that their preachers wouldn't go to jail for refusing to marry same sex couples, they support civil marriage equality. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who voted for prop 8 thought it was endangering the clergy (this ends up being one of the lies that was the bedrock of the argument for proposition 8.)

I don't personally agree with everything the Courage Campaign has done against Prop 8 (they spent a ton of money on an ad that ran in the LA area the weekend before the election, when some outreach to communities of color would have been far more effective in countering the lies being sent out by the Yes on 8 campaign claiming that Obama supported 8) but this sort of thing, putting pictures out there showing that there really were people who are hurt by prop 8, does change minds.

Polls done after the protests started show that at least some people who voted yes have changed their mind, after seeing how many people (and families) were affected.
posted by grae at 8:32 AM on December 27, 2008


they have Ken Starr filing a legal brief to make that happen

Jeez, that asshole's like kudzu or something, isn't he?
posted by jonmc at 8:51 AM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


You can't win people over to supporting marriage equality.

Are you sure? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but didn't the Prop 8 polls swing from a margin of 17% or so against it to a close but significant margin in favor? In fact, it was those early margins of tolerance for gay marriage that caused the LDS and other activists to get involved and bring in serious money. The election was the gay marriage supporters to lose, and lose it they did.

Blaming the loss on "dumb herd animals, hopelessly broken by the conditioning of their religious masters" is as foolish as those initial "it's the black people's fault!" articles. The election was won with money, smart campaigning, and a really sophisticated use of multiple framing strategies to sway a bunch of different groups from tolerance to intolerance.

And this campaign, sweet as it is, is just more of the same ineffective tactics that lost the election in the first place. What is needed is sophisticated outreach to the voters who swung from anti- to pro-, and a much better reframing of the issue.
posted by Forktine at 8:52 AM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


you think that these people are in fact "hateful, ignorant, disgusting bigots" for expressing their opinion. Good to know.

Ah, the old "You're intolerant of intolerance" gambit. Calling people mean names because of their opinions on which kind of space-crystal makes the best light-saber is mean-spirited and uncalled for. Calling people mean names for hating on gays is well within the margins of acceptability, Because this is a big enough deal to be worth arguing about. If someone told me that I was a morally bankrupt psychotic for supporting gay rights, I'd take offense at that, but it wouldn't be because I thought the topic was not worth getting my hair mussed over. It would be because their opinions are completely terrible.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 8:53 AM on December 27, 2008


Something about using the word 'please' seems so offensive and degrading to me. Oh wait, I guess that's the point.
posted by thejoshu at 9:05 AM on December 27, 2008


Something about using the word 'please' seems so offensive and degrading to me. Oh wait, I guess that's the point.

Yes, heartbreaking that in the 21st century, people must beg for their civil rights.

As I watched the entire slideshow, I kept wishing I could press "M" at every slide, and see responses pop up: "Congratulations, you have validated this marriage."
posted by terranova at 9:20 AM on December 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


...as a Canadian, I've always found that most Americans have been conned into holding their opinions...

Good job electing Harper, you perfect paragons of rationality. It's a good thing you're so much better than us, or you might have to worry about things like constitutional crises like we lesser geographical regions do.
posted by Xezlec at 9:27 AM on December 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


jacobian: "Ah. I hadn't relized that I can hate Muslims and not be racist if I hate Jews, too.

On a serious note: How the fuck can you be oposed to letting any two people in love find happiness in any fucking way they so choose? If the tax incentives unfairly favor married couples, how in any way is that the married couple's fault?


Yeah, because that's what I was saying. I can be against an institution that discriminates without hating the people that practice the institution (I have lot of Catholic friends and the kid how mows my lawn is a Boy Scout). And what I honestly don't get is why gay people would want to be married? I mean, for the most part, the world's religion's are against homosexuality. Why try to be part of a religion, organization, or institution that doesn't want you? And yes, I do understand the desire for equality and a sense of belonging. But like I said above, I don't get it for straight people either, and I am against it for both for as long as you get special treatment from the government just because you decided to not stay single.

And I never said I was opposed to people finding happiness. You obviously didn't read everything I wrote. Pretty sure I said, "I do actually believe people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to as long as you don't expect me to pay for it..." Yep, it's up there.

And as to the tax thing, it's their fault for allowing it to continue and participating in it.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone giving up a tax break because found it to be discriminatory. And I realize from a legal perspective there is more to marriage than financial benefits, and I can see people wanting these as well, but I find the way that we treat marriage to be flawed, so yes, I don't quite get why people are clamoring to join it's ranks.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:29 AM on December 27, 2008


Oh, and by the way, next time you see them, could you tell "most Americans" to go check out the above link? (I sure hope flickr can handle the traffic though!)
posted by Xezlec at 9:30 AM on December 27, 2008


And what I honestly don't get is why gay people would want to be married?

In the immortal words of Dolly Parton, why should gay people be any less mserable than the rest of us? *rimshot*

As far as using emotional appeals...plenty of politicos of all stripes use them all the time, so fair play. Nobody ever said politics was pretty.
posted by jonmc at 9:34 AM on December 27, 2008


desjardins:

me: Don't they know the sex stops once you get married?

"I totally did not get that memo. As far as your points about financial parity, fair enough, but how about working to change the laws instead of ripping on married folks (gay or straight)? I certainly did not get married because of any tax benefits, or to screw over my single friends. I was one of you until 3 months ago."

Well no one said the sex stopped right away. You've only been married 3 months. And I wasn't saying I agreed with it. I only said I'd heard it. I did find it a bit funny.

And I'm not ripping on married people, though I can see how it can read that way, but I think I've been fairly consistent in saying it unfair policies that I am against. I honestly don't see why people would want my money for things like schools. This gives me a right to have an opinion on how your child is taught.

And I really don't get how come two people with two incomes (or one) get taxed differently just because of their marital status. Makes no sense to me.

I don't think that people who choose to get married are trying to screw over anyone. A person can receive benefit without malice.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:45 AM on December 27, 2008


You can't win people over to supporting marriage equality. civil rights for blacks

Clearly that didn't work *cough*Obama*cough* so why bother trying?
posted by desjardins at 9:47 AM on December 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


Also, I reject the 'people never change so don't bother trying' argument on general principles. It sounds like some kind of ideological Calvinism.
posted by jonmc at 9:59 AM on December 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


I honestly don't see why people would want my money for things like schools.

Because they want a better life than working at McDonald's.

This gives me a right to have an opinion on how your child is taught.

You should have an opinion. An ignorant electorate is what causes things like pointless, ill-advised wars to happen. If we Americans knew our geography and history better, these things might happen less often.

And I really don't get how come two people with two incomes (or one) get taxed differently just because of their marital status.

Because they are providing the rest of us a service by being settled down and un-rambunctious.

I know, I know, you're a Libertarian, you don't agree with me. But you asked. Those are my answers.
posted by Xezlec at 10:18 AM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Clearly that didn't work *cough*Obama*cough* so why bother trying?
posted by desjardins at 9:47 AM on December 27


Ah yes, now that Obama is the president-elect, racism is finally over and done with. Whew!

The reason that blacks now enjoy some small measure of equality in American society - note small measure, not anything actually approaching legal or social equality - is because yes, they and their supporters fought for it. But for the most part, it's because old people died.

For instance, look at Senator Jesse Helms. That evil old bastard fought as hard as he could to deny blacks equal rights for his entire life, and only when he couldn't hide his drooling and incontinence anymore did he step down and let Elizabeth Dole take over. Dole is a monster as well, but nowhere near the gibbering Mephistophelian avatar that was Helms.

"B-b-b-but what about Robert Byrd?"

Goddammit, does anyone believe that Exalted Cyclops, heh, whoops, Senator Byrd has changed at all? He left the Klan because it was politically expedient. And when the day comes that we bury that subhuman trash in a peat bog with ten copies of Robert's Rules of Order shoved up his rotting puckered asshole, maybe the trailer-folk and Morlocks of Shitstain, WV can elect someone with something even approaching a conscience.

You want to know what it will take to achieve actual equality for every American? When every rich-ass old white motherfucker in the Congress to the right of Dennis Kucinich kicks the fucking bucket and joins Helms and his cohort in Satan's maw. I'll be old and doddering myself, then, but if I ask God one thing, it's to let me outlive these fucking assholes.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:33 AM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


The reason that blacks now enjoy some small measure of equality in American society - note small measure, not anything actually approaching legal or social equality

Wait... blacks have not even achieved legal equality in the US? Wouldn't that mean there are still laws that explicitly distinguish between white and black citizens?

And I'm pretty sure they have social equality in some areas and social circles. I could be wrong, but I don't think any of my white friends look down on black people. That's not true everywhere, obviously, but I mean, no need to be that cynical about it. Well, OK, I have one unusual friend who looks up to black people and seems to think that they are better than him. I guess that's technically inequality. But I don't think that's what you meant.

Economic equality has not yet been achieved. That I'll agree with. But wait, you didn't say that one.
posted by Xezlec at 11:13 AM on December 27, 2008


Plenty to be angry about, for sure.

But then there's the California Supreme Court. Why on earth would they not grant a stay on taking away a minority's rights? Oh, that's right, queers don't matter, so it's okay. Had it been any other minority, omg, we had better wait and see how the hearing goes! At least this whole thing has shown that even the high-and-mighty judges understand that queers can be made to wait for their rights.

This thing is wrong. On the surface, underneath, inside, outside, even upside down. This has been amazingly educational! The majority have ruled, the minority are less equal than everyone else!

What really frosts my ass, my mind twists and steams, and plots. But OH no. I don't GET to pull the same kind of hateful crap against the haters that they do against me. Yet. Maybe later? I seem to recall something about boxes. Soap box, ballot box, and some other kind of box, different from the other two. We'll call it the "surprise box". Yea, that's right.
posted by Goofyy at 11:23 AM on December 27, 2008


Striking how some of them resemble each other.

Take the two Vietnam vet dudes for example. Just imagine what their offspring will look like! Moustached Vietnam vet babies fer cryin' out loud! Don't let them breed!!
posted by sour cream at 11:33 AM on December 27, 2008


I honestly don't see why people would want my money for things like schools.

And I don't see why I should pay money for things like fire departments. My house has never been on fire!
posted by scody at 11:39 AM on December 27, 2008


Comments I've actually heard: "Gays should be allowed to marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us," and "Why would they want to get married? Don't they know the sex stops once you get married?"

Allow me to introduce you to the concept known as "humor."
posted by deanc at 12:41 PM on December 27, 2008


Wait... blacks have not even achieved legal equality in the US?

Exactly. America's criminal justice system in particular is totally colorblind. How could Optimus Chyme have forgotten?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:50 PM on December 27, 2008


Exactly. America's criminal justice system in particular is totally colorblind. How could Optimus Chyme have forgotten?

Kind of a strange way to respond, since my comment was phrased not as some snotty assertion, but as a perfectly legitimate (and honest) question. Dial down the defensiveness a smidgen, please? Anyway, I take that to mean that "legal equality" by your usage includes equality of treatment throughout the law-enforcement, judicial, and penal systems. I'm fine with that, I just don't think I've ever heard the term used that way before.
posted by Xezlec at 1:09 PM on December 27, 2008


Xezlec, I understand my motivation for needing to contribute to things like schools. What I was saying is as a non-parent I don't have the same stakes as a married couple with kids in the education system. I just don't. And I would think parents would justifiably resent my opinion and perceive it as interference, but again, by funding it through me I am given a right to the opinion.

And the idea that we have to pay people to be decent educated citizens is silly. You shouldn't get a bonus for getting married and settling down, you shouldn't get money because you decided to stay in school, just you shouldn't get cash for not robbing me.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:18 PM on December 27, 2008


Didn't mean to derail this into a discussion of racial equality; I was just trying to make the point that attitudes HAVE changed wrt blacks, and I disagree that it's just because the old racists are dying off. I do believe that the civil rights movement had a lot to do with changing the general tone. Of course racism still exists, but Obama's election would not have been possible in the 1950s.

The gay marriage movement (and larger civil rights movement) is absolutely worthwhile, and it does change minds. Perhaps more slowly than we'd like, but enough that we shouldn't just sit at home and throw up our hands.
posted by desjardins at 1:21 PM on December 27, 2008


cjorgensen, you're not paying people to be decent, educated citizens. You're investing in the institutions that encourage them to become such. Compare crime rates by educational attainment and this is clear. The non-educated have fewer opportunities for economic stability. Married folks also commit less crime (35% less according to this study [pdf]), perhaps because they have more to lose, or because criminals are less likely to get married.
posted by desjardins at 1:32 PM on December 27, 2008


What I was saying is as a non-parent I don't have the same stakes as a married couple with kids in the education system.

You don't think you have a basic stake in an educated populace? You don't think there would be any demonstrable social, cultural, political, economic, or demographic differences between living someplace with, say, a high level of literacy vs. a low level of literacy? Or, assuming you accept there are differences, you don't think they would affect you in any way personally (say, in terms of property values, crime, or local employment rates)?
posted by scody at 1:35 PM on December 27, 2008


scody: And I don't see why I should pay money for things like fire departments. My house has never been on fire!

This actually supports my view. I have a stake in the firehouse. I am on equal footing as to roads and other infrastructure as well. I don't resent paying for this at all.

This was part of my point in what I was first trying to write. The whole reason, to my understanding, that gay people are upset over not being allowed to marry is because it's inherently unfair. Heterosexual couple are being granted benefits denied to them. So go after these benefits. We're supposed to be a society were all are equal under the law.

If you separate out marriage into is components: contract law and ceremony (religious or not), then it seems a much easier argument for me. "Civil Union" is often presented as a viable solution for gay people, and is usually rejected pretty quickly. Most often because traditional marriage grants privileges civil unions do not. If you separate the State from the religious (as it should be), grant "civil unions" to anyone that wants them, and allow any church willing to do so marry anyone that wants to be married, then there would be equality under the law.

But preserving special benefits for one class of people is wrong, expanding these benefits to include more (but not all) is also wrong.

I challenge the idea that encouraging people to get married and settle down has any benefit to a society under these grounds: 1, A goodly percentage of these end up being broken homes. 2, you have to convince me that the married folk are less likely to commit crime, are more likely to pay taxes, and are somehow going to be better citizens than their unmarried counterparts, and 3, convince me I should pay a higher portion for the same services.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:36 PM on December 27, 2008


deanc: Allow me to introduce you to the concept known as "humor."

Not sure who you were directing this to. I got that is was humor. It's why I posted it and noted it as "a bit funny." Unless you were directing this to someone else and I missed it.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:38 PM on December 27, 2008


scody: Again, never said I didn't have a stake, said I don't have the same stake. Just like on the issue at hand. I'm not gay, but I have a stake in the issue, but again, not to the same level as the two people wanting to get married.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:42 PM on December 27, 2008


For instance, look at Senator Jesse Helms. That evil old bastard fought as hard as he could to deny blacks equal rights for his entire life, and only when he couldn't hide his drooling and incontinence anymore did he step down and let Elizabeth Dole take over.

Funny, Dorothy Allison said much the same thing at a roundtable I attended years before that "racist old colostomy bag" (thank you, Gawker) finally left us in peace. The part about just needing to wait until people like him died. You have a point, sir.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 2:30 PM on December 27, 2008


Are we supposed to think that separate but equal is suddenly proper and right?
posted by NortonDC at 3:22 PM on December 27, 2008


And what I honestly don't get is why gay people would want to be married? I mean, for the most part, the world's religion's are against homosexuality. Why try to be part of a religion, organization, or institution that doesn't want you?

Well for starters, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage isn't a religious institution and I'll ask you to please stop reinforcing that belief. Up until the protestant reformation religion stayed the fuck out of the marriage process. Marriage was usually a father selling his daughter to the highest bidder or best family. Does that sound like a great institution? Well not really.

Back when I was young and stupid I lived in an extended family with three generations under the one roof. Back then my grandparents were pretty racist and homophobic (they still are just not so obviously). I've thankfully outgrown their beliefs. For me I started growing up and I made friends who were gay. One day I thought of looking them in the eye and having to say "I don't think you should be able to marry". I realised not only how fucking stupid any argument against gay marriage is but how utterly retarded the question is. Why is there even a question on this?

Optimus I have my own bitter, hate filled white man to outlive over here in Australia, Philip Ruddock. The little shitstain on Australian politics has thankfully been dethroned and is now sitting on the backbench with his political career in ruins.
posted by Talez at 3:39 PM on December 27, 2008


Wait... blacks have not even achieved legal equality in the US?

What percentage of black males are incarcerated? What percentage of white males are incarcerated? What conclusions can you draw from this discrepancy?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:04 PM on December 27, 2008


That black people commit more crimes?

I kid! I kid!
posted by Talez at 5:00 PM on December 27, 2008


Up until the protestant reformation religion stayed the fuck out of the marriage process.

Huh? So it's been part of the process for the last 500 years? I'd called that entrenched. And actually, I was the once advocating that if they were to separate things, a legal process, and a religious process, people wouldn't be all bent out of shape.

And I am pretty sure Catholics have considered marriage a holy sacrament for longer than 500 years.

If any two people could engage in the legal process and any two people can engage in the religious process (or not as seen fit), I don't see where the problem would be. Religious freedom on one hand and equality under the law on the other. And some people have no idea, but this is actually the process now. The observances are met, the forms are signed and witnessed in a church or courthouse (or other endorsed institution), and the paperwork is filed.

And once again, pretty sure at no point have I said that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. I have said I don't get why they'd want to, but that's great, people do stuff I don't understand all the time. And I have said I think the institution as it is now is discriminatory to more than just gay people.

If rather than getting hung up on the work "marriage," one looked at what is being gained by getting married, and focused on that there would perhaps be less strife over this issue.

And no, it's not a matter of "separate but equal is suddenly proper and right" like NortonDC puts it, but rather an admission that marriage may not be right for all people (gay or straight).
posted by cjorgensen at 5:10 PM on December 27, 2008


I used to not think that gay marriage, or laws against it, could hurt "traditional" marriage. Now I know differently. Prop 8 is definitely hurting my marriage, because, as a "traditional" couple, I feel like I'm silently supporting the ban. Like I'm somehow benefiting from gays being denied rights. And I don't like that.
posted by DU at 6:46 PM on December 27, 2008


Prop 8 supporters often denied they were attempting to nullify the 18,000 marriages already on the books, but now they have Ken Starr filing a legal brief to make that happen.

You know what would be poetic justice? Ken Starr drops dead of a heart attack while arguing for the right to dissolve over 18,000 marriages. Starr ascends to the Gates of Heaven, where he is greeted by St. Peter. Starr expects to go in, but St. Peter kicks him down to Hell, "Sorry Ken, I can't let you in. You should have taken more bong hits 4 Jesus!"
posted by jonp72 at 7:00 PM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


And no, it's not a matter of "separate but equal is suddenly proper and right" like NortonDC puts it, but rather an admission that marriage may not be right for all people (gay or straight).

No, it really, directly, absolutely is a matter of separate but equal, and it will be so long as people assert that the relationships of straights can qualify for marriage but the relationships of gays can't. But we can make them equal.
posted by NortonDC at 7:34 PM on December 27, 2008


The solutions often posed are a case of "separate but equal," what I have been saying is not.

Like DU points out, "...as a "traditional" couple, I feel like I'm silently supporting the ban. Like I'm somehow benefiting from gays being denied rights. And I don't like that."

And there's two ways to address this. Grant everyone the same rights, or take away benefits. Personally, I'm happier leveling the playing field for all than expanding an inequitable system. I've been pretty consistent on this (I believe).

If you take away all the tax breaks, extended insurance benefits, and all other government influenced incentives, then the only people that would get married are the people who actually want to, and people would have a lot less incentive to try to deny marriage to anyone. I'd rather the government stayed the hell out of my bedroom. And if this was the case, gay people would have had marriage a long time ago. I know quite a few clergy that would be willing to do a marriage.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:42 PM on December 27, 2008


Huh? So it's been part of the process for the last 500 years? I'd called that entrenched.

Except that anti-gay-marriage advocates frequently justify their position by making the claim that marriage has remained essentially unchanged for five thousand years. The (demonstrably false) assertion that marriage has been exactly one thing since the dawn of Judeo-Christian civilization is the official cornerstone of their argument. (The unofficial cornerstone being, of course, that two dudes kissing is icky.)
posted by scody at 8:57 PM on December 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


cjorgensen, the basic failing of your argument is that it has not convinced people that changing tax policy ought to be prioritized ahead of equal treatment of gays and straights.

People don't buy it.
posted by NortonDC at 9:25 PM on December 27, 2008


Please don't divorce us.
Why not?

An emotional argument for overturning Prop 8.
No, a very very stupid argument. Marriage has something to do with religion and government guaranteed rights that come with it (taxation, inheritance, insurance etc.). This is wrong! Government should have NOTHING to do with religion, and hence government should neither offer, forbid, encourage nor subsidize marriage. If somebody wants to marry he or she may do in a church. If the church does not want him to marry he is free to open his own church. He may marry a women, a man or a car but these things SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO TO WITH GOVERNMENT!

Hence the whole approach is wrong. Instead of this heartbreaking manipulative pictures they should have written on them "Please subsidize me"
posted by yoyo_nyc at 10:06 PM on December 27, 2008


Never mind Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire.

What is this list? I'm curious because I don't recall CT having a vote on gay marriage, even though it is legal due to the courts. The closest I can think of is the recent vote on the Constitutional convention, which was pushed by anti-gay marriage supporters but didn't mention marriage on the ballot question. So I wouldn't really consider it a vote on the issue.
posted by smackfu at 10:38 PM on December 27, 2008


...as a Canadian, I've always found that most Americans have been conned into holding their opinions...

Good job electing Harper, you perfect paragons of rationality. It's a good thing you're so much better than us, or you might have to worry about things like constitutional crises like we lesser geographical regions do.
posted by Xezlec at 9:27 AM on December 27 [1 favorite -] Favorite added! [!]

I didn't say that we didn't get conned into our opinions as well. It's just easier for us to see US bullshit cause it isn't targeted at us.

Oh, and by the way, next time you see them, could you tell "most Americans" to go check out the above link? (I sure hope flickr can handle the traffic though!)
posted by Xezlec at 9:30 AM on December 27 [+] [!]


If you'd bothered to read the rest of my comment you'd see that was more or less my reccomendation. I was trying to argue that religious fundamentalists could be swayed this link or something similar.

An emotional argument for overturning Prop 8.
No, a very very stupid argument.


Emotional arguments are the only ones that are going to sway voters to overturn proposition 8. Logical arguments are for the courts.
posted by Pseudology at 12:00 AM on December 28, 2008


The solutions often posed are a case of "separate but equal," what I have been saying is not.

If you honestly believe that what you are proposing is not separate but equal, you have more research to do.

"Civil union" as a status separate from marriage is one that is inherently unequal as long as the government recognizes marriage. There are two ways to have equality:
* have the government stop recognizing marriage (and while I realize that's what some people here might advocate, that's really crazy talk for most people in this country)
* have the government recognize any marriage between two consenting adults.

If you could create a "civil union" that was equivalent to marriage, you'd be eliminating government recognition (and validation) of marriage. Using the name "marriage" for some people but not others is just a nice way of enshrining discrimination in our laws.
posted by grae at 6:46 AM on December 28, 2008


grae, I think you need to reread pretty much anything I wrote in this thread from my first post on.

I've never said preserve one label or class for one group or another. The whole process needs redefined for all, so that it is not inequitable for any, gay straight or single.

Otherwise you have have something even worse than "separate but equal" for those who choose not to marry. It's not the word people are hung up on, but the rights endowed with this word.

And yes, I realize that expecting married people to give up their subsidies, expecting gay people to not want to have those same subsidies, expecting the government to quit interfering in what ceremonies religious institutions want to conduct (and for whom) is crazy talk, which is why I haven't tilted at this windmill.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:49 AM on December 28, 2008


You can't win people over to supporting marriage equality.

I think we can win over many people -- we don't have to just wait for older people to die off. We need campaigns and messages that reflect the different grassroots here in California, that include Spanish and other languages, that include religious communities. We need substantial numbers of out gay people to talk about why they care about marriage equality. We need to "continue the conversation," make marriage equality more human and real for people. Which is why I think message campaigns like this (grassroots-created non-giant-LGBT organization approved, non-focus-group-test) photo set are fabulous, and one piece of the larger ongoing movement. (In the paraphrased words of Molly McKay, "if you have an idea, something you want to do for marriage equality, just fucking do it.")
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 12:23 PM on December 28, 2008


Optimus Chyme:
What percentage of black males are incarcerated?

See my previous post. I believe we are arguing over a mere difference in terminology.

Pseudology:
I didn't say that we didn't get conned into our opinions as well. It's just easier for us to see US bullshit cause it isn't targeted at us.

Point taken. I tend to kneejerk in response to perceived anti-American bias these days.
posted by Xezlec at 10:23 PM on December 28, 2008


desjardins, 107 comments (counting this one), 11 favorites to the thread so far, mostly civil discussion, very little derail...I think in the end this is a post you can be proud of.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:26 AM on December 29, 2008


So I wouldn't really consider it a vote on the issue.

Play whatever word games you like and consider it whatever you like. It is still hateful bigotry to take rights away from Americans, no matter how it is dressed up.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:02 PM on December 29, 2008


I'm probably going to offend more than a few people by saying this but, as a Canadian, I've always found that most Americans have been conned into holding their opinions

Given the location specified in your profile, and the riding you're probably in, it looks like you've been Conned. Stood up for some of Canada.

It's just easier for us to see US bullshit cause it isn't targeted at us.

You may think that.
posted by oaf at 8:25 PM on December 29, 2008


Oh, and I'm pretty sure that as much as it feels like you're doing something to run PR campaigns opposing bans on same-sex marriage, this probably won't be resolved except through the courts. (Did Loving come out right in the end due to a slick advertising campaign?) Keep in mind that same-sex marriage would still be illegal in some parts of Canada if not for a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.
posted by oaf at 8:28 PM on December 29, 2008


It is still hateful bigotry to take rights away from Americans, no matter how it is dressed up.

Agreed. I just debate whether a question that was on the ballot as simply "Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?" should be counted as a clear public vote on the issue. Alas, I think if the question to Connecticut voters was simply on gay marriage, it would not have had the same breakdown.
posted by smackfu at 1:47 PM on December 30, 2008


As a mormon in Arizona who voted against prop. 102, I really wish people would please stop blaming this on me. Thanks.

Also, y'all holding the signs on the sidewalk in front of the church on Sunday, could you keep back from the street a little. It's really hard to see the oncoming traffic. Rock on!
posted by Barry B. Palindromer at 3:57 PM on December 30, 2008


« Older Acoustic guitar virtuoso Clive Carroll is one of B...  |  Momentary Awe... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments