Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

I was afraid you'd take it that way, Phil.

In truth, there ARE distinctions, for some people. And if the outlook is "support us in everything, or don't support us at all," I think the gay community might find itself losing some valuable allies.

I didn't say the distinctions are morally right; I said I think they exist. As in, will need to be dealt with. As the results of the election would seem to show.

Sorry I didn't make my point clear.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/547356/
In particular the seventh paragraph:

Phil - let me see what I can do without fine distinctions and parsing.

If California is against gay marriage, then we can assume most of the country is as well. That means that getting things changed is a HUGE, huge battle - larger, perhaps, than we realized. It shouldn't be - but it is. But it is primarily a battle against religious and cultural tradition. It's not about race; that's a detour, and a damaging one.

The remarks about black voters are expensive (whether they're right or wrong.) I support gay marriage, and I find such comments off-putting and unnecessary. The gay community needs all the support it can get. It shouldn't risk alienating supporters with snarky remarks, and it shouldn't get distracted from the real problem, which is religion.

If the fight for gay marriage is to be seen as a civil right, it needs to be projected that way. For better or worse, the image most Americans have of gay people in large numbers has to do with chaps and parties. That image needs to be replaced with a sobriety and respect.

How about a massive and peaceful march on Salt Lake City - in suits and work clothes, clothes that say "we are serious people making a serious point." The American people badly need new images of the gay community. For God's sake - Californians should understand image.

I'm not saying the gay community needs to "act straight" - I would never say that. But I am saying there needs to be a middle ground. The gay community is a minority, and not a very big one. The majority is not going to walk across a bridge to meet minority needs. it should happen that way, but it won't.

The gay community needs a plan, it needs leadership, and it needs communication, and it needs a serious image change. California citizens sent a strong message of disapproval. It's time for positive countermoves.

The truth is that there shouldn't even be an issue labeled "gay rights. Unfortunately, there is. The gay community should be strong enough now to be able to work with the straight community without losing its identity, and to focus its energy on the real source of the block.

You can't have it both ways: Be for "gay rights" and be against gay marriage.

Rights are rights.

...so either you're for "gay rights" or you're not.

When one takes the stand "Give me everything I want, or give me nothing" -- one had better be prepared for nothing. If the goal is to gain legal recognition of rights, the risk of an either/or demand is too high for my taste.

If you put it that way then you're gonna get nothing from me. I strongly believe that the term "marriage" is a religions institution and should remain so. It is up to the religions of the world to decide who they allow to marry. If you ask me to change that then you'll get a flat "no".

If you ask for civil union and equal civil rights than you'll get "yes".

Apples and oranges, Julia. You speak of tactics, I speak of rights. You may or may not be correct about how we should approach the issue. But that is not at all what I am speaking to.

Remember, my post was in response to an issue of whether this is a civil rights issue or not. Nothing you or Kap nor anyone else has said bears at all on that issue. So long as government has its nose in the marriage issue, which it obviously does, it has the Constitutional duty to treat all its citizens equally.

The California Supreme Court has determined that it is not equal treatment to gran some citizens a marriage license and others a Domestic Partnership certificate.

That ruling places the issue squarely in the arena of civil rights. They did not get into the question of whether the state should be in the business of marriage because that issue was not before them and is not a judicial issue to determine.

This is not a gay rights issue, it is a civil rights issue. Civil rights are civil rights. There is no separate "gay rights" or "Asian rights" or "African American rights", there are civil rights.

Once that point is clear, I am more than ready to talk about tactics with those who are active in pursuing civil rights for all.

However, the way you go about fighting for your "civil rights" could turn people that might support you into people that either stop activily supporting you or even into someone that opposes you.

Apples have become oranges.

I agree with your comment in principle, kap, but unfortunately in practice, the "rites" of marriage have been inextricably intertwined with the "rights" of marriage. I would like nothing more than to see the Constitutional guarantee of separation of Church and State strictly observed in the matter of marriage, and I hope that the issue of "gay marriage" will ultimately provide the catalyst for the Supremes to make such a declaration.

Until then, I acknowledge that same-gendered couples are being denied the same rights as different-gendered couples and that the proper way to address that is to afford the same validity in the eyes of the law to same-gendered couples no matter what religious institution their "rites" are performed in - or none.

Undoubtedly true, Kap, but that is a very weak commitment to equal rights, is it not? Aren't civil rights a part of our system precisely for those whom are disliked by the public?