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.
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.
