Doug Mainwaring, a gay tea party activist and writer, notes the "thin margins for same-sex marriage" in deep blue states and concludes:
"...In my home state, Maryland, a minimum of 23% [100% - (37%/48%) = 23%] of the opposition to same-sex marriage came from Obama/Biden supporters. Earlier in the year, the Maryland House of Delegates only narrowly passed same-sex marriage legislation with just one vote to spare, and that only came with lots of arm-twisting.
These are not overwhelming victories representing a sea change in public attitude toward same-sex marriage. These are tactical wins." -- AmericanThinker
60 Comments
LOL, a win is a win. Of course, NEVER should Americans basic civil rights be put to a vote. But I love how, all of a sudden, those who would prohibit marriage equality are saying that this historic election is somehow not a change in the American peoples basic views. All one has to do is to look to any major polling company (Gallop, Pew) and they see an ever increasing support for marriage equality. This election is just proof of that change.
NOM you are in denial. Time to wake up and realize you will lose this fight to prohibit gay people from having our civil rights. And it will be through court action, not popularity contest at the ballot. You now look like grmpy old white supremacists who couldn't cope with school integration. Funny thing is, you are so blindsighted by your bigotry that you can't even see that most young Americans view you as tired old hatefilled bigots. I'm just eating all of this up. The fact that you no longer have the "will of the people" talking point has you jumping through hoops to try to retain some semblance of dignity now that you have lost all credibility.
Dan... I'm shocked your comment got posted. Mine only gets through about 50% of the time. Your comment is dead on. Good job.
Gay identity politics, like all politics, will have its ups and downs. These are indeed tactical wins, using lies as primary tools. Can they redefine society on a foundation of lies? I don't think so. We'll see.
Barb, you are the one with the identity politics not gay people. You are a heterocentrist who thinks gays don't have children, despite the fact we do. Barb, have you ever been out of your small hamlet and met any gay couples with children?
Barb, 40 percent of gay couples in California have kids. Barb, have you met any of those families?
Davey, thanks! About one third of my comments don't make it. I can just see Brian Brown sitting there scrambling to delete all the pro-equality comments as they come in!!
@Dan
"About one third of my comments don't make it"
Funny...most of mine don't make it through and I'm "evil" as one leftists some blogs back put it.
A win's a win, that's understandable, and these states approved them with clear(albeit narrow) majorities. Leftwing states always adopt leftwing policies, this isn't new.
Dan -
Homosexual couples don't "have" children; Having children means "creating" children, which homosexual couples can never do. This is more semantics games from the homosexual activists.
Any children that homosexual couples raise were created by at least one person outside the couple. Gay couples raise other peoples' children.
Barb says..."Gay identity politics, like all politics, will have its ups and downs. These are indeed tactical wins, using lies as primary tools. Can they redefine society on a foundation of lies? I don't think so. We'll see".
Like our "identity" is "lying politics". That's all we are. Now I know Barb doesn't know any gay people. You should get out more, sweetie. It's a beautiful, diverse world we live in.
I've met gay couples with children. The kids have issues relating to the opposite sex when they get older because they've never lived in a household with an opposite-sex couple. I've seen similar issues with children of single parents; it's unfortunate for the kids, but perhaps better than living in an orphanage.
The victory of same-sex marriage initiatives were certainly tactical victories. The fact is that as long as our species is perpetuated by male-female couples, male-female couples will always have special recognition in society, of greater consequence and value to society than homosexual couples.
The funny part about these attacks on me from the opposition is that my close associations with same-sex couples in possession of children is exactly what caused me to *stop* supporting pseudo-marriage.
The more you learn about pseudo-marriage, the less likely you are to support it.
"you can't even see that most young Americans view you as tired old hatefilled bigots"
This is the tactical false argument that won the initiatives. The real haters are the homosexuals who hate heterosexual couples, their procreative capacity, and their unique contribution to society. We pro-marriage folks are only looking out for children and for the stability of our society. Kids have a right to a mom and a dad; society has an interest in men and women joining in lifelong unions to assure that kids have both a mom and a dad and that moms and dads, not taxpayers and not strangers, take responsibility for the children that they create.
The funny part about these attacks on me from the opposition is that my close associations with same-sex couples in possession of children is exactly what caused me to stop supporting pseudo-marriage.
The more you learn about pseudo-marriage, the less likely you are to support it.
Davey, boy, O Davey boy, the truth is calling: your life, based as it is on abnormal sexual desire, emotional confusion, and ideological fallacies, is NO model. And I can assure you that NO normal thinks your world is beautiful and diverse, and we have no need to venture into it, and we feel NO loss whatsoever - your side has nothing to offer except the same ol rationalizations that libertines have been touting since Time Immemorial. Yawn! Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.
Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.
OvercameSSA,: I know a number of opposite sex couples who are raising other peoples kids.
And you know, I know opposite sex couples who have kids and some of those kids have problems too. Isn't that interesting?
Again, if it's all about procreation, why allow infertile couples to marry? Because of show?
"Again, if it's all about procreation, why allow infertile couples to marry? Because of show?"
Because we have no way of knowing they are infertile, and we don't want to discriminate against women by putting a child-bearing age limit on marriage.
Also, because according to the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, since marriage is reviewed under rational basis scrutiny, our laws don't have to be narrowly tailored to the point of insanity to satisfy your irrational demands.
Ash, if my 80 year old mother would want to re-marry, I can tell you 100% she will not have children.
And you have the nerve to talk about "narrowly tailored"? When you want to DENY Americans their right to marry? The procreation argument has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, no matter how much you dance around them.
MarkOH, no one is denying anyone the right to marry. Gay individuals, infertile individuals, and older individuals can get married.
"Ash, if my 80 year old mother would want to re-marry, I can tell you 100% she will not have children. "
Exactly. Women become infertile when they reach a certain age. Men don't. Do you want laws saying that if a married couple over forty divorces, the husband can remarry but the wife can't?
Foolishness. You are desperate for your cause, and thus subject marriage to a much higher standard than any other law. You would never say that marriage isn't about love or commitment because the government doesn't make sure every person who gets married is in love or will remain committed to each other. You don't even subject other requirements for marriage (such as relatedness) to the same standard. You're a hypocrite, desperate for ssm and willing to become irrational in your arguments.
Again, the SUPREME COURT sets the standards for rational basis review; has determined that pro-ssm challenges on marriage are to be reviewed under that level of scrutiny; and thus said that the law does not have to be "narrowly tailored." How do I have "the nerve" when I'm referencing the Supreme Court!
To prevent older people and infertile individuals from marrying would LITERALLY constitute discrimination--unlike in the case with gays, who are allowed to marry but don't like the requirements.
MarkOH,
Please explain why the government is involved in marriage.
Ash, "no one is denying anyone the right to marry"
Well, actually, NOM has spent a great deal of money to prevent some people from getting married.
Ash, please try to keep your thoughts consistent. You said "Because we have no way of knowing they are infertile, and we don't want to discriminate against women by putting a child-bearing age limit on marriage." in response to my queery about procreation being required for marriage. And then turn around and say to prevent non-procreating couples the right to marry is discrimination. Please, be consistent.
Ash, you need to calm down. You are staring to ramble. Your diatribe about SSM can be used for OSM as well.
"Please explain why the government is involved in marriage."
LOL, that's a good question. At this point, in the US, we have had 200 years of involvement. But it isn't JUST about children. It concerns property, healthcare, support, and, yes, love and commitment. Children are sometimes involved and sometimes not.
MarkOH, I'm being consistent. I've told you why we allow older and infertile individuals to marry. And I noted that to prevent them from marrying would constitute actual discrimination.
" LOL, that's a good question."
You bet it's good. You can't answer it! You can't provide a coherent argument for why the government would involve itself in a relationship of two people. As other marriage supporters--particularly Chairm--have noted, all you can do is attack the rationale provided by others, without offering one yourself. In the words of Randy, all you can say is "no it isn't" and "so what?"
Your theory of marriage doesn't have holes. It is a hole.
MarkOH
Ash is perfectly consitant as are her arguments. Any number of relationships in society involve mutual caregiving and domestic arrangments =- and could benifit from the legal rights occorded to married couples.
The male/female couple is the only coupling capable of producing children together so it is uniquily the only coupling recognized as marriage.
Ash, I put out a very good reason for government involvement. The fact that you can't comprehend it is your issue.
But answer me this: IS marriage all about procreation or isn't?
Fitz, you show the inconsistency too, I see. Marriage is about a man and a woman who procreate. Except when they don't. Why make an exemption for infertile couples but not same sex couples?
MarkOH,
“Ash, I put out a very good reason for government involvement. The fact that you can't comprehend it is your issue.”
No you didn’t. You didn’t even give a reason. You just said, “Sometimes marriage is about health insurance. Sometimes it’s about property.”
“But answer me this: IS marriage all about procreation or isn't?”
From a government standpoint, I would say, yes. It’s about inducing men and women to enter into stable and monogamous sexual relationships to circumscribe procreation and make the activity conducive to father involvement. If you don’t believe that’s the purpose of civil marriage, you could always ATTEMPT to offer a reasonable alternative explanation for why civil marriage exists!
“Why make an exemption for infertile couples but not same sex couples?”
It really isn’t an exemption. Persons of the opposite-sex can mate and form a marriage, regardless of whether they are fertile. But again, one difference between same-sex couples and infertile INDIVIDUALS is that the former are patently incapable of reproduction, while it would be impossible for the state to know which man and woman will not procreate. To set an upper-age limit on marriage will disadvantage women, while keeping marriage as an opposite-sexed union discriminates against NO ONE.
You guys have lost your minds in the pursuit of ssm. Why would the government even attempt to go through such an unconstitutional exercise to determine procreative capacity, when the vast majority of male-female unions produce children? There is Supreme Court precedent which establishes that the people do not have to make laws based on every possible exception. Laws can be based on general facts, one of which being that male-female unions create children. The government is not required to create abstract symmetry, and ignore very real differences between two relationships, just because a few exceptions to the rule exist. That would be like saying that we must treat infants and adults *exactly* the same, because some adults have disabilities that render them incapable of walking and talking. All infants below a certain age can’t walk and talk; some adults can’t; there are no differences between infants and adults.
Furthermore, nothing must be changed to accommodate infertile people when they marry. SSM requires us to pretend that two women engaging in a sexual relationship are responsible for the birth of a child to the exclusion of a biological parent, among other things; and will undoubtedly lead to triple-parenting, as it has in Canada. It totally calls into question the theoretical basis for the institution of marriage.
Preventing infertile people from marrying constitutes actual discrimination, and would be struck down in court, as it constitutes the removal of a right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions.
Marriage between one man and one woman IS equality. The two groups bind together and care and this brings us ALL together. Men then care for women, and women care for men. That is equal.
Ash "Preventing infertile people from marrying constitutes actual discrimination, and would be struck down in court, as it constitutes the removal of a right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions."
As does preventing same sex couples to marry. NOTHING in what you have written explains why you feel some people should be denied the right to marry. And if procreation is SUCH an important part of what defines marriage then government has an obligation to prove procreation. Otherwise the marriage should be annulled. And that's the failing of the whole procreation theory. You make an exception for an opposite sex couple that could not POSSIBLY procreate. So there is no reason to deny a same sex couple. Unless you merely support the appearance which is a shame. I believe reality is far more important than appearance.
MarkOH
Again ash shows greater knowledge and sophistication than the sophistry you engage in..
"deeply rooted in our history and tradition" is legal termonology supporting the right to marriage as an unenumerated right.
What your talking about is NOT marriage...but your own pure relationship theory no were supported in law nor "deeply rooted in our history and tradition"
Gay people already have the right to get married. Because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex they choose not to avail themselves of this right.
What you want to do is change the definition of that right..
Interesting quote in the NYT:
“The die is cast on this issue,” said Steve Schmidt, who advised the presidential campaigns of Senator John McCain and George W. Bush and has for years urged Republicans to accept same-sex marriage. “Why should we sign a suicide pact with the National Organization for Marriage?” Mr. Schmidt asked, saying the party should instead endorse the principles of federalism and let the states decide the matter.
Fitz, "Gay people already have the right to get married. Because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex they choose not to avail themselves of this right."
What a STUPID, ILLOGICAL response!
But, like so many who hate gays, you believe that a fake marriage is better than a true one. Sad.
@MarkOH,
“And that's the failing of the whole procreation theory.”
Please offer an alternative theory on the purpose of civil marriage.
@Fitz, thank you. MarkOH isn't even trying to engage the substance of my post.
Zack, blue states have rejected marriage perversion before: see Proposition 8 and Oregons measure 36, the fact that they are starting to approve it now is worrying at the least. The reason is because they control public schools and have successfully fooled an entire generation: people who were born from 1987 onwards. People really believe all this "equality" nonsense
Ash, I attempted to post my response but the system will not accept it (probably too logical). Leave it to say, civil marriage provides legal protections for two consenting adults committing their lives together. It also helps to protect any children that result.
Your theory on the purpose of marriage is that the government just wants to provide legal benefits for two friends for no specific reason, and yet set a bunch of arbitrary limits around which adult relationships it decides to protect (they can't be related, etc.).
Yeah, that's logical.
You ever wonder why many marriage supporters view ssm as destructive to marriage? It's not always because the marriage supporter hates gay people. It's sometimes because the explanations offered for the purpose of marriage are so poor. What you just said completely demotes marriage from being a relationship that has any societal purpose or that warrants any government concern.
You can't even explain why marriage is a sexual relationship. You just started at what marriage does without explaining its purpose.
"The government just wants to provide legal benefits for two friends for no specific reason"
It's what happens now, with some opposite sex couples. But, tell me, is EVERY marriage a sexual relationship currently? (wow, you anti-equality people are SURE hung up on sex). And why do you think a same sex couple does not engage in sex?
"wow, you anti-equality people are SURE hung up on sex"
Uh, yeah, because sex produces children, duh. Yes, it's a big deal.
Same-sex couples don't really have sex; "sex" is really short for "sexual intercourse," which involves penetration of one sexual organ into another sexual organ (as opposed to penetration of a sexual organ into an excretion organ). Same-sex couples participate in sodomy, a term that rightly makes the distinction between the use of sexual organs that can cause procreation and the kind of sexual contact that does nothing but put the parties at risk of harming one another.
Using the word "sex" to apply to both M-F and SS couples is yet another example of how homosexuals try to demonstrate that such couples are the same. Different things need different names.
It is very apparant that these "wins" are very narrow and not exclusively Republican. That means a number of Democrats find this so called union unacceptable.
Oh look! Overcame is talking about sodomy again!
Must be Wednesday....
Overcame - Nice one
"Uh, yeah, because sex produces children, duh. Yes, it's a big deal."
Layne -
I'm talking about sodomy because the fact that M-F sex produces children is an important distinction from same-sex couples whose "sex" can never create children. Contrary to homosexuals' apparent belief that use of the sex organs is just for fun, the use of sex organs between men and women can have huge consequences not only for the couple but for society.
Bend over and smell the coffee, Layne.
"Latino voters are more likely than the electorate in general to support gay marriage, according to exit polls reported by ABC News"
"Latino voters are more likely than the electorate in general to support gay marriage, according to exit polls reported by ABC News"
There go the Dems again, who ostensibly stand for a unified electorate, dividing the electorate on the basis of the country of ancestoral origin. What does this statistic do but generalize about people of Latin-American ancestry, akin to generalizing about Jews, Polish people, and Italians. It not only perpetuates divisions in the country, it's insulting to the individuals within those divisions.
This is a media ploy to get Republicans to change their views on so-called "gay marriage" in order to gain the support of a minority group. The Latinos that I know are intelligent, independent thinkers who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Well, when you're demanding societal approval for your sexual practices, it's not necessarily unreasonable for someone to examine why the practices don't deserve societal praise.
When you're trying to change the nature and definition of a sexual relationship (marriage), then we might want to know the distinctive features of the sexual behavior that is fueling the demands for change.
I'm just sayin...
*Correction: " ...it's not necessarily unreasonable for someone to examine and discuss why..."
@Overcame: "Bend over and smell the coffee, Layne."
WOW!! Just...wow. About a subtle as a cockroach crawling across a white rug, my HETEROSEXUAL friend. Your obsession with "sodomy" is mystifying.
Plus I didn't realize that every single straight coupling results in a pregnancy. Cause you KNOW straight people NEVER do it just for "fun", right?
...As for "bending over" to "smell the coffee", I'd like to point out for the record that I'm a top!
Lynn
I dont read Overcame as "obsessed" with sodomy. A fairer critique of his post reveals that he simply is making the distinction beteen procrative couplings and those that are always and everywere incapable of procreation as a coupling.
Thats a pretty easy "birds & bees" type point that (amusingly enough) must be lost on adovcates for same-sex "marriage".
The entire history of the insitution of marriage and the legal precedent on this issue bring up the procrative rational for marriage over and over again.
Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge 'breeding" as impostant amoung heterosexual couplings is a denial of a fundmental and enormously cosequential moral fact.
OvercameSSA: From Mariam Webster: "Sexual intercourse - intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis "
Oh, and then there is this:
"people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives"
So, sounds like heterosexuals are doing a LOT of sodomy as well.
Layne, LOL, yeah I thought, so much for overcoming, OvercameSSA
Fitz, "bring up the procrative rational for marriage"
Sigh, either procreation IS a rational for marriage or it isn't, which is it pleas?. And then, again, if it is, explain to me why do you allow infertile couples to be married, but deny same sex couples the same rights?
"And then, again, if it is, explain to me why do you allow infertile couples to be married, but deny same sex couples the same rights?"
It's been explained to you before. I guess you didn't read the thread, which is nothing new.
Oh Ash, of COURSE I read the thread. The problem is, you are not consistent. Your impression of what marriage is full of holes and crumbles every time someone asks you a question. Nothing is definite about it except that gays are not allowed to participate. And that would be discrimination.
MarkOH, what I've offered on marriage is consistent and sturdy, while you don't even have a clue of why marriage exists.
Ash, I fully understand that some people, using an idea from the Catholics, that marriage is Jesus and his bride (the church) are the perfect union, and through intercourse, they create the Holy Spirit. I get that. I also understand why people feel marriage is important to raise children. Got that too. What I DON'T get is that, without any evidence to the contrary, people are working SO HARD to prevent same sex couples from marrying. It would create MORE stable relationship for children to grow up in, decrease promiscuity (based on opposite sex marriage ideals) and give the legal protections to two consenting adults and any children they are raising. I just don't see any problem with that.
MarkOH, you don't have any evidence that ssm will result in stable relationships or decreased promiscuity. Not that stability bestowed on such a small portion of relationships would negate the changes that would have to be made to apply laws devised for opposite-sex couples to two different sets of relationships.