The dude who sang, "If we can't make babies, maybe we can make some time" (a great, great line by the way) is anti-gay. I think Andrew is drawing a bizarre line between Prince's homophobia and Prop 8 and black people. In the 80s, Madonna wanted to be black more than Prince. Isn't he a Jehovah's Witness? Doesn't that likely have a lot more to do with his beliefs than being black?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Prince best be conscious of who makes it rain in his world. Remember the Beyonce flap where she said something disparaging about LGBT and watched her record sales drop? The apology was forthcoming.
Who is Prince kidding? He knows where he got those blouses, and it damn sure wasn't the Men's Section either.
Before we bash the shit out of Prince it should be noted that he claims the interview was conducted without a tape recorder and that he was grossly misquoted. Form your own conclusions.
I saw that Sara. I'm not sure I buy it.
I'm getting tired of the AA's are bigoted homophobes and am starting to feel some sympathy for the white folk who've got my damned til proved sentiment on race when I was younger.
The fact is there is a huge swath of AMERICA that is religious and bound to the tenents of their faith and use that to justify their homophobia. That's just it. This is something that IMO cuts along religious lines more than it does ethnic lines. The fact is, if the Republican party had REMAINED the party of Lincoln and not become bigoted then our current president-elect would likely have been a Republican. This desperate need, because a majority of AA voters voted to ban gay marriage in CA, to make them suddenly all homophobes is disheartening. The fact is that most church going white folk don't support marriage for gays; why not talk about that? The Evangelical church, the Catholic church ASKED the Mormon church to support the Yes on 8 cause and the Mormons went all out. So basically; you can't signal them out. The Catholic Church has been JUST as political; but I don't see people protesting them. Why? Because it's cool to hate on Mormons but it's not cool to hate on Catholics. Similarly, it's cool to call all AAs homophobic but you can't say that a majority of white folk are homophobic. Ignore the fact that AK said that gays can't adopt and FL has said not only can gays not adopt but that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Anyway, I think that the prop 8 folk aren't making a dent hitting on Mormons or black folk. That's been going on a long time. When they take on the CATHOLIC CHURCH, then they'll be starting down the road to having a hurtful and long overdue conversation. When they take on the Evangelical church like Rick Warren, then they'll be having a long overdue conversation.
But just hitting on black people and Mormons is wrong. They may have played a part on Prop 8; but Mormons don't make a majority of the vote.
People CHOSE to accept the Yes on 8 arguments and no one made an effort to have these brilliant No on 8 rallies when it counted; before Nov. 4th.
Don't blame the haters for being organized. Blame yourself for beliveing that love wins; the history of the world shows love only comes to those who fight for it.
JMHO
lol @ laborlibert
And Prince is a practicing Jehovah's Witness. I think his religion, not his race, explains his stance here. But I'm wondering what his stance is once his quotations are put in-context.
I have to join you in saying that AS is getting out of line here in conflating Prince's homophobia with the lack of support for gay marriage rights among African Americans. And I'm also getting tired of this focus on black homophobia at a special, distinctive magnet for anger and frustration at homophobia in general. But I don't completely buy the idea that we can just skip over race and go straight to religion as an explanatory force, though, because those two aspects aren't independent from each other.
I think it has a lot more to do with Prince's obviously being the gayest man in showbusiness (regardless of whether he sleeps with men).
Are we all forgetting the fact that Prince is absolutely batcakes and nothing that ever comes out of his mouth should be taken seriously? I would posit that had he put out a statement in support of gay marriage, it would be more detrimental to the cause. Sort of like Gavin Newsom in assless chaps.
I kind of always thought Prince tried a bit too hard to prove his macho cred. I mean I always thought he was hetero, but just kind of insecure somewhere.
He's always been a bit obnoxious and full of himself.
Jehovah Witnesses will excommunicate your ass if you're gay, period. That said, Prince may or may not have ever gotten it on with boys, but he sure as hell has partaken of gay culture and enjoyed mucho gay support. Keep ya hate to yourself or get ready to feel the burn.
In other news, hearing that Wanda Sykes came out this weekend made my day!!! Now if only Queen Latifah saw fit to join the party :)
I'm with those who thought "Doesn't his being a Jehovah's Witness have more to do with it?" I kind of doubt they're pro-gay marriage.
Meh. I'm more inclined to believe The Purple One's claim of being misquoted. His entire career has been built on sexual ambiguity, so I seriously doubt he hates teh geighs. All of this reaching is rather ridiculous.
What I love about gays is that the moment Prince "corrects" the quote, we'll forgive him.
I mean, who wants to live a single second without "Kiss" and "Purple Rain"? LOL.
Whatever - clearly, it's related to being a Jehovah's Witness.
But also, come on:
Prince is one of the gayest straight men around. That's clear to anyone who's paying attention. Doesn't mean he IS gay, or moe likely, bi - although that's possible. He may simply have a feminine style, though also strongly hetero.
At any rate - as I've said before, there is going to need to be a broad religious interpretation, that sees gay marriage as an acceptable religious choice.
While possible in some churches, or traditions, still isn't strong enough to overcme what is being taught in most churches.
I wrote off his Purpleness when he decided to no longer perform his raunchier (and best) material (no Erotic City, no Sexy MF, no Gett Off, etc.) in concert due to his rededication to his faith.
Also this is the guy who had his lawyers get a video pulled from Youtube that had a baby dancing while "Let's Go Crazy" played in the background.
Sometimes it's hard to separate the art from the artist, but you have to. Otherwise I couldn't in good conscience go to those awesome Michael Jackson vs. Prince parties that pop up every year here in NYC.
Unearthing the "seething homophobia" in the black community... Prince having to express more homophobia than most "feminized midgets" because he happens to be a "black dandy"...
I'm finding the language extremely problematic as well.
Weren't Wendy and Lisa lesbians?
"But just hitting on black people and Mormons is wrong. They may have played a part on Prop 8; but Mormons don't make a majority of the vote."
They are not at all the same and it's just wrong to lump them together.
Black preachers didn't exhort their congregants to make campaign donations thet way the Moromom Church. Mormon money put the proposition over the top.
What makes the Mormon role in this result all the more revolting is the peopl-in-glass houses part of it. Moromonism is the original deviant life-style in this country's history, and that's saying a lot with all of our religious communes and whatnot. And the they're going to go preaching about how society should look? It's pretty laughable seeing the Mormons claim to be soem kind of defenders of traditional marriage. it's a transparently opportunistic ploy to try to make themsleves look mainstream and respectable.
The other huge difference is that there is any soul-searching at all in the AA community. Something like this happened here in the Seattle area a few years ago when a black preacher of a mixed church tried to brand himself as some kind of righteous moral crusader on this. What happened was ghe provoked a debate, and it mostly went against him as the grannies in the Amen Corner sorted through the issue.
It's ridiculous to point to Prince as representative of the black community. How many times on this blog has TNC made the point that no group is monolithic and having one person (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Prince) speak for it is useless.
While I agree with Lemmy that race and religion are not completely independent of each other, in this I think being a Jehovah's Witness is entirely the reason Prince is now apparently anti-gay. It's the same reason he's stopped performing his raunchy stuff (though he's still plenty suggestive with his stage act).
I'm not sure proving his macho cred has anything to do with it in Prince's case (since when is he macho?), but I do think machismo and what men's traditional roles are supposed to be is worth a serious look in relation to homophobia. This is true for the culture at large, not just blacks.
Jim, As a Mormon who doesn't live in Cal and didn't vote, but would have voted Yes, I think it has nothing to do with wanting to be mainstream.
I don't want to be mainstream. I would appreciate the respect of the mainstream, or at least like not to be treated unfairly (to say it kindly) by the mainstream, but I would never vote in a way to "be mainstream". Never. And I can assure you most mormons wouldn't either. Really.
The reason why Mormons went out and spent their dollars and donated their time to the cause they believed in was because they believed in it. I can assure you people didn't go out and knock door to door for hours on end "to be mainstream."
They did it because for a Mormon being married is one of the most important things you can do in this life.
@Rhoda: There's a good reason for going after the Mormons--20 million of them, to be exact. That's how much the LDS Church contributed directly and indirectly to Prop 8; it comes to half the total raised by the Yes side. Certainly the Catholic Church supported it, but they were surprisingly quiet. The Mormons invested huge amounts of time and manpower.
The other part is that for Californians like me, busing people in and running phone banks from Utah to force through a change in the California state constitution is just another instance of out-of-staters trying to tell us how to run our business. If they really want to spend millions in California, they could start by maybe giving money to the state workers who are losing their jobs because of the budget shortfall. But that would actually involve helping people instead of hurting them.
Darkrose,
I don't know how many actually were bused in. I think that's pretty silly. If it happened it was a handful of extremely interested individuals and certainly not concerted effort. There are more Mormons in California than Utah.
Why do you keep pimpin posts from the fake ass "blogger" Andrew Sullivan? In my mind, you cannot have a world-class blog and not allow your readers to comment. Sullivan hides behind BS excuses to justify is refusal to let his readers talk to him (and, more importantly, each other) in a public and open reader's comments section. I can only presume that he does this to censor and exercise complete editorial control over public reactions to is often over-the-top posts. Sullivan needs to grow up and open his blog to discourse. Until then, forget about him.
As for the Sullivan post at issue, it is just another example of Sullivan's refusal to see religion for the societal cancer that it is. Sullivan likes to think that his regligion is OK but everbody else's religion is fucked up, just like every other fundamentalist freak on the street. Call him on it and he goes all "Don't you dare question my relgion" on you, again, just like every other fundamentalist freak on the street. Prince's stance on gay rights is 100% the result of his association with the JWs and has nothing to do with his skin color.
Jehovah Witnesses will excommunicate your ass if you're gay, period.
Their term is "disfellowship," but the end result is the same. I've been in recovery for 14 years now.
I am deeply offended by Andrew's continuing posts about Black people being homophobes. He still continues to post this even though there is legit research on 538 refuting this issue.
Did a Black man break Andrew's heart or something? Dayum.
His constant hammering of Sarah Palin was amusing to me during September through November, but if he does the same thing on Black folks and homophobia, I will wonder about his sanity and his ability to think critically.
"Sullivan likes to think that his regligion is OK but everbody else's religion is fucked up, just like every other fundamentalist freak on the street. Call him on it and he goes all "Don't you dare question my relgion" on you,"
Not to doubt Andy's devotion, but his piety strikes me as calculated. An affected "blind spot" to prove that he can't be pigeon-holed. I wouldn't take his indignation seriously.
If homophobia is more widespread among the black demographic generally* then I could see this as being a way for Prince to overcompensate for his flaming girlyness, except for the fact that I don't believe that the black demographic - much less the homophobe elements - are really responsible for keeping his career alive [is his career alive?].
So I don't see it as a pander, the way Sullivan suspects, because the facts don't line up with that. In fact, he has much more to lose by alienating the gays. This really sounds like religion talking; he's pandering to a god that he probably suspects is unappy with his "put anything anywhere"-lovin' past. Poor fool.
* and I don't know if it's true or not, or if it's racist to make any generalizations about black people, period, other than "they have darker skin than white people". I really don't know.
Wait -what? Sullivan criticizes his religion [the church, probably more accurately] all the time. More than I, as a non-Catholic, am interested in, in fact.
Also, he asked his readers if they wanted a comment section and they voted no, so there you go. I voted yes, but hey, it's not like I don't have more than enough places to suck away my time and my life, correcting the wrongness on the internet.
I agree that Sullivan went way over the line in his comment. If he goes overboard on Palin - okay, but I think it's getting pretty close to overt racism for him to blame black people for the defeat of Prop. 8. It's important to figure out why Prop. 8 failed - but not through blaming a whole group of people.
Mormons may have given a lot of money to support the Yes on 8 campaign (something which is, by the way, perfectly their right), but that doesn't mean that every Mormon did so. Nor does it mean that people should picket outside of Mormon temples - I don't think that people should be disturbed when engaging in their religious practices. (I'm Jewish and certainly don't want people demonstrating outside synagogues if they don't like something that Israel has done).
And by the way, I'm an opponent of Prop. 8. If I lived in California, I would have voted against it.
These criticisms of Sullivan are, I think, mostly unfounded. Anyone who reads his cite regularly knows that he is the first to criticize himself and his Church.
He is focusing on the Mormons and blacks because they were two of the major forces behind the passage of Prop 8. Is he using discreet examples (Prince) to make generalizations? Of course. But this is a valid method of persuasion (if not the soundest method of argument).
I think that Sullivan thinks that blacks need to wake up and realize that their discrimination stinks as bad as anyone else's. I also think that alot of what many on this cite have complained of as over the top rhetoric from Sully and Savage is intentionally provocative.
"They did it because for a Mormon being married is one of the most important things you can do in this life. "
That doesn't answer the mail at all. What connection is there between your marriage and anyone else's arrangement?
The bigger point is why what Moromons believe or don't believe should matter to anyone else or play any role whatsoever in how non-Mormons live.
This or that group's religious views of marriage should be normative for the rest of society. It's really a question of how much of an American you are, how much you hold to the Constitution or not.
I won't even begin to commnent on the odiousness of someone in Utah, or Sonora, for that matter, sending money to influence an election in California.
Q: What do you call an American that puts the Bible before the Constitution?
A: a traitor.
Q: What do you call a Christian who puts the Torah before the Gospel?
A: A Pharisee.
(Obviously not directed at you, Sam.)
__________
When asked about his perspective on social issues—gay marriage, abortion—Prince tapped his Bible and said, “God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, ‘Enough.’ ”
__________
Is it on this basis that I'm to believe that Prince represents a "seething black homophobia?" I'm not feeling the anger. I don't even know what this sentence means, much less whether Prince is talking queer sex or hetero sex that ends in pregnancy. Not only am I tired of folks bashing black people as being more homophobic than white people, but I am frustrated that so many people are willing to target individuals rather than look at institutions and institutionalized oppression and bigotry. Granted, there is a relationship between the two, but we can't keep making generalizations about groups of people if we want to come to the table and have a conversation about how to move forward. There IS a difference between the Mormon Church and Mormons. People of faith face hard decisions in reconciling their spirituality---for many life-long---with their commitment to social justice.
I'm still waiting for Coates to link to some of the excellent writing coming out of the black communities---queer as well as straight, secular as well as religious---that looks at the various debates around marriage and gay marriage that influence our support of gay marriage.
They did it because for a Mormon being married is one of the most important things you can do in this life.
And thus they worked really hard to prevent a substantial number of people from getting married.
I don't think black people are uniquely, or even esspecially, responsible for what happened in California. However, gayness/homophobia in the black music industry is definitely a big topic that doesn't get much discussed. Little Richard's painful career is an obvious place to start. Homosexuality in black choirs and gospel music, and subsequent problems with HIV, is a huge issue (James Cleveland spent his life in the closet and died of AIDS, apparently.) And, yeah, Prince's religiosity probably has a lot to do with his position on gay issues -- but the confluence of gender ambiguity, conservative Christian faith, and homophobia is a major, major theme in black music through the decades.
bell hooks has a brutal essay about Madonna's relationship to blackness and gayness. It's pretty much my favorite piece of hers, I think.
@sam:
Do you really support Prop 8 and also just say that you would "like not to be treated unfairly (to say it kindly) by the mainstream"?
Just checking.
Sam,
I know enough about Mormonism be sure you're right about the importance of marriage, but not enough to explain it well. Acting on the belief that this issue isn't going to move without people listening to one another better, would you be willing to say a bit more about that?
Prince is saying he was misquoted. It was on Huffpost. All the more reason to be cautious before rushing to judge a whole community on the basis of one person.
Yes, yes, Sullivan regularly criticizes religion in a thoughtful and intelligent manner. I commend him on it and it keeps me coming back to his "blog" for more. Nevertheless, he is extremely thin-skinned about his own favored brand of religion (or spiritualism, if you like), as anyone who regularly watches Real Time With Bill Maher can attest. However, Andrew's intellectually suspect attempts to square his religion with his rationality screams for discourse with his readers, an intellectually honest approach to debate that Sullivan can't seem to stomach. Yes, Phoboe, Andrew like to tell us that his reader's voters against a comments section. First, I want to see the paper ballots. Second, that doesn't justify his refusal to engage with his reader as all intellectually honest bloggers do. Moreover, a majority voted in favor of Prop 8, but that doesn't make it right.
give the guy a break, AS has to find another bugbear to feed his hysterics, since hitting on the non-militaristic/antiwar crowd as quote: "decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column."endquote just doesn't sound so hip anymore...
What a blogger does with his own blog is his business. I voted against comments on Sullivan's blog. They can be distracting to bloggers and to their audiences. Sometimes the comments section even overshadows the blog or the commenters dictate the direction of the blog's conversation.
If I was a blogger I wouldn't have comments because I am insecure and would feel the need to argue with every random dude that disagreed with me.
______
And, yeah, Prince's religiosity probably has a lot to do with his position on gay issues -- but the confluence of gender ambiguity, conservative Christian faith, and homophobia is a major, major theme in black music through the decades.
______
While gender, conservative Christian faith, and homophobia might be a theme in black music, it is not the only theme, and I wouldn't even say it was a major theme, as that suggests that these concerns are simultaneously paramount in "black music", and I'm not sure I could stand behind that.
What would it mean if I were to say gender, conservative Christian faith, and homophobia is a theme in white music? Would that make any sense? I think we have to be careful not to disappear whiteness and it's relationship to homophobia.
It's always appropriate to map the specificities of oppression, and in this case of homophobia and its twin heterosexism, but at what cost do we keep blaming black folk? Even as folks are bashing the Mormons, why aren;t they identified by race? Is their whiteness usurped by their religiosity? Why then does blackness rise to the top, even as we are discussing the supposed religiosity of black people as a cohort (even as that religiosity, when evident, covers many diverse relationships to and understandings of faith)?
I think it's probably got even more to do with the fact that the man just LOVES pussy.
Because it's cool to hate on Mormons but it's not cool to hate on Catholics.
It isn't? For a long time it seemed like the only people you could be bigoted against in mainstream culture were Catholics and fat people.
For the record, its cool to hate on Mormans and Catholics. I think people are TOO nice both religions. Make fun of both of them as much as possible.
Love,
A Former Catholic
dizzy, I really don't think it's the thin-skinned-ness, because he regularly puts reader dissents up there, as posts. And his manner on Bill Maher, ahem, as a genetic Irish Catholic, I'll just say, that a bigger group of emotive arguers/drama queens you will not find. And he knows it. He knows that his vote for Obama was a vote for someone completely unlike himself temperamentally. But he's not all feeling and no thinking. He's all feeling AND all thinking, which is what makes it so fun to watch.
Oh, I should clarify. Don't actually make fun of Catholics if you're actually trying to convince them of something. That doesn't work out too well. I tried that with Mom and Dad over dinner on Saturday. Not effective.
@Jim
First, I'm sorry I walked out of work early and didn't see your post, I hope you get back to this thread.
(1) Mormons are a fraction of the population in CA, so their votes did not put this over the top. Their churches support of a bigoted proposition was VERY effective. That is a different aspect IMO. The Catholic Church has for years been just as active against not only gay people but women in the church; I haven't seen this kind of invective against them at all. Even during the priest-molestation scandal, I don't remember a mass uprising like this.
(2) I think you're being very judgmental about the Mormon faith. I don't disagree, but at the same time this doesn't seem to ME to be a fair point given the centuries of OTHER main stream religions (all the monotheistic ones I know) pretty much call homosexuals abominations. That's not new w/the Mormons.
(3) I think at the end of the day this was a failure of No on 8. People figured it's Cali, no need to get organized to get this through the gate. And the fact that this happened in Cali should illustrate the need for MORE education and persuasion. Not attack.
Voters in California made a choice after being presented with two campaigns. Their is no need for the over the top virulent rhetoric against African Americans or Mormons. Equality for all is an incredibly effective statement. And that equality was denied by fellow Californian citizens.
(4) EVEN if this was a play by Mormons to enter mainstream religious life and gain mainstream acceptance let's stop and think about this. That means in MAINSTREAM religious communities homophobia is accepted and celebrated and articulated as the right answer. So, homophobia is mainstream. I would think, at the end of the day, THAT would be a bigger problem than the millions poured into by the Mormon Church. Because the Mormon church was arguing a default position you're saying. And it nearly lost. Which means; you need to make equality and acceptance the default switch. This means, by your own argument, this is a BIGGER beef you have that expands to mainstream religion.
I don't see anyone carrying the water in that fight; and I think that's the REAL fight that people are ignoring. Attacks on the Mormon church, attacks on the African American community, these will not serve much but to harden some positions and not have a conversation that needs to happen.
What makes it acceptable to vote YES on Prop 8? That's what the No on 8 folks need to figure out and battle. I think the Equality for all, say yes to love, Olbermann route is the best one IMO. Because this isn't about the Mormon church, ethnic voters, or anything beyond the fact that it's okay to be homophobic at some level in this world. That's the fight that is going on here IMO.
Some folks, in their hurt and anger, are misdirecting.
JMHO
After assiduously promoting the notion that he was gay for several years, David Bowie came out and admitted that he had always been a "closet heterosexual." I think his point was that pretending to be gay was good for business.
Perhaps Prince, who briefly changed his name to that unisex symbol and wore those aforementioned pants at the Mtv awards, made a similar calculation.
At any rate, I hope the quote is not accurate because I would hate to have to *disfellowship" Prince from my ipod.
"I think his point was that pretending to be gay was good for business."
Maybe so, but I'm still convinced Bowie and Mick Jagger used to sleep together.
Weren't Wendy and Lisa lesbians?
Nope. Prince's band had a lot of intentional ambiguity and so there was a certain never fully stated "they have a relationship" in the movie Purple Rain and some other material, but IRL they are childhood friends. Wendy Melvoin married her high school sweetheart (aw!). During the Revolution days Lisa Coleman was dating Matt Fink---no clue now. Both decided to crank their media exposure way way back in the mid '90s, having switched to doing movie and TV soundtrack work. They're scoring the TV show Heroes and are about to release an album....
Deleted. Are you serious?
Good points moonmarked. I have to say I am beginning to find Andrew insufferable. Why choose to focus on Prince (as spokesman for teh blacks -are you kidding me!) and "seething black homophobia" on the same day the NAACP--along with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center-- file briefs against Prop 8. It seems folks are engaging in a whole lot of mental gymnastics to lay this mess on the doorstep of African Americans.
On the other hand, this post over at Pam's charts a really compelling course for the way forward. This is what the No on 8 campaign should have been getting across before Nov 4. http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=760EC776992266E47DE3D85702449C66?diaryId=8282
Open Letter,
So this whole proposition 8 debate has spawned a series of questions that have been rolling around in my head and I would like to hear from anyone who can help me to understand. First, I was under the impression that as a revisionist measure Proposition 8 stands a good chance of being annulled because there wasn't the required 2/3rds majority. It seems that the whole debate on this measure is merely a way of perpetuating the culture wars of my parent's generation. If the people of California want to pass an amendment that restricts marriage between two people to a man and a woman do they not have that right if they so desire? Is there an acceptable work-around such as requiring every "marriage" to be registered as a civil union that would satisfy both parties? Last I do not understand the anger at the African American community, which seems to be a purely emotional reaction. I also fail to see the complete parallel with Jim Crow. The LBGT community hasn't been denied the basic rights of citizenship. No one is urging the complete disenfranchisement of anyone based on their sexual orientation. It seems to me that the issue largely revolves around one word "marriage." Surely there must be some acceptable compromise which eliminates the word "marriage" from the whole debate and still guarantees equal protection. Most states recognize common law marriages, why not long-term cohabitation?
It seems that reason has largely fled out the window in the discussion of this issue and its aftermath. There must be some way to satisfy 90% of the population and still guarantee the same rights for everyone.
Eric,
You are so cute when you're angry, and don't you just know it!!! It would be a really funny post if you weren't being serious.
Awesome to hear about Wendy and Lisa.
Link to the bell hooks essay, which is indeed awesome, and devastating, and the first time I've consciously compared Madonna to Hillary Clinton.
"I'm still waiting for Coates to link to some of the excellent writing coming out of the black communities---queer as well as straight, secular as well as religious---that looks at the various debates around marriage and gay marriage that influence our support of gay marriage."
Send links if you have them. Or set up a blog and link them yourself. This is the internet/web/tubes. I'm not the One Voice on this debate, nor am I am the gatekeeper--thank God. Everyone gets to speak their piece. Speak it. And keep speaking it.
"There must be some way to satisfy 90% of the population and still guarantee the same rights for everyone."
90% of the population isn't grossed out or threatened by gay marriage. The majority of people should never be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority.
I'm going to catch flak for this, but;
Jehovas Witnesses are the minority Mormons.
Stacy wrote: "90% of the population isn't grossed out or threatened by gay marriage."
I never said that 90% of the population was threatened. I only meant to imply that there must be some common ground that will guarantee equal protection (marriage is basically a contract after all) in substance while allowing the less educated bigot types to have the letter.
Surely there must be some acceptable compromise which eliminates the word "marriage" from the whole debate and still guarantees equal protection.
I think that's called separate but equal. And, as it turns out, it's really not.
As for Sullivan, he's been talking for a long time about how, in his experience, black people are on average more overtly homophobic (for whatever reasons) than other ethnicities. My guess is that the vote on Prop 8 is, to him, more evidence that he is correct. Regardless, I don't think anyone can cite him (or Dan Savage) pinning the passing of Prop 8 on black people. TC says that oppression doesn't lead to enlightenment. I think Savage and Sullivan are just really surprised and pissed off that that appears to be, at least in this case, the case. As are a lot of people.
Shylock wrote "I think that's called separate but equal. And, as it turns out, it's really not."
I fail to see the connection between Plessy v Ferguson and the marriage debate. Marriage is a contract like a mortgage or a rental agreement. Essentially if you change the name of the agreement and require it for all citizens I fail to see how anyone is being made to feel inferior or suffer indignity. If we simply make every "marriage" a civil union how is that seperate or unequal. My little brother is going through this marrying a German Girl. He's getting married in a Church in Germany but first they had to register the "marriage" at a courthouse the religious ceremony was entirely optional.
Deleted for spelling Stacy's name wrong. But more to the point, I have zero interest in a flame war, in which white gays and straight blacks compete to make asses of themselves.
"Regardless, I don't think anyone can cite him (or Dan Savage) pinning the passing of Prop 8 on black people"
Totally disagree, both have explicitly stated this only to (ever so slightly) walk it back when subsequently called out and/or faced with statistical evidence. Sullivan in fact set the stage for this whole narrative pre-election with his hysteria tinged "heavy black turnout will sink prop 8" posts. The point here, as many others have reiterated over and over, is to chart the way forward, not to obsess over one shoddy CNN exit poll in a still as yet unidentified county in CA, or for that matter a wacky comment by Prince (!)
"Gimmme a Break, what I said was nice compared to the racist vitrol on gay and progressively liberal sites towards Afro- Americans."
You clearly have a few screws loose. TNC already deleted your post, so I won't share what you wrote. Suffice to say it wasn't nice by any standards. Its also laughable that you fail to see your own hypocrisy. Try thinking a little harder.
Shylock?
Marriage is a contract like a mortgage or a rental agreement. Essentially if you change the name of the agreement and require it for all citizens I fail to see how anyone is being made to feel inferior or suffer indignity.
If the majority of people considered marriage to be no more than a contract, this wouldn't even be an issue. But they don't. For whatever their reasons, most people (regardless of how many times they've failed at it) consider marriage to be sacred. And therefore they don't want homosexuals to join the club they're sure not going to allow their marriages to be "downgraded" to civil unions.
If your point is that the state should classify all formal couplings as civil unions (subject to a single set of civil union rights/responsibilities) and leave "marriage" as a strictly religious designation, that would be nice, but it will never happen.... My point is that because that will never happen, the next step is to classify gay unions as civil unions -- which would probably satisfy most of the marriage opponents -- but will inevitably result in inequality.
"Regardless, I don't think anyone can cite him (or Dan Savage) pinning the passing of Prop 8 on black people"
Totally disagree, both have explicitly stated this only to (ever so slightly) walk it back when subsequently called out and/or faced with statistical evidence.
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but generally totally disagreeing is not providing evidence.
Shylock?
Sorry skyhook. Shakespeare and tequila don't mix.
White conservative males are the largest homophobic group in America. Period. Prince is a rock star, fer goodness sake. Is Sullivan all over Ted Nugent? Prop 8 passed in the inland--conservative--part of CA; the coast voted it down. Sullivan needs to shout at his end of the pool here.
Yes it's important that there's outreach in all of America; this kind of institutional discrimination is shameful, a stain on who we are, and it's important that we--people of goodwill from every background, religion, ethnicity, race--whatever, stand with our gay and lesbian friends, brothers, sisters, moms, dads, kids, grandkids, colleagues, and fellow citizens. We need to educate. And I say this from the perspective of while it's obvious to anyone who looks at nature that homosexuality is natural, I personally don't care if it's someone's existential choice. Albeit the incest taboo is a given, people, otherwise, gay, straight, or bi should have the right to get married to the gay, straight, or bi of their affection. It's none of my business.
But really, there are a whole raft of right wing links on Sullivan's site, and he needs to be pushing with them. He takes for granted I guess, the conservative soul might be homophobic, despite conservatism's avowed anti-government in private life philosophy, but blacks should know better.
In the quote he specifically "taps a Bible", which to me would indicate it's a religious thing. I believe "Little Richard" has, at times, denounced his own past in that direction for religious reasons. (Little Richard isn't JW, but I believe he's some kind of strict Christian)
Although the quote from him states that God opposed people "sticking it where", which in theory could just as much be an anti-promiscuity thing. I'm aware of straights, and some gays, who hope SSM will encourage a more sedate monogamous life for homosexuals. Even in St. Paul some of the horror was that people were lusting after their own sex in an unseemly way that related to idol worship or prostitution.
I'm kind of mixed on this issue. I still lean toward thinking there should be some differences between OSMs and SSMs, but I do see good reasons for having SSM. I have concerns and I think it's good of proponents try to answer them rather than just screaming "bigot." I think this should be done by a vote because that way reaching "win hearts and minds" becomes more important. That African-American civil rights couldn't/shouldn't have been done by voting was in part because blacks were strongly restricted in their voting rights. Even then the Civil Rights Acts were voted on by Congress. Although in some respects I think gay rights is more equivalent to the rights of the deaf or Orthodox Jews. From conversations I've been in this outlooked is counted as "Anti-SSM" and "homophobic" I guess.
I tried looking through the posts and I might be wrong but has anyone brought up that the gossip cat Perez Hilton reported that a Prince insider said he didnt actually say the anti gay marriage stuff??? I am not saying it should be believed whole heartedly or anything. But I am saying that usually when there is a report of something that was said and then its refuted by the person who supposedly said it (or in this case one of their "insider") then its given at least a token mention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/prince-talks-religious-co_n_144338.html
And Prince's opinion on this is an issue why ?
How this relates to Prop 8 is a mystery since Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote. They're also straight up nuts in their literal beliefs in 20 different ways. There is zero point in parsing the thoughts of a Jehovah's Witness.
You can't connect this to Prop 8 at all, for a very simple reason.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote - one of the central tenets of their religion is that all earthly governments are controlled by the devil. Look it up. They really, actually believe that.
I'm sure Prince, as a JW, is disapproving of homosexuality in some way, but he and other members of his faith aren't interested in taking anyone's rights away. Or giving anyone rights for that matter. Their opinion is that "rights" in general are futile.
Pretty complicated worldview, but, there you are.
Savage, who's normally very good but blew it here. I don't have much of a desire to go looking for Sullivan's errors.
The back and forth over the passage of Prop. 8 is getting out of hand. Even if all African Americans in California had voted in favor of the measure, it still would not have passed without support from other groups. The fact that that there were other groups that are larger in number than African Americans who voted in favor of the measure (i.e. people older 65, Republicans, etc.)and yet the outcry and anger over it's passage is directed towards African Americans is very disconcerting.
As for Prince, Andrew Sullivan is really pulling this one out of his you know where. Prince's views are in no way indicative of black people's "seething homophobia." I've never known Prince (until Andrew Sullivan's post) to be held up as a spokesperson for Black people or Black issues. When Prince made that quote he did not point to his skin color as being the reason why he was against gay marriage, but the bible. I think a lot of African Americans views on gay marriage are tied to age, education, religion, and views on black male sexuality, not race. (Which is what this argument is really turning into in some repsects).
Savage, who's normally very good but blew it here.
Yeah, that's the post people cite, but nowhere in it does Dan state, or even imply, that black people are the reason Prop 8 passed.
He cites the stats and expresses deep disappointment and disbelief that those who fought so long and hard for equal rights would now deny it to others.
And that is disappointing.
"I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but generally totally disagreeing is not providing evidence."
Fair enough Skyhook, but oh so snarky. Comment with links awaits moderation so here's take 2. Arguably Savage began this mess with the whole "I'm done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color." Sounds to me like a whole lot of blame is being flung around there...
That's all rather secondary anyway since this thread is about Sullivan and the absurdity of drawing conclusions about the black community's supposed homophobia from a wacko comment by Prince. It seems to me that one could draw far more significant conclusions from the filing of the NAACP's brief...
As for proof of the whole "blame teh blacks" meme, Sullivan himself issued a mea culpa of sorts when he linked to Nate Silver's post debunking this garbage on 11/12.
Sullivan on 11/11: "The final analysis is pretty clear. There was a big overlap between new, largely black Obama voters and the forces for discrimination against gay married couples and our families. The massive black turnout was the critical factor. "
Sullivan on 11/12: "Nate Silver examines several readings of the vote, one of which I advanced."
Nate Silver on 11/12: "Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin"
Sorn: "I also fail to see the complete parallel with Jim Crow. The LBGT community hasn't been denied the basic rights of citizenship."
No one has ever argued that there is a 'complete' parallel with Jim Crow. However, the right to form a family of one's choosing has historically been a central pillar in civil rights since the time of slavery. As property, slaves could never properly marry in the eyes of the law (thus "jumping the broomstick") and had no right to keep their children. During Jim Crow, white men could still treat black women as property as they wished with impunity. Also under Jim Crow people from different races could not marry each other, and risked a lot trying to even live together. Interracial marriage bans were considered Constitutional until 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled against Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws in Loving V. Virginia. Although the way we tell ourselves the history of Civil Rights emphasizes the right to vote, the right form a family of one's choosing is arguably an even more fundamental human right which was not guaranteed to AA's (or the whites they loved) until 1967.
To me, the right to marry whichever adult you want and form a family of one's choosing is absolutely a basic right of citizenship, perhaps even more so that voting (hell, felons can get married). To strip that right from a persecuted minority is deeply shameful.
Now that I had a serious post, I must complain that no one has yet given a shoutout to Chapelle's Prince sketch.
"Game. Blouses."
LOL. My favorite Chapelle sketch.
Also, didn't Sullivan get the memo that TNC's readers designated Morgan Freeman to speak for all black people? I'm sure Morgan is down with Teh Gayz gettin' hitched.
I just wanted to share an interesting anecdote on "gay marriage" from the Obama campaign trail. I met a straight-straight, buttoned-up, Catholic, Midwestern White Guy while volunteering. We started having a bunch of conversations while registering voters, I'm sure we were mutually exotic and weird to each other. I was curious what brought him to Obama.
Anyways, in talking about religion I asked him about the gay marriage issue. He really shed some light on it for me (I'm not into organized religion). He said, "I support completely equal rights for gay people. I have no problem with gay people. They can do whatever they want. The problem is that my religion is BASED on the idea of 'marriage' as classically defined. I've been hearing about it since I was born. So whenever I hear someone say the words 'gay marriage' it is completely undermining to the Bible I have been reading, and the word 'marriage.' I feel like they are disrespecting my beliefs. I have no problem with civil unions, etc. with exactly the same rights, but why do they have to use that word?"
As another commentator said above, much of this might come down to semantics. Sure, there are raving mad religious rightists who DO really hate gay people. But I learned from this Obama volunteer guy that there is a whole nuther sector of religious yet tolerant people who are struggling with what they've been taught all their life about the English word "marriage" and newly conflicting information they're receiving. Since I personally don't give a shit whether its called marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, whatever... I am starting to wonder if we are fighting the wrong battle.
What about calling ALL legal unions "domestic partnerships" (at city hall) and if Christians wanna tack on the extra word "marriage" they can do that in church?
As a Catholic I'm somewhat perplexed by that. A civil marriage is not licit in Catholicism so far as I know. Civil marriage is allowed in many cases that are out of bounds for Catholicism or most orthodox Christianity. If a man's been divorced four times he can have a civil marriage with a former mistress. This legitimizes adultery and rejects the traditional Christian understanding of marriage in my mind. So this is part of why I'm conflicted in a different direction as a Catholic.
The union of two same-sex people seems different to me than that of opposite sexed people, but if same-sex marriage can reduce any respect Catholics have for civil marriage I think this could be for the faith as I understand it. Because if civil marriage loses respect than the traditional Catholic lack of respect for it might gain more respect from other faiths. It might also make more Catholics reject it, which is a good thing to me.
Still one form of traditional Catholic thought says when a law mandates something contrary to the faith it is not a real law. So Catholics do not have to recognize same-sex unions as marriages anymore than they have to recognize third marriages. However it's preferable for Catholics if we can obey the law. And I think that's a big concern among Catholic groups I've seen. This can be gotten around by not taking any state money, something I agree with, but some businesses might still be sued for discrimination.
All that said I fear many Catholics are inconsistent and actually treat third marriages as real, even though they're not either per Catholic understanding.
Ok let me try this again. Is anyone going to point out that Prince's people are saying he didnt make the anti gay marriage statement? This seems eerily reminiscent of the knee jerk outrage against black folks the day after the immensely flawed story came out about how black folks were the determining factor in the passage of prop 8. It might be time to hold back on throwing people under the bus before we actually get all the info in or at least see them say it on video
Since I was asked and hoping I don't get hammered (too much, a little is ok :)
...
Mormons believe marriage and the family unit is eternal. It's seen as the main purpose of life. To come to earth get a body, grow, have experiences, learn, be part of a family and raise a family.
Now this doesn't mean if you don't have a family, kids, etc. you're life is worthless or you're going to hell or something. Actually if you talk to most mormons you'll find out it's practically easier to get into heaven than hell. But that doesn't mean the lunch is free.
Anyway, back to the subject. I don't think it would be right for a Mormon or any other person religious or not to force their faith onto the public. So there is a fine line here and I can see where it is very easy to come down on the "No on 8" side of this issue.
But for most people I think it comes down to the terms being redefined against our will. You can't change the definition of something without it affecting everyone. And fundamentally altering the core relationship which builds the fabric of our society is not something many people want to do. Naturally as families are becoming or being seen as less important in society it's easy to start to poke holes in the argument. People get married and divorced everyday over very selfish reasons. Married people abuse each other and their kids. Is not this bad for society and families? Yes, certainly.
Personally I'd prefer to not have to vote on the issue at all. I'd prefer the courts didn't have to rule by fiat on it. I see the concept of civil unions addressing all the tangible benefits denied a couple that can't be married. Civil unions offer everything a gay couple would need as far as benefits would go -except for- equality of the relationship structure. A civil union is between common sexes, a marriage is between opposite ones.
I'm not the least bit worried if I can't have a civil union. Anyway, this is waaaay off topic and has been discussed a million times and people will always seize on something I or someone else said on both sides of the issue to paint them has a complete tyrannical jerk.
And as far as the mainstream/respect comment about voting against marriage. They have nothing to do with each other. If you would have less respect for a faith because of the way some (many) of it's participants vote in a legal democracy, under the rules in our system the problem is with you, not me or the faith.
I have no issue with the way you vote. You're entitled to it, and you're entitled to my respect as a human being, and I'd go farther to say that my faith requires me to do my best to love everyone even forgive those who would hurt me. But loving you and agreeing to vote for you for whatever you want are two different things.
Most queeny straight guys are homophobic, and "Prince" is queenier than Elizabeth II.
The courts have to rule on it because it's their job to protect the rights of the minority. That's why "equal protection" is written into the constitution (federal and state of CA level).
When people say "marriage," it signifies love, commitment, a life together, something sacred, etc. When they say "civil union," it just doesn't. Extending all tangible rights via civil unions is certainly better than no rights at all. But it isn't equal. Gay people love each other. LOVE. That's why they want the word marriage. They want to be recognized for loving each other the same way my wife and I love each other.
I used to work with a very religious Christian man, a really thoughtful guy, who once said, "A society is partly known by what it permits." We weren't specifically discussing gay rights, but it was a really succinct way of summing up his worldview. He didn't want to be part of a society that permitted certain things he found immoral, based mostly on his religious perspective. And I could connect with him on that level, but from a secular view that led to an opposite conclusion: I don't want to be part of a society that denies gay people the right to marry.
Does this help move any kind of discussion forward? I'm not sure. But I'm not sure he realized before that conversation that my views come from a place as deeply moral as his, but are just different. Inclusion to me IS a moral issue. We do have a moral argument to make.
I think people who are not married who have taken great pains to point out why they are not married to others would be surprised to find out their relationship does not signify love, commitment, life together, etc.
I get your point about marriage having some emotional weight behind it, while union perhaps does not.
But that's simply a function of its newness and like it or not a gay union/marriage is certainly new. There is no history of it. There is no culture of it. None of us were raised thinking of marriage as between man and man or woman and woman.
So while you say the term union lacks emotion and significance and therefore denies equal protection and say applying marriage to something that it is not and has never been destroys the significance of marriage in another form. In any case the battle should not be able significance.
If it's about benefits, we give the benefits to those who are seeking them. If it's about the marketing of a name, well....
...
"and I SAY applying marriage to something that it is not and has never been destroys the significance of marriage in another form. In any case the battle should not be ABOUT significance of the term." People are talking about equal rights. The union is an equal right. They're just upset/hurt that now the term is different. Well, it IS different. If you want to give it another name fine. But marriage is marriage. Some of us would argue that we should not change the definitions of things all of society takes part in things arbitrarily.
We're not talking about granting or taking away rights. We're talking about society coming together and voting on something that impacts them all. A gay person has as much rights in a union to my knowledge as a married person does in their marriage. Correct?
They just don't call it a marriage because it's not. And the debate is apparently over one side wanting to call their relationship a marriage and the other objecting to it. The courts should only intervene in the case of real rights. IE married couples can have death benefits, but unions can't.
That's pretty unfair. Of course I suppose it's also unfair if a 10 year long girlfriend doesn't get death benefits but one that just got married yesterday does. But that's part of life I guess and a whole different story.
You know, I have never actually think of Prince as being a black musician, at least not in the way that I think of Kanye West or Jay-Z. This is probably due in part to my misguided stereotypes about music, but also because I have always thought of Prince as sui generis, he's, well, Prince, you know?
So it suprised me that some people's instinct is to somehow used what he said (if he really did say it) as further proof of black homophobia or something. Really? I think being black is not exactly the first thing my friends and I think about when we think about Prince. There's just so many crazy, fascinating aspects about his life that the fact that he is black is actually the most normal part about the guy.
Molly, no snark intended. Sorry if it came off that way.
Yeah, tis true, Sullivan did (for a day) offer up stats that he thought said that if not for new black (and Latino) voters, Prop 8 would not have passed. Whether that amounts to "blaming the blacks" is a different question.
Quoting Sam:
"In any case the battle should not be ABOUT significance of the term. People are talking about equal rights. The union is an equal right. They're just upset/hurt that now the term is different. Well, it IS different. If you want to give it another name fine. But marriage is marriage. Some of us would argue that we should not change the definitions of things all of society takes part in things arbitrarily."
Sam, I get that to you, straight marriage and gay marriage is different. That in your world, the latter isn't marriage at all. But, why does your definition get to trump gay people, and people who are ok with gay marriage?
Just because you guys are the majority at the moment? In that case, do you reject the idea of the tyranny of the majority?
My argument is that I have no problem with you considering gay marriage not-marriage; I have no problem with the catholic church considering divorced and re-married people not-married; I have no problem with Christians considering atheist marriages with no 'holy sacrament' involved non-marriages. But that shouldn't mean that the govt doesn't recognise them as such.
We are never going to get complete agreement from society on how people should live their lives, and I believe that the govt should err on the side of being inclusive in terms of civil marriage licenses.
Yes there must be limits, for example, a marriage to a minor would not be acceptable because of the issue of consent [although there are some states where parental approval can be given to teenagers who are almost of age]. But the fact that you are happy to see gays get equal rights under civil unions shows that you are ok with gay people having gay relationships [even if you wouldn't want that for yourself or your family].
So why can't we take that final step and allow gay unions to be called marriages BY THE GOVT? You don't consider them marriages, catholics don't consider divorced people's unions marriages, I think people who get drunk and decide to have Elvis officiate over their vows are terribly tacky. People will disagree. That's not a good enough reason to prevent people from equality in symbolism as well as substance. Churches should discriminate based on their religious teachings. But they should do it to church stuff- i.e. who can be a member, who the pastor will choose to marry, etc. The government should strive to be inclusive. And we should support laws that are inclusive, even where we personally disagree. That's the best way to allow diverse people to get along and give each individual the chance of maximising their happiness. And the constitution is all about people maximising their happiness.
You also said:
"Some of us would argue that we should not change the definitions of things all of society takes part in things arbitrarily."
But this isn't an arbitrary change. It's a change that is happening because gay people are now accepted members of society and gay people having gay relationships is now an ok thing in society, even if it still squicks some people out.
If gay sex is now not illegal, and gay people are raising families, with some of the or all of the protections of the law granted to straight families, then it is not arbitrary, but sensible to extend the word marriage to gays.
Yes it is redefining marriage- but that is because until recently, gay people weren't just icky, they were criminals, not to be accepted at all in society. Of course marriage is going to be taught as between one man and one woman in a world where gays are illegal. That world no longet exists. And therefore, your particular religious belief about what marriage is and isn't should not be the same standard used by the govt. The govt should be inclusive, except where there is a clear benefit in excluding certain people or categories. And in a world where gay relationships are legal and legally protected, what is that benefit?
I've been repeating myself a bit here, but it's hard to express how I feel perfectly in writing. I apologise for that. But reading everything you've said Sam, to me, it seems like your objections all boil down to 'I don't like that definition of marriage because it goes against my religious beliefs'- and I simply don't think that should be the philosophy of governments, or how we as citizens, no matter our beliefs, should ask the govt to govern.
I'm grateful that you're happy to talk with us about this, but I'd love to hear why you think it's appropriate for the government to exclude such marriages, beyond what you believe because of your religion. I know you've tried to do that, but I haven't been able to understand it.
More Sam:
"I get your point about marriage having some emotional weight behind it, while union perhaps does not.
But that's simply a function of its newness and like it or not a gay union/marriage is certainly new. There is no history of it. There is no culture of it. None of us were raised thinking of marriage as between man and man or woman and woman."
Alternately:
"But that's simply a function of its newness and like it or not a mixed race marriage is certainly new. There is no history of it. There is no culture of it. None of us were raised thinking of marriage as between a man and woman of different races."
"But that's simply a function of its newness and like it or not an equitable marriage is certainly new. There is no history of it. There is no culture of it. None of us were raised thinking of marriage as between a man and woman as equal partners."
I could surely cook up a few more of these, but you get the point. Non-hateful people made these arguments earnestly and in good faith, but they are no less on the wrong side of history. Newness happens. It's an exciting time to be alive, for innumerable reasons. Man up and deal.
It seems as if you're suggesting that civil unions might catch on - how has separate but equal worked out for us? Can someone look that up?
Marriage is a lifelong bond of familial and romantic commitment between a man and a woman. Civil unions are something we just made up for dudes who like to rub up on each other. Drives just like marriage, though. Pay no attention to the name. It's totally as good. Just different. What's that? Yes, some churches will be happy to marry you. But you won't be really married. Someone's god will think you're married, so that's pretty cool. But back to the matter at hand, a civil union is the thing for you. Works just like marriage, absolutely. What's that? Funny, I get that question a lot. I have a hard time explaining it, you just kind of get it or you don't...I guess I would just say that what you're suggesting might make marriage...gross?
"When people say 'marriage,' it signifies love, commitment, a life together, something sacred, etc. When they say "civil union," it just doesn't." Mr. Shrimp
TR: The thing is you can say "marriage" now in any state, even in states that don't recognize civil unions. My lesbian cousin in Kansas had a wedding and a woman she calls "wife." Unlike with interracial marriage in times past no one will arrest or fine her for that.
So if you have the big gay or lesbian wedding, then later get the civil union to make it legal, what is missing? I'm gathering it is
The civil union doesn't give the full rights of marriage. (I think this would encourage improving civil unions though)
The state is not agreeing that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones.(Although if the rights are made the same it essentially would be saying they're equal)
Support for gay marriage is indicative of education and outlook.
I still don't understand what the whole debate is about. It seems really easy to solve just make every marriage a civil union and viola problem solved. It seems we're arguing over semantics. It doesn't matter what a person calls "marriage" so long as everyone is guaranteed the same rights.
Gay marriage in my personal opinion isn't about "legitimizing" unions. It's about making sure that people in long term relationships get survivor's benefits, VA pensions, Health care, and all the other benefits that I as a straight man could give to someone I meet in Vegas. I have never understood wanting to give the sanction of law to anti-gay prejudice. In this country you already have the right to hate anyone you want to. Why in god's name would anyone want to place a legal disability on someone based on their lifestyle choice.
While we're on the subject it would be interesting to see if smokers as a group were more prone to vote for proposition 8. As a group smokers should support gay marriage because they also face discrimination in their everyday lives.
Sorn- there are definitely some religious people who would be happy to make all marriages civil unions and leave the word marriage as something for individuals to define with their churches [or heathen friends or whatever]. But there are a bunch for whom the govt recognising marriage is natural, and for those people, converting everyone's marriages legally into civil unions would be an afront to them, because it would be pandering to the gays etc etc
I think practically, it would be harder to convince fed and state govts to turn all marriages into civil unions, than to convince them to give gays marriage.
Just because a) the momentum is not there (from the gay community, and certainly not from those straight people who would be happy with your idea but don't really have an incentive to push it). and b) it would be a bureaucratic mishmash- you'd end up with some states only recognising civil unions for all, some recognising marriage for straights and civil for gays, some not giving gays any recognition whatsoever, and places like mass and conn where both gays and straights could get married.
It'd be bloody confusing. And it would require messing [however symbolically] with the legal definition of straight peoples relationships, which they wouldn't want, no matter how logical it was.
I mean, I think preferential voting is much more logical than first past the post, but I reckon the chances of the US adopting an electoral system like Australia's are none to buckleys for structural reasons.