solarbird: (Default)
[personal profile] solarbird
We're fucked.

President Bush has won re-election by running, essentially, to the evangelicals. Most of his campaign was based on winning mostly with them.

Anti-queer initiatives passed in 11 out of 11 states. All of the amendments ban queer marriage. Most also ban civil unions. At least one makes queer marriage a crime outright (a misdemeanor), not just prohibited.

NPR exit pollers are being surprised by how many people are giving "moral values" as a big reason for voting, and voting Bush. "moral values" means anti-abortion-rights and anti-gay stance.

I don't think we'll get the anti-gay Federal amendment revote next year. I think we'll get year after next, to whip up the vote again by lashing into us.

But if Bush really does name another Scalia or another Thomas to the court - as he's said repeatedly he wants to do - and that person replaces one of the five in the 5-4 decision overturning last year's repeal of the anti-gay sodomy laws - we could be kicked back 20 or 30 years in a very, very short period of time.

The evangelicals won this election.

It's bad.

It's really bad.

Date: 2004-11-02 11:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] banner.livejournal.com
I don't think that Bush is going to come back to that amendment. I think that was more of a political move than anything else.

As for the state amendments, well I warned everyone that there would be a big backlash against the illegal gay marriages that a bunch of officials decided to do in violation of the law. The gay community should have come out very loudly against the Mayor of SF, and all the others who did what they did for their own political gain. If they had, these amendments probably wouldn't have even made the ballot. Also lets face it, that Supreme Court ruling was really well outside the jurisdiction of the case.

You have to realize that a large number of American's think of the radical fringe gay groups in places like San Franciso when they think of gays. Cause that's all they ever see on the news, and that is who is always out front. When they see judges making pro-gay laws from the bench (judicial fiat), and elected officials ignoring the law, they panic.

So gay marriage has been set back to square 1. If everyone keeps acting the way they have been, it's not going to get to square 2 in our lifetimes. Basically we need to jettison the radical gay fringe who makes us all look like a bunch of freaks!

You don't gain acceptance by freaking out the 'norms'.

Date: 2004-11-03 12:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] loopback.livejournal.com
you don't gain acceptance by pandering to the 'norms' either.

"they just aren't ready"

and they never will be ready until they are dragged, kicking and screaming, into the light.

see also the whole issue of mixed-race marriages which were illegal and opposed by a vast majority of americans until the courts 'legislated from the bench'.

but you're right! jettison that radical gay fringe! those freaky sideshow fuckers are the only reason you can't get your rights.

Date: 2004-11-03 12:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] banner.livejournal.com
A year ago before elected officials started performing illegal marriages the idea of Gay Marriage supposedly was okay with the majority. Now something like 70 percent oppose it.

What happened?

You can't drag people kicking and screaming when they can VOTE. And don't compare this to Blacks marrying Whites. It's not even on the same page.

Date: 2004-11-03 12:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flashfire.livejournal.com
A year ago before elected officials started performing illegal marriages the idea of Gay Marriage supposedly was okay with the majority.

According to what? To whom?

You really think the illegally done marriages is all that "changed" people's minds? There are so many ignorant people out there that their minds were already closed enough for it to only solidify their irrational fears and prejudices.

No, the flamboyance of many people in the gay community doesn't help, but how many ignorant idiots out there only think of gays as being people who are only interested in trying to fuck them?

Date: 2004-11-03 12:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] king-chiron.livejournal.com
Show me one well-done national poll that shows that a majority of Americans *ever* supported gay marriage (not civil union)

Date: 2004-11-03 12:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] banner.livejournal.com
That's what all the gay activists were claiming. Same for the news media. You telling me that they *gasp* lied to me?

Date: 2004-11-03 12:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] king-chiron.livejournal.com
You have a habit of making very broad claims and then refusing to provide evidence. Specificallly *which* gay activists claimed that a majority of Americans supported gay marriage?

Date: 2004-11-03 01:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] banner.livejournal.com
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/07/25/2

Okay the numbers were smaller than I thought, but it was around 55 percent who were oppsed to it, versus the 70 percent I think it is we have now.

Still, the numbers have gotten a lot worse. Here is a Jersey poll
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030808/opinion/70899.shtml

This tracks the changing results: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39

But the facts are, Bush is going to be re-elected. If Gay marriage is going to happen, then someone needs to start a campaign to make it happen, and one that does it by addressing fears, not raising them.

Date: 2004-11-03 01:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flashfire.livejournal.com
Whatever the case, there was never a majority in the country in favor of gay marriage.

Nice try.

Date: 2004-11-03 01:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] king-chiron.livejournal.com
Let's look at the Pew Forum source you provided. It shows that the percentage supporting gay marriage went from 38% to 32%.

That's certainly a drop, but there's a HUGE difference between a 6 point drop and claiming that a majority supported gay marriage and now 70% oppose it.

Date: 2004-11-03 12:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flashfire.livejournal.com
Uh-huh. Like gay activists really knew what the majority of the country was thinking.

If you have proof of it, show it. Otherwise, stop.

Date: 2004-11-03 12:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] king-chiron.livejournal.com
I love the way that Banner uses a supposed factoid (gay marriage had popular support at one point) to support his point and when it's challenged he immediately starts assigning this factoid to "gay activists" and "the news media."

So does he really believe this supposed factoid? And if not, then why use it as a support for his position?

Date: 2004-11-03 01:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] banner.livejournal.com
http://www.allianceforsamesexmarriage.org/polls.htm

Date: 2004-11-03 02:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flashfire.livejournal.com
Still not a majority in support of gay marriage there, either.

Date: 2004-11-03 02:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] king-chiron.livejournal.com
According to that website 49% supported gay marriage at one point. They're a little light on information, they don't have any specifics on the wording so it's hard to understand the context or how valid it is.

But to prove your point you'd have to show the same survey, with the same sampling and wording, gay marriage support dropped from 49% to 30%. You can't pick one survey for the before and a different one for the after.

So just be clear, do *you* believe that a majority of Americans once supported gay marriage?

Date: 2004-11-03 05:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ysabel.livejournal.com
And don't compare this to Blacks marrying Whites. It's not even on the same page.

Why not?

Seems damn near identical to me, and the arguments being used against gay marriage are word-for-word the same as the ones used during the interracial marriage furor.

Date: 2004-11-03 12:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] king-chiron.livejournal.com
This sounds surprisingly similar to what conservatives said during the struggles for integration and voting rights for African-Americans during the 1950/60s.

"Don't rock the boat, don't ask for too much, don't associate with those radicals and if you're good and quiet eventually the masses will decide to give you your rights."

Date: 2004-11-03 12:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] banner.livejournal.com
Funny, it was the conservatives who passed the voting rights acts.

Date: 2004-11-03 12:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] king-chiron.livejournal.com
Really? Conservatives like LBJ? Specifically which conservatives are you talking about?

Date: 2004-11-03 08:51 am (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
As I recall, Banner has the bad habit of using the word “conservative” as a rough synonym for “libertarian”.

Date: 2004-11-03 03:57 pm (UTC)
wrog: (howitzer)
From: [personal profile] wrog
For those "libertarians" I know who seem more than happy to let slide the social side of things (which appears to be most of them), the "conservative" adjective is wholly appropriate as far as I could tell.

That is, if you've got someone who is
  • is willing to overlook anti-abortion/anti-gay-rights/pro-drugwar zealotry in order to vote for someone who fights for corporate property rights or gun rights,
  • is far more bothered by high taxes and social programs than s/he is about civil-rights violations and government sponsorship of religion
what do you call this person other than "conservative"?

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    1 23
4 56 7 8 910
1112 131415 1617
1819202122 2324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags