We're drowning in a shallow pool.

[cali]

Reductionist "thinking" is the order of the day, or week, or whatever. We just keep boiling things down to such a shallow, simplistic essence, that the possibility of thoughtful discourse becomes impossible. No, I'm not just talking about Warren. And no, I don't think his speaking at the inaugural is OK. Here's what I do think: Dismissing over half the voters as simply bigots and refusing to discuss anything beyond that, is a truly fruitless way of approaching a big problem.

I don't like it, but Warren represents the MAJORITY when it comes to marriage equality. There are some important questions that aren't being asked because of our swimming in the reductionist pool. Here are some:

Do we need to change minds?

Will the SCOTUS do for marriage equality what they did nearly 60 years ago for desegregation?

How do we approach getting the disgraceful DOMA repealed?

It may be true that every person who opposes marriage equality is a stone cold bigot, but that doesn't really tell us anything about how to deal with these people, who again, constitute the majority. And simply writing them off contemptuously isn't going to do one thing to advance civil rights.

I don't object to the rage and pain being expressed here at all. In fact I posted a thread saying I think good things can come of it. I do think it's a shame that any time the effort is made to extend the conversation beyond the outpouring of rage and pain, it's simply pushed away or condemned.

Yeah, I know. Some of you will comdemn me for this heretical post.

[BeFree]

1. Yeah

Why do you hate gay people?

I mean, c'mon, it hasn't quite been expressed that way, but that is the meaning.

It's divisive and counter-productive. Heck, it almost made me turn away in disgust, but rights for all is too important to let bs make me quit supporting equal rights for all. They failed.

[cali]

4. uh, did you even read the OP?

Because how you got that I hate gay people out of this, is a perfect example of what I was discussing. That isn't at all the meaning of the OP. Rights for all are too important to let go. That's the point of the OP.

[BeFree]

14. Umm

Did you comprehend what I wrote? Doesn't seem you did. My bad. Explanation:

The 'Why do you hate gay people' was satire..... an example of the reductionist thinking you laid out in your fine OP.

[w4rma]

39. The sarcasm tag. Use it. Because voice inflections don't carry over text.

:sarcasm:

[PeaceNikki]

2. I just don't CARE if he does or does not represent the MAJORITY when it comes to marriage equality

Civil rights of the minority should not be dictated by the MAJORITY.

Ever.

[cali]

5. I agree. Civil rights should never be determined by the majority.

In reality, they are. I don't believe that ignoring reality changes it.

[PeaceNikki]

7. Ah, so we should accept that?

I won't.

[cali]

10. I said nothing of the sort. What does it mean when you say you don't accept it?

What are you DOING?

I've been working on marriage equality in my state for over 10 years. I believe in doing not just bitching.

[PeaceNikki]

12. Oh, are we having a pissing contest to compare who's "doing" more?

One thing I'm not "doing" is saying we need to pander to the MAJORITY because civil rights are dictated by them and, well... that's life.

Historically they are NOT dictated by the majority in this country. They have been demanded in the streets, adjudicated in courts, legislated in congresses and eventually enshrined in state and national constitutions.

[NWHarkness]

15. I disagree

I do not believe that anything even close to a majority of Americas supported desegregation in the 1950s and 60s, a hell of a lot of people don't support it yet.

I appreciate that you are a supporter of equality, in life, not just online. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that others here are not as well.

The way out of this rancor is simple. In matters of GLBT rights, GLBT people get to decide the goals and strategies, and non-GLBT supporters, support them. Those who can't bring themselves to be supportive should just get out of the way.

[cali]

24. Actually, the numbers I've seen show that the majority of the American

people did approve of the decision in Brown v Board. I'll try and find something to back that up.

I agree that GLBT folks should determine the goals and strategies. That simply makes sense.

[NWHarkness]

31. Ah, but here's the rub...

People may well have said they supported the court decision, but when it was THEIR school that was slated for desegregation, THEIR neighborhood that was being integrated, the backlash was tremendous.

[merh]

30. In reality they are not.

If they were, blacks could not marry whites - segregation laws would be in full force and effect all over the nation, not just in the south.

Loving v. Virginia is the key SCOTUS case that applies, that defeats the majority view.

The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

You ignore the legislative history of the 13th and 14th amendments and the central arguments of civil rights activists.

With respect to the GLBT civil rights efforts, they are trying to enjoy the rights they have, they are guaranteed. They are trying to prevent laws from being passed and amendments adopted that violate their rights, that deny them their freedom.

Consider if you will a simple fact. If a gay person denies who they are, if they become something they are not, they can know the right. They can marry a hetro. That is like saying in the 60's, blacks could marry whites if they could become white, if they could change their skin color.

The struggles that blacks have had in this nation is different in that the Constitution declared them less than whites. The Constitution sanctioned and protected slavery. That is why the 13th and 14th amendments were needed.

Obama has addressed this. When asked if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution." He said that knowing that the Constitution did condone and sanction slavery in our new nation. The benefits of having a constitutional lawyer as our president is that he knows the law. I believe Obama can and does make the distinction between personal views and legal rights.

[RichGirl]

19. There are no "givens" in the law...EVERYTHING is subject to interpretation.

Even murder is not an absolute.

YOU determining that something is a civil right, does not make it so. Many people think that smoking in public is a civil right.

The biggest problem in this country is not the right or the left...it's closed minds and very narrow views and each side believing they are right and the other side is wrong. This has kept us polarized, fighting and accomplishing nothing.

REAL CHANGE will only come when we do what Obama said in his convention speech...to not focus on our differences but to find common ground.

The choice you have is are you going to help your cause or hurt it! The attitude taken on by many in the gay community will hurt their cause.

Civil rights for African Americans came because Martin Luther King appealed to the better angels of the masses. And you DO need the masses...nothing happens in this country without majority approval. That's a democracy. The term "By the People" means ALL the people. Unless you think Obama should be like Bush and just steam roll the liberal view without any regard for the other half of the country. If you have read both his books and listened to him for the last four years, you KNOW he is NOT going to do that. And that certainly wouldn't be any kind of change...just the flip side of the same old political coin.

[PeaceNikki]

22. Therein lies the fallacy

It *IS* about civil rights and equal protection and even if people get all pissy and "militant" about it, they are still entitled to their rights. Their "attitude" about it is irrelevant. And, let's be honest, if it were YOUR rights, you'd have an "attitude" as well.

I'm GLAD that this woman was "militant" and had an "attitude"!!


"Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity."

[RichGirl]

27. Keep the attitude...

...drop the intolerance and exclusiveness.

[PeaceNikki]

28. ??

Please explain where/how I've demonstrated that? Intolerance of what? Exclusiveness to what?

I'm not following you.

[mondo joe]

38. Historically ignorant. MLK didn't create a majority of pro-civil rights people.

Laws were changed by the few.

[merh]

25. So tell me, what activism has been organized?

Other than lecturing people about civil rights and name calling and being upset on a message board, what steps have been taken, what has been planned?

Is there a letter writing campaign? I haven't seen the threads that provides the names and addresses of the 7 GLBT members of Obama's transition team so that folks can send their complaints to them. Has one been posted? Do you have a link?

What about the protests at Saddleback church, will more than 15 show up this weekend?

Are there scheduled protests for the inauguration? Any marches?

Shoes being sent to Obama with Warren's name written all over them?

What has been planned?

[HereSince1628]

3. It's a chatboard. It isn't a think-tank

We are lucky that among the hundreds of posts and replies a few thoughtful posts put up everyday.

Mostly posts and replies are assertions which seem to be posted as a way of unloading angst.

I remember one from the early hours this morning...something to the effect that after Christmas the economic misery was going to be worse.

[pecwae]

9. I saw a couple of truly well thought out

posts yesterday; one in particular. They were replies and should have been OPs. They're few and far between and even more appreciated when they do appear.

[eridani]

6. The courts told bigots to get the fawk over themselves in Loving vs Virginia

And sure enough, 30 0r 40 years later, they did.

[cali]

8. I'd love to see that happen now.

I don't think simply hoping that it will happen, is a productive approach.

[eridani]

13. Backing the AG of CA against Prop H8 is a good strategy, I think n/t

[jpgray]

11. None of these goals require honoring Warren, or those like him.

Talking to him, sure, but honoring him? Let's pass.

The biggest problem is the ignorance present in the majority about the issue, as it has been with other issues in the past. Many of the majority you speak of see themselves as devout supporters of human rights. However, they are by turns timid and indifferent--they don't take the positions their ideals would argue for, they look around for prominent people to show them how far to go in supporting their ideals. The prominent positions on the issue--glutted with money, powerful friends, and exposure--are represented by Warren and Obama: one on the bigoted side of things, and one staking out an anemic "compromise" that satisfies neither the persecuted minority nor its enemies. Being "uncomfortable" with gay marriage but supporting civil unions is as close as the most prominent public figures get to supporting equal rights. That's a fucking tragedy.

So what happens when there is no prominent establishment place for full gay marriage support? The debate is relentlessly crippled, as one side gets almost no hearing whatsoever. Ignorance spreads freely without being challenged, and when people look around to those prominent people in order to see how far they should go in supporting human rights, they see Obama and Warren.

Warren doesn't need or deserve to be elevated in this way. It doesn't serve the debate, as his view is already ascendant, powerful and prominent. It doesn't educate the ignorant, as this is the ignorant view. Why promote and establish the bigoted view that needs neither, that everyone is already beaten over the head with? If you're really interested in seeking to educate those who hold ignorant views about this, shouldn't we be honoring and promoting voices in support of equal rights rather than ignorant oppressors of such rights?

[Zynx]

16. The only way this will happen rapidly is by court order. It will take decades for public

opinion to come around to the point to make legislative action possible.

[PeaceNikki]

17. I agree. It's a pointless exercise in futility to try to get them to "see the light"

[BeFree]

34. Pointless?

What needs to be done is make them comfortable with gays. Because if you don't they will continue the guerrilla warfare.

[CTyankee]

49. Actually, it may not be pointless all the time. I often discuss gay marriage with my

colleagues,or let's say I bring it up and test the waters. If they have an objection I try to rebut it with reason. That way I hope to eventually change minds by getting them used to thinking about gay marriage differently.

There was practically NO public outcry, except from weak whimpers from the usual suspects, when the CT state supreme court OK'd gay marriage. The first day that gays could marry was a happy media event and on the evening news like any other story. There were no red faced bigots screaming at the happy couples, there was a gay wedding fair covered by the media.

I'm sure that ten years ago this would have been popular only in small segments of our state. Now the majority just accepts gay marriage as a fact of CT life...

[cali]

26. Not neccessarily so. I expect that marriage equality will pass the

Vermont legislature this session or next. Ten years ago the majority of Vermonters were against same sex marriage. Now the majority supports marriage equality. And that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if not for civil unions having been in place for 9 years here. I'm not suggesting that other states follow that template, but in Vermont, the attitude of the majority has changed.

[Zynx]

32. Yeah, but for that to happen in a majority of states will take many decades.

Vermonters are culturally different from a lot of states.

[scheming daemons]

45. Decades? in 1998, opposition to gay marriage was 80-20. Now it is more like 55-45.

It is getting there.

Rapidly.



Before Obama's 8 years are up, it will be legal in - I predict - at least 15 states.

[Zynx]

46. Given the margin gay marriage bans passed in even more liberal states like Oregon and Wisconsin

I would be stunned if things reversed that quickly. It is very dangerous to extrapolate a trend like that. I think that perhaps 10-12 states will have civil unions in 8 years.

[ginnyinWI]

18. cali, I so agree!

Reductionist thinking is making this place (DU) hard to take. People line up behind their own rigid ideology and throw mud at the other side--no shades of gray are allowed. What's the point?

[PeaceNikki]

20. I just don't understand the "shades of gray". This is about civil rights.

We shouldn't have to convince the MAJORITY. A majority of citizens should never have the ability to dictate the terms of inalienable rights to and for a disenfranchised minority

The moral and ethical questions here are not those of sexual orientation; they are instead those of how to remove obstacles so all citizens may enjoy their constitutional rights.

[BeFree]

29. You're right, partly

But wrong to say that we don't need to convince the majority. I mean, duh!

We DO have to convince the majority that everyone deserves equal rights. They don't have equal rights because the majority won't allow it, so we have to convince them they are wrong.

How do we do that? Well, first, we have to sit down and dis-cuss it with them.

Now some folks just want to 'cuss them, but that's the wrong way to get it done. In fact, that's the bushco way: name calling and trash talking, and otherwise ignoring their concerns.

[RichGirl]

33. If you only look at it as a civil rights issue, you miss the big picture.

The problem of having one religion so emeshed in our government is a much bigger than gay-marriage. I think that by including Rick Warren, it brings the whole issue in focus and will explose it for what it is.

Marriage is a religious sacriment. Any gay couple can find a church and minister that will provide them with a lovely ceremony. Then they can acquire a Civil Union. But, that's not good enough because marriage offers rights that Civil Unions don't, that's understandable. But here's my problem...why do married people get tax and financial advantages that single people don't. That isn't fair. As a single person who chooses to live alone, isn't it my civil right to not be taxed more than married people????? Some couples wisely choose not to get married, why are they financially penalized. If someone is single, straight and in the hospital, shouldn't he be able to see who ever he wants. He may have friends he loves and parents he hates.

Personally, I think that marriage will become obsolete. We all know people who have good marriages, so we think it's possible. But, are they happy because they are married, or was their relationship strong enough to survive marriage. We know that doing business with friends or family members will put a strain on the relationship. Yet we think that adding a legal contract to a perfectly good relationship is some how...romantic!! In the sixties we fought for the right to NOT get married. We had it right then. But, gay people do have a right to the learning lesson and emotional workout known as Holy Matrimony.

I would LOVE to see gay marriage become legal in every state because, symbolically, it would be the equivolent of a black man becoming president. But, realistically, it would fit into the catagory of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it".

If marriage is part of our legal system, then it needs to have a legal definition, not a religious one. This is why I want Rick Warren front and center...to inform him and his kind of that. And by the way "You know that definition of marriage you keep talking about....could you recite that verse from the Bible for me...???" No he can't, because there isn't one. The lies of Christian leaders (It's not your fault Jesus and I'll be celebrating your birthday tomorrow!) especially to their followers who don't seem to read the Bible, needs to be exposed.

[Grey]

35. I wish I could recommend your reply... nt

[immoderate]

37. Agree!

The founders wanted to separate medieval thinking from governing. One day, maybe we will.

--IMM

[RichGirl]

21. Thank you for your post...

I agree with you!

[Clio the Leo]

23. I love that metaphor...

... I am going to steal it.

[leftofthedial]

36. Funny. I recall several objections from you.

I am glad that you have come around to discussing the issue, but I think you need to examine your own propensity for reductionist thinking.

Good points here though. Welcome to the discussion.

[cali]

40. You make a vague accusation with no elaboration

I have no idea what you're referring to. This post is simply an attack without any explanation, despite your "welcome to the discussion".

[leftofthedial]

41. sounds familiar does it?

pathetic.

Merry Christmas, cali.

[Teaser]

44. the world is quite aware of the merits of your posts

there is no need for the superfluous "pathetic" label.

[leftofthedial]

54. I was quoting Cali. It's her favorite word.

[IndianaJones]

42. repressed minority vs unsympathetic majority. great stuff. nt.

[FrenchieCat]

43. I heart you Cali.

Sometimes I'm not sure that the attention that the outrage itself gets is not the goal.
If that's the case, it is indeed a shallow pool.

Still, I think that Obama will deal with the real situation of the issues of Gay Rights squarely on the list of "Things to do". And then the overdone outrage will be credited, when in reality, it was Obama's intention always.

[JuniperLea]

47. We can't change hearts and minds

And there are no thought police, thankfully. What people want to believe is their own business. What is not their own business, their very own business, should be left alone. Changing laws or amending constitutions on behalf of the beliefs of one religion (Ok, so I'm lumping all Christians, Catholics, Protestants, etc., in here) is just wrong. We can't expect these people to accept anything they choose not to believe in.

Their arguments are not all that complicated and are easily rebuked when you see them in the light of beliefs vs. rights.

One argument is this is being forced on them somehow, that they are being forced to accept gay marriage. Well, no. No one is forcing anyone into a gay marriage, and it's ridiculous to expect anyone to change their mind on their own personal beliefs. They don't have to do a thing except to live and let live.

One argument is that this somehow makes their own marriages something less... again, no. They don't even have to believe in gay marriage, and they don't need to accept it in their minds or in their church. What they can't do is discriminate.

One argument is that a gay union is against God's plan because gays cannot procreate. This argument only holds water if every single man and woman on Earth becomes a parent. Not all people have children; some because of a physical issue, and some by choice. Priests and Nuns come to mind.

Nowhere in any Bible does it say we can or should belittle our brothers and sisters. Nowhere does it say we should force God's law upon others. No where does it say we should treat a segment of the population differently than we do anyone else.

I think there is plenty to discuss... I don't even scratch the surface here.

[yowzayowzayowza]

48. K&R despite disagreement on Warrenz selection.

This abject moral dogmatism is indeed counterproductive to our causes.

[EFerrari]

50. Your premise is itself reductive.

There is no refusal to discuss here. DU seems to be chugging along just fine. Your post isn't heretical, it's just patronizing when that isn't exactly the impetus we need to keep things moving forward.

[AntiFascist]

51. We can't deal with them at all unless we understand them better...

I am all for establishing a dialog to hold them up to the light and determine their deeper motives which go way beyond gay marriage. We should do this with any group with wealth, power, and popular appeal who have a predetermined agenda.

[cooolandrew]

52. Exactly, if what you said wasn't actually true it would be law in most states by now there is work >

to do and some of it will take talking to the other side no matter how right we feel we are over them. Our way or the highway doesn't work. The last 8 years are prime example. Fully agree. The perspective I'm getting is that most of the country has become tolerant and only Rick and his chosen few don't get it, would it be true most would have a good point on this issue but clearly by self evidence it's unfortunately not the case. Certainly folks should have all their rights and maybe in the circles folks associate there is tolerance or it's a more progressive state but it sadly by the laws alone is not yet a majority view. I just can't see the inclusion of Rick as an attack on the gay community or a continuation of more the same and I feel that will be shown true in the fullness of time.

[NYC_SKP]

53. Kicked and Recommended.

Nothing to add really, I simply agree with your sober assessment and perspective.

:toast:

[Honeycombe8]

55. A thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable post. Gives a person something to think about. Thx. nt

[bluedawg12]

56. Double standards and bad reframing won't make the case for you.

>>Here's what I do think: Dismissing over half the voters as simply bigots and refusing to discuss anything beyond that, is a truly fruitless way of approaching a big problem.<< - cali

There is much more being done beyond that and you know it.

>>I don't like it, but Warren represents the MAJORITY when it comes to marriage equality<< - cali

Yes, and racists represented the majority and that did not stop the AA civil rights movement.


As far as condemning the symbolism of bigot Warren, well that's sort of "touchiness" is not new. It brought Byard Rustin down a peg or two.

>>At the 1964 Democratic National Convention Rustin was drawn into the imbroglio over the challenge by the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, organized by SNCC, to unseat the party regulars.

At Johnson's behest, Walter Reuther and Hubert Humphrey brokered a compromise that would have given the FDP two seats alongside white supremacists in the Mississippi delegation.


It is one thing, predictable and even pardonable, that pragmatists within the Democratic Party would seek a compromise to avoid a fissure that could bring the party down to defeat.

But it is quite another thing when Bayard Rustin -- the personification of resistance -- capitulates to Dixiecrats from a state infamous for racist violence and the murder of civil rights workers. According to Anderson, this episode "marked the virtual end of the popularity Rustin had once enjoyed among young militants of the protest movement."<<
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue23/steinb23.htm

>>I do think it's a shame that any time the effort is made to extend the conversation beyond the outpouring of rage and pain, it's simply pushed away or condemned.<< - cali

This over generalization and misrepresentation of the gay civil rights movement is beneath reply.

Any effort? Any time? There have been no attempts at out reach by the gay community at all,ever, by anyone.

I don't condemn you for being a heretic, I don't know you to condemn you, so don't make a false supposition.

I do condemn your mistatements, however, they are damaging and counter productive.

Here's YOUR .35 minute of porblem solving for gay rights:

>>"Do we need to change minds?

Will the SCOTUS do for marriage equality what they did nearly 60 years ago for desegregation?

How do we approach getting the disgraceful DOMA repealed?"<<

:rofl:

[Laughing Mirror]

57. The MAJORITY is wrong to oppose marriage equality

It is the responsibility of the MINORITY to tell the MAJORITY they're wrong about this.

That's all we're doing, basically. Pointing out what's wrong, so it can be corrected.

[ismnotwasm]

58. You mean, what do we do now?

Part of my problem is I literally don't understand denying human rights to gays. I don't get it. I don't understand the reasoning, the logic, if you will. It makes no sense on any level to me. I understand political pragmatism I suppose, but not in this, not at this point in history.

We have a historic opportunity for change, maybe for peace, maybe for acceptance.

So, when dealing with people who would deny human rights to Gays, I'm at a loss. It seems to be religious in nature, that twisted sense of heteronormativity, or plain heterosexism and as always, misogyny, since male homophobia seems to have a lot to do with fear of, or distortion of, what is female.

The one thing I keep thinking of is the separation of church and state. The state of being Gay, The state of being heterosexual, two sides of the same coin, maybe and yet the more we learn about gender and sexual roles, the more we learn that the coin is multidimensional.

I send letters, emails, money if I can to protest.

We have a church in my city with a big rainbow mural on it welcoming all, maybe I'll go, even though I'm not religious.


I have a acquaintance at work who sings Gospel, he's devout Christian, and the anti-gay teachings are anathema to what his faith is. We talk. I read Elaine Pagels, and other radical theologians who question the basic interpretation of the bigoted hate in the bible and other 'holy' texts against homosexuals.

I'm an active feminist and what that means, among other things, is I'm anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-gay rights, pro human rights.

I have a vocal, assertive personality, and in my real world bigots don't speak actual hate in front on me, not because of that personality, but because I take the time to arm myself with facts, I don't reject these people outright, I ask why, and what about this, and what does this mean and why does this say this and I find they have not answers but illusions.

It's a frightening battle, but I guess my own personal answers are also questions; what did I do to fight hate today? Did I do it effectively? What else can I do?

[stevietheman]

59. I absolutely agree with you

The rage needs to end, and we need to start finding solutions, and solutions necessarily involve working with and convincing people we _think_ we despise.