getting a Republican voted in for another 4 years would somehow make the lives of GLBT people BETTER???
Think about it. If your choice is the lesser of 2 evils, which would you choose: waiting one or two years (until AFTER WE HAVE SECURED a more liberal administration in place) to have equal rights, or FIGHTING for it right away -- possibly losing the battle (since the issue is up for general public voting which would trump/veto the court decision, and since the majority vote supported a ban to begin with, there is a good possibility the public will overturn the court ruling) -- AND, to add insult to injury, now you could be stuck with a conservative administration for ANOTHER four years because of it (which will make even MORE policies and measures for equality, nationwide, harder to enact)
Think about it:
If choice A screws you some, and choice B screws you a whole lot more and for a lot longer time -- and there is no choice C -- then which do you choose? The one that's "symbolic but makes your life suck more in reality"? or the one that is "pride swallowing but better for you in the near future and the long run"? I have a lot of tolerance for a wide variety of people, but stupidity/ignorance is not something I'm very tolerant of.
I'm not saying battles for equality should not be fought; I am saying you need to pick the time and place for battle wisely. And this was possibly the MOST UNWISE of times to do so. Hopefully the court decision will hold, and hopefully it will have no bearing on swaying some to "the Dark Side" when it comes presidential election time. But hope and reality do not always coincide. It's a definite possibility that this action: a) guaranteed even LONGER ban on gay marriage, because the general elections are coming up so soon; b) helped put a right-wing agenda right back in the White House. And I am going to be SUPER SUPER PISSED (and so will you, as well as any other intelligent and rational being in our country) if that happens.
We have been sitting in the back of the proverbial bus waiting for an opportune moment to ask to be treated equally. That perfect moment will never come. Heaven forbid McCain wins - do you propose that we just continue to wait?
The fact is that the time to do what is right is always now. Turning a blind eye to injustice does not demonstrate effective strategy - it demonstrates cowardice and a failure of leadership.
I am proud that couples like Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon will now after over FIFTY YEARS of being together share in the legal priveleges that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy. Would you suggest to people like this who are both over 80 years old that they simply wait? Time is not a luxury many in our community have.
I agree with you that we must pick the time and place that we choose to fight inequality. The time and place must not be chosen from convenience, they must be chosen based on morality for there will never be a convient time or place, and in fact both will certainly always be inconvenient.
The most unwise time to act out and demand equality is tomorrow when the same can be done today.
Alright. If McCain wins, I am going to make a banner of this and attach your LJ name as a link for the quote.
If military generals used your philosophy, most of the world would be dead right now and/or our country would either have a Confederate or German flag flying above it. A good general chooses his battles strategically... not as soon as possible. And waits for that moment, or strikes the weak link.
"Dress me slowly -- I'm in a hurry!" - Napoleon Bonaparte
The Tet offensive -- ie. catch them offguard.
The Normandy Invasion (even though time was of the essence and they wanted to strike as quickly as possible, they KNEW they had to garner the forces and choose the right location; after more than a YEAR of planning, they carefully chose a location and made sure they HAD THE MANPOWER to win the fight before getting into it)
Yes, these are direct military (not diplomatic or political) analogies, but the point is: nobody ever won a war through sheer impatience. Nobody. Ever.
You say "The time and place must not be chosen from convenience" -- well, that is exactly what has happened. WAITING is the inconvenient thing. PATIENCE is difficult; impetuousness is easy. I agree: the time and place must NOT be chosen from convenience.
What WOULD have been the wise course of action?
Wait ONE YEAR. So, yes, I am suggesting that -- even though there are 80-year-olds who may not reap the benefits -- you wait. (and the numbers say they are definitely a small minority. "many in our community" -- how many 80+ year olds are seeking gay marriage? I'd like to know that number, and whether it's worth screwing over the entire rest of the oppressed population.) If you have a choice between an action that has a 10% chance of victory for the few or one that has a 60% chance of victory for the vast many, then which one would you choose?
Then, after the election has been waged, if Democrats are in the White House, you've got nothing to lose (in fact, you might have some higher-up federal levels of support, and at the very least it would draw national attention to a cause, which could rally Congressional proceedings which would not, then, be vetoed by a right-wing president.) And if McCain is in the White House? Still nothing to lose, because what could the fight possibly damage?
The reality is that there will not be a time when any politician will stand up and fight for the rights of a minority group against the will of the majority. Ever.
With regard to gay rights, as far as I am concerned, I don't have a dog in the political hunt right now. Neither Clinton nor Obama (nor obviously McCain) have done anything but paid lip-service to our community. In fact, the worst pieces of legislation and policy to damage our community were all signed by a Democrat (DOMA, DADT) so forgive me if I am not willing to sacrifice my equality so that a Democrat can win.
You asked how many elder gay people benefit from the right to marry as if there is room in the moral equation for such a variable. There is not. If you agree that discrimination is wrong, then it matters not how many suffer from the oppressive denial of rights, the mere existence of this denial is sufficient to warrant action.
There are two types of people in the world, those who wait for somebody else to make it better, and those of us who stand up and do something about it. While you sit staring at your political calender with a finger in the air waiting for the winds to change, I will be at Pottery Barn buying wedding gifts for my friends who will finally be able to enjoy the rights they are entitled to.
While this issue is extremely political (obviously) this post was made in a personal sense and thought of with my personal civil liberties in mind. Legally this is the first time that i've been recognized in full by my state government and that feels newsworthy and worth remembering. I think you've both made excellent points and i can see where you're both coming from but ultimately i agree with Derrick. I've had chills all day thinking about the fact that a right i never even really desired personally is now mine and can't be denied on legal grounds. That's profoundly bizarre and while you are definitely voicing a sound opinion and one that makes a lot of sense, the personal triumph felt by the gay community at large and (hopefully) by californians on a broad level can't be denied or told "yeah that's great BUT..."
There will always be a "but..." for pretty much every situation and yes, it annoys me that this issue is cropping up in yet another election year and might cause problems in the long term for a democrat in the white house. I'm sure the same things were said and felt with the war of 1812, the missouri compromise, johnson's reconstruction after the civil war, the 19th ammendment and so on. If none of those things had happened when they happened this world would be a different place and for all it's faults, i'll take what is given and work to make my future and the future of others better.
#1) You were recognized when the gay marriage was allowed, BEFORE it was banned. So it's not the first time.
#2) It's temporary, because the election vote has precedence over the court ruling, so if it goes the same way Prop 22 did, then it gets ixnayed once again in short order.
#3) If McCain gets elected, some people will point fingers at actions like this and blame them for the election outcome (even though there would be no real scientific way to no for sure what impact it has, if any); that would NOT help the cause of, or sympathy for, the homosexual community.
In short: let's pray that doesn't happen. And I'll leave it at that.
I wasn't trying to be combative in any of this, I just hate to see the ignorant, elite, right-wing bastards always "win" and they often do PRECISELY because of what I said: they stategically pick the time and place for their battles and actions to best benefit them (and their upper-echelon, privileged, murderous, asshole ilk) Why do I hate it? Because of selfish reasons; because I am not of the privileged, nepotism-fed class -- so, like the homosexual community, I am oppressed by their policies (only in different ways -- mostly financial ones)
I agree I am not a big fan of any of the current candidates, and Obama and Clinton are both total politicians. On the other hand, I feel McCain IS, shockingly, the most honest of the bunch. The problem is that he honestly shares his completely flawed policies which makes it evident how much deep shit we would be in if he were elected.
"If you agree that discrimination is wrong, then it matters not how many suffer from the oppressive denial of rights, the mere existence of this denial is sufficient to warrant action."
It's not a question of whether I believe it is "moral" or "all right" to discriminate against even one person. It is not. Not even for one person. But that is a matter of idealism -- not realism. I'm a realist. Utopia and reality are two different things.
Is it okay for a parade of elephants to leave one behind if it is terminally ill or so old that it poses a threat to the survival of the herd? Are the elephants "immoral" beings for saying goodbye to their loved ones and moving on in order to survive and ensure that they find food and do not become prey of other animals?
It's not a matter of morality; it's a matter of survival.
"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails." -- William Arthur Ward
I understand your point, but I think it's a little ridiculous to think that a law made in California will help McCain win. Clearly, California's votes are not going to McCain. Not many people will be shocked California is finally allowing equal rights for marriage, it's probably more surprising it wasn't the first state to do so. If McCain wins, feel free to put me on a banner as a supporter of equal rights.
It's not the law that would cause MCain to win -- it's the publicity/attention; it's the national headlines it creates that draws attention to an issue, which many anti-gay/homophobic Americans have put on a backburner because they have recently had more pressing issues to worry about (like losing jobs and dropping home values).
And yes, since California is such a forward-thinking -- and high-population -- state, people fear that if it happens here, then people across the country sometimes fear it is a sign of things to come in their own back yards. It's not so much that people will be surprised -- or even care -- what happens in "crazy California" (as much of the country views it), but the problem is that they suddenly start thinking "well, if it happened there... then MAYBE it could happen here??" and they freak out and start talkin' to their militia buddies, etc.
Thats a lot of hypotheticals, and what ifs. Your scenario could happen, or could not. No one is able to predict the future...but what we can know is that as of right now, supporters of marriage equality have won a victory. The war isn't over, but we can still be happy for this day.
Also, you probably should get over this pathological need to be dour.
I actually just checked back here to edit this to be less combative as I realized that a 13.5h work day probably has put myself in a "dour" mood. Regardless its aggravating to see so many people so caught up in doom and gloom scenarios that they can't appreciate something truly awesome when it happens.
Though my personal doom and gloom hypothetical comes from if the national media picks up the supposed drunken orgy party celebration in the castro tonight. Not the best way to win a PR war.
I can't wait for fox news to draw the correlation between allowing same sex marriage and the fundamentalist mormon cult compound that was raided last month. OBVIOUSLY one leads to the other. I mean, CLEARLY.
just like they were the first time it happened The hypotheticals I am giving are not ideas I just dreamed up in my head; they come from statements and analysis that has already happened.
There's no way to know for sure if the gay marriage issue killed John Kerry's chances, but according to Dianne Feinstein, rightwing Christian leaders, and outside analysts... it did.
So are the things I mention "nails in the coffin", so to speak? No. Are they intangibles? Yes. They are not definites, but they are a definite possibility -- one which would not have existed had this overturn not taken place.
And you're right... I shouldn't be dour about people making choices that flush their own rights and our country down the toilet. Why should that cause anger?
After all, the Boston Tea Party was a love fest. We all know great changes come from happiness and complacency with the status quo.
Sadly, all of the comments I have seen posted on this thread do not build my confidence that the general public of this country is educated enough to make the political and electoral decisions that will be best for them. Sad.
Kind of reminds me of when I went to McDonald's on the morning of the last election, and the frycook (a 20-something-year old who just got dropped off in a beater of a car and said she complained about being tired from working her second job) said "Well, I don't think I'll vote this time. I figure... I voted once, back when Clinton was running. That's enough. I've done my duty." Yes. Don't educate yourself and make political decisions that could directly and immediately enhance your life (Kerry was supporting a proposed minimum wage increase; Bush opposing it)
Douche: I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before.... but I just read the part way up earlier where you say you aren't gay.
Wow. Step the fuck off you elitist asswipe. You know who I think knows the most about whats best for the gay community. Oh thats right.. THE FUCKING GAYS. Your opinion to me on this matter is about as worthless as your miserable pathetic life. DIAF loser. Sacrifice your own damn rights if you're so concerned, but we are going to take our victory for what its worth, and be happy.
I really should just go to bed.... however a clarification on my rant might be necessary.
I very much value the opinions of my heterosexual colleagues. Just specifically not this douche's opinion. Or anyone else's who thinks the gays should grovel on the ground and wait for our massa's to throw us a bone when its most convenient for them.
getting a Republican voted in for another 4 years would somehow make the lives of GLBT people BETTER???
Think about it. If your choice is the lesser of 2 evils, which would you choose: waiting one or two years (until AFTER WE HAVE SECURED a more liberal administration in place) to have equal rights, or FIGHTING for it right away -- possibly losing the battle (since the issue is up for general public voting which would trump/veto the court decision, and since the majority vote supported a ban to begin with, there is a good possibility the public will overturn the court ruling) -- AND, to add insult to injury, now you could be stuck with a conservative administration for ANOTHER four years because of it (which will make even MORE policies and measures for equality, nationwide, harder to enact)
Think about it:
If choice A screws you some, and choice B screws you a whole lot more and for a lot longer time -- and there is no choice C -- then which do you choose? The one that's "symbolic but makes your life suck more in reality"? or the one that is "pride swallowing but better for you in the near future and the long run"? I have a lot of tolerance for a wide variety of people, but stupidity/ignorance is not something I'm very tolerant of.
I'm not saying battles for equality should not be fought; I am saying you need to pick the time and place for battle wisely. And this was possibly the MOST UNWISE of times to do so. Hopefully the court decision will hold, and hopefully it will have no bearing on swaying some to "the Dark Side" when it comes presidential election time. But hope and reality do not always coincide. It's a definite possibility that this action: a) guaranteed even LONGER ban on gay marriage, because the general elections are coming up so soon; b) helped put a right-wing agenda right back in the White House. And I am going to be SUPER SUPER PISSED (and so will you, as well as any other intelligent and rational being in our country) if that happens.
Reply
The fact is that the time to do what is right is always now. Turning a blind eye to injustice does not demonstrate effective strategy - it demonstrates cowardice and a failure of leadership.
I am proud that couples like Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon will now after over FIFTY YEARS of being together share in the legal priveleges that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy. Would you suggest to people like this who are both over 80 years old that they simply wait? Time is not a luxury many in our community have.
I agree with you that we must pick the time and place that we choose to fight inequality. The time and place must not be chosen from convenience, they must be chosen based on morality for there will never be a convient time or place, and in fact both will certainly always be inconvenient.
The most unwise time to act out and demand equality is tomorrow when the same can be done today.
Reply
If military generals used your philosophy, most of the world would be dead right now and/or our country would either have a Confederate or German flag flying above it. A good general chooses his battles strategically... not as soon as possible. And waits for that moment, or strikes the weak link.
"Dress me slowly -- I'm in a hurry!" - Napoleon Bonaparte
The Tet offensive -- ie. catch them offguard.
The Normandy Invasion (even though time was of the essence and they wanted to strike as quickly as possible, they KNEW they had to garner the forces and choose the right location; after more than a YEAR of planning, they carefully chose a location and made sure they HAD THE MANPOWER to win the fight before getting into it)
Yes, these are direct military (not diplomatic or political) analogies, but the point is: nobody ever won a war through sheer impatience. Nobody. Ever.
You say "The time and place must not be chosen from convenience" -- well, that is exactly what has happened. WAITING is the inconvenient thing. PATIENCE is difficult; impetuousness is easy. I agree: the time and place must NOT be chosen from convenience.
What WOULD have been the wise course of action?
Wait ONE YEAR. So, yes, I am suggesting that -- even though there are 80-year-olds who may not reap the benefits -- you wait. (and the numbers say they are definitely a small minority. "many in our community" -- how many 80+ year olds are seeking gay marriage? I'd like to know that number, and whether it's worth screwing over the entire rest of the oppressed population.) If you have a choice between an action that has a 10% chance of victory for the few or one that has a 60% chance of victory for the vast many, then which one would you choose?
Then, after the election has been waged, if Democrats are in the White House, you've got nothing to lose (in fact, you might have some higher-up federal levels of support, and at the very least it would draw national attention to a cause, which could rally Congressional proceedings which would not, then, be vetoed by a right-wing president.) And if McCain is in the White House? Still nothing to lose, because what could the fight possibly damage?
Reply
With regard to gay rights, as far as I am concerned, I don't have a dog in the political hunt right now. Neither Clinton nor Obama (nor obviously McCain) have done anything but paid lip-service to our community. In fact, the worst pieces of legislation and policy to damage our community were all signed by a Democrat (DOMA, DADT) so forgive me if I am not willing to sacrifice my equality so that a Democrat can win.
You asked how many elder gay people benefit from the right to marry as if there is room in the moral equation for such a variable. There is not. If you agree that discrimination is wrong, then it matters not how many suffer from the oppressive denial of rights, the mere existence of this denial is sufficient to warrant action.
There are two types of people in the world, those who wait for somebody else to make it better, and those of us who stand up and do something about it. While you sit staring at your political calender with a finger in the air waiting for the winds to change, I will be at Pottery Barn buying wedding gifts for my friends who will finally be able to enjoy the rights they are entitled to.
Reply
There will always be a "but..." for pretty much every situation and yes, it annoys me that this issue is cropping up in yet another election year and might cause problems in the long term for a democrat in the white house. I'm sure the same things were said and felt with the war of 1812, the missouri compromise, johnson's reconstruction after the civil war, the 19th ammendment and so on. If none of those things had happened when they happened this world would be a different place and for all it's faults, i'll take what is given and work to make my future and the future of others better.
Reply
#2) It's temporary, because the election vote has precedence over the court ruling, so if it goes the same way Prop 22 did, then it gets ixnayed once again in short order.
#3) If McCain gets elected, some people will point fingers at actions like this and blame them for the election outcome (even though there would be no real scientific way to no for sure what impact it has, if any); that would NOT help the cause of, or sympathy for, the homosexual community.
In short: let's pray that doesn't happen. And I'll leave it at that.
I wasn't trying to be combative in any of this, I just hate to see the ignorant, elite, right-wing bastards always "win" and they often do PRECISELY because of what I said: they stategically pick the time and place for their battles and actions to best benefit them (and their upper-echelon, privileged, murderous, asshole ilk) Why do I hate it? Because of selfish reasons; because I am not of the privileged, nepotism-fed class -- so, like the homosexual community, I am oppressed by their policies (only in different ways -- mostly financial ones)
Reply
"If you agree that discrimination is wrong, then it matters not how many suffer from the oppressive denial of rights, the mere existence of this denial is sufficient to warrant action."
It's not a question of whether I believe it is "moral" or "all right" to discriminate against even one person. It is not. Not even for one person. But that is a matter of idealism -- not realism. I'm a realist. Utopia and reality are two different things.
Is it okay for a parade of elephants to leave one behind if it is terminally ill or so old that it poses a threat to the survival of the herd? Are the elephants "immoral" beings for saying goodbye to their loved ones and moving on in order to survive and ensure that they find food and do not become prey of other animals?
It's not a matter of morality; it's a matter of survival.
"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails." -- William Arthur Ward
Reply
If McCain wins, feel free to put me on a banner as a supporter of equal rights.
Reply
And yes, since California is such a forward-thinking -- and high-population -- state, people fear that if it happens here, then people across the country sometimes fear it is a sign of things to come in their own back yards. It's not so much that people will be surprised -- or even care -- what happens in "crazy California" (as much of the country views it), but the problem is that they suddenly start thinking "well, if it happened there... then MAYBE it could happen here??" and they freak out and start talkin' to their militia buddies, etc.
Reply
Also, you probably should get over this pathological need to be dour.
Reply
Reply
Though my personal doom and gloom hypothetical comes from if the national media picks up the supposed drunken orgy party celebration in the castro tonight. Not the best way to win a PR war.
Reply
I can't wait for fox news to draw the correlation between allowing same sex marriage and the fundamentalist mormon cult compound that was raided last month. OBVIOUSLY one leads to the other. I mean, CLEARLY.
Reply
just like they were the first time it happened The hypotheticals I am giving are not ideas I just dreamed up in my head; they come from statements and analysis that has already happened.
There's no way to know for sure if the gay marriage issue killed John Kerry's chances, but according to Dianne Feinstein, rightwing Christian leaders, and outside analysts... it did.
So are the things I mention "nails in the coffin", so to speak? No. Are they intangibles? Yes. They are not definites, but they are a definite possibility -- one which would not have existed had this overturn not taken place.
And you're right... I shouldn't be dour about people making choices that flush their own rights and our country down the toilet. Why should that cause anger?
After all, the Boston Tea Party was a love fest. We all know great changes come from happiness and complacency with the status quo.
Sadly, all of the comments I have seen posted on this thread do not build my confidence that the general public of this country is educated enough to make the political and electoral decisions that will be best for them. Sad.
Kind of reminds me of when I went to McDonald's on the morning of the last election, and the frycook (a 20-something-year old who just got dropped off in a beater of a car and said she complained about being tired from working her second job) said "Well, I don't think I'll vote this time. I figure... I voted once, back when Clinton was running. That's enough. I've done my duty." Yes. Don't educate yourself and make political decisions that could directly and immediately enhance your life (Kerry was supporting a proposed minimum wage increase; Bush opposing it)
Reply
Douche: I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before.... but I just read the part way up earlier where you say you aren't gay.
Wow. Step the fuck off you elitist asswipe. You know who I think knows the most about whats best for the gay community. Oh thats right.. THE FUCKING GAYS. Your opinion to me on this matter is about as worthless as your miserable pathetic life. DIAF loser. Sacrifice your own damn rights if you're so concerned, but we are going to take our victory for what its worth, and be happy.
Reply
I very much value the opinions of my heterosexual colleagues. Just specifically not this douche's opinion. Or anyone else's who thinks the gays should grovel on the ground and wait for our massa's to throw us a bone when its most convenient for them.
Reply
Leave a comment