Widen your view of gay history and be grateful

[Kulindahr]

Is that your opinion?

No, it's fact, as has been posted here over and over. Polls show that anywhere from 60% to over 80% of Americans consider marriage to be religious.

The last thing we need is to prove the homophobes right that we are trying to radicalize society and do away with marriage.

What "do away with"? We'd be offering them the whole deal: marriage would be theirs, totally, completely, and the government wouldn't have a thing to say about it any more.

That would actually be a very conservative move, because it fits with reducing the intrusiveness of government. Democrats would still vote for it, because mostly they don't care what it's called, just the result, which would be actual human rights. Goldwater Republicans would vote for it, because it's truly conservative.

All we'd have to do is get someone to introduce it as "Restoring Sacred Marriage" Act, and run with it.

And you could definitely get more churches endorsing it than will endorse gay marriage in our lifetimes.

For those hesitating, point out that it's a move that would be obedient to Jesus' own words to "render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

 

[NickCole]

The movement for greater acceptance seems to have gone from conservative to radical to conservative again.

No, it started radical (Harry Hay and his crowd drew from Communist models for the gay rights fight they started in 1950) and continued radical until this current generation.

Larry Kramer was radical and the gays he criticized were radical. What Larry was infuriated about was how frivilous and careless we were, not conservatism within the movement. Wierdly, although Larry Kramer is clearly a radical, I remember him in the mid to late 70s on Fire Island bitching about our behavior, and then publishing Faggots, and we all thought he was being absurdly conservative.

I think it's the radical stereotype that hurts us so badly.

What hurts us is complacency, letting those in power who solicit and accept our money and votes betray us once they're in office.

 

[NickCole]

^I think I support both.

Though I expect most personal gain from supporting equal rights (ENDA?), since I never envision a future that would include marriage. But I want others to have that option...

I'm pretty much with you on that.

Although my partner and I are solid as ever after 18 years, we're not getting married even though we could in Connecticut. But equal rights means equal access to marriage and I want all gays to have that option.

P.S. I miss the "Us vs. Them" attitude. I do think we (gays) are special, different, gifted, evolved, etc..

Gays who grew up in the 50s and 60s, and were adults in the 70s and 80s, experienced being gay very differently from today's generation of gays. And it may be that how we experienced being gay, not being gay itself, infused those qualities.

 

[JB3]

Gays who grew up in the 50s and 60s, and were adults in the 70s and 80s, experienced being gay very differently from today's generation of gays. And it may be that how we experienced being gay, not being gay itself, infused those qualities.

That is DEFINITELY true. While there are still segments of the country where being gay is treated as it was in the 50s and 60s, in many areas the stigma has been removed and it isn't possible for that 'us vs. them' mentality to be cultivated. My boyfriend and I actually discuss this all the time, and it always comes down to the fact that, even though we're fighting for our rights, the blatant animosity and hatred that existed back then does not exist for us now. (In our cases) So it makes it harder for us to feel like its 'us vs. them' because 99% of the people we interact with on a daily basis don't care about it and love us all the same.

 

[iman]

I think it is important to put the gay liberation movement into the even larger perspective of historic liberation movements that have been going on for thousands of years. The early christians were content with their slave religion to look to the next life for liberation and were promptly fed to the lions by the accommodating Romans.

Eventually some people decided to resist their oppressors and those oppressors also began to develop a consciousness and very slowly we have gotten to the present world where humans are starting to seriously empathize with other species. Where are we going next?

Gay marriage is a civil right and, I think, a fait accompli, the debate is really over and it is just a matter of time. Marriage is not something I have ever been interested in even though I have been partnered for what seems to be an eternity. (I do recommend it, hard as it may be) Maybe, I dislike marriage because it is conservative as Nick pointed out or maybe because i am as unlikely to respond to a Andy Sullivan idea as I am one of his personal ads.

I do think marriage has gained traction within the gay community because it is a symbol of acceptance and as a result of the AIDS epidemic and I wonder how important marriage will be to gay men when acceptance is the norm and AIDS no longer exists.

It seems to me that a partnership that involves a female sensibility and a male sensibility has to be substantially different than a relationship between two men or two women. I don't think we will know how all these relationships play out until women, men and gays are all born into a society where they are free and valued.

 

[bike10]

We know that GOP God's Only Party will be doing its part to deny equality to gay men and women.

 

[iman]

We know that GOP God's Only Party will be doing its part to deny equality to gay men and women.

Given the history of the Republican Party and the fact that the GOP has done nothing except try and block equal rights of minorities since Lincoln was shot, one has to wonder how some gay posters can support them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Given the history of the Republican Party and the fact that the GOP has done nothing except try and block equal rights of minorities since Lincoln was shot, one has to wonder how some gay posters can support them.

False.
Up through Eisenhower, the Republican Party was the party of human rights; the Democrats were the party of the Klan. That really only changed under Nixon, and then Reagan completed the switch.

 

[Sausy]

False.
Up through Eisenhower, the Republican Party was the party of human rights; the Democrats were the party of the Klan. That really only changed under Nixon, and then Reagan completed the switch.

Yep.Civil rights laws couldn't get passed without the help of Republicans,and the Southern Democratic bloc was strongly conservative,reactionary indeed until the early 80's with Reagan in power and the Southern delegation going Republican..I cannot abide Nixon,who in many ways governed like a centrist and was very knowledgeable about foreign policy but conducted himself as a paranoid,manipulative,disingenuous racist and bigot.Rather weird for him being a Quaker in his religious upbringing.That cynical Southern stategy that built on Dixiecrat disaffection he masterminded proved he would do anything to get power.A truly and thoroughly unpleasant character.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's also a little more complex than that.

Had the Moral Majority not come to power, and the Religious Right taken over the Republican Party, we would likely be facing different circumstances.

True. The Moral Majority began its rumblings under Nixon, and later, under Reagan transmogrified into the Religious Right, and have finally turned into ReilgioPublicans after achieving a successful coup to effectively shanghai real conservatives into supporting them.

That's an example of the reason I say we need to make representation in the House based on proportional representation by state: we'd get more people actually represented, and not just in name.

 

[NickCole]

Glad someone else said it and not me...

Why, because what he said is wrong?

 

[Kulindahr]

Shanghai? Have not heard that verb in quite some time...

When you say proportional representation by state, how exactly do you mean?

Take California for example:

The parties put out a slate of candidates. People vote for the party they want. The percentages are calculated, and a party gets 'winners' by the percentages.

I imagine that in California we'd see Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Reform, Socialist, and maybe some others represented. So we could conceivably have seven or eight parties in the House.

Of course it could lead to a proliferation of parties -- NOM and their ilk might form one, for example. But I see that as a good thing, because people would actually be represented for once.

 

[jdoe4822]

Take California for example:

The parties put out a slate of candidates. People vote for the party they want. The percentages are calculated, and a party gets 'winners' by the percentages.

I imagine that in California we'd see Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Reform, Socialist, and maybe some others represented. So we could conceivably have seven or eight parties in the House.

Of course it could lead to a proliferation of parties -- NOM and their ilk might form one, for example. But I see that as a good thing, because people would actually be represented for once.

soyou're arguing for more of a parliamentary style system like you'd see elsewhere in the world where the various parties have to come together to form majority coalitions (just with keeping an independently elected Executive Branch as opposed to a Prime Minister?

 

[Kulindahr]

soyou're arguing for more of a parliamentary style system like you'd see elsewhere in the world where the various parties have to come together to form majority coalitions (just with keeping an independently elected Executive Branch as opposed to a Prime Minister?

It would be more representative -- thus an enhancement of democracy.

 

[JB3]

It would be more representative -- thus an enhancement of democracy.

Representative in some ways, an utter disaster in others.

There's a reason why the founders took that idea and threw it in the trash heap, Kuli.

 

[Kulindahr]

Representative in some ways, an utter disaster in others.

There's a reason why the founders took that idea and threw it in the trash heap, Kuli.

The Founders didn't even have that idea. Members of the House of Commons back then were chosen by a few people in each county or borough; there was very little about it that resembled democracy.

But better a House that actually represents people than the current system wherein only a minority are actually represented, namely those whose views match those of the person elected.

 

[scream4ever]

Great thread! Here's a graph to illustrate this concept a bit more:

http://www.queerty.com/you-might-no...ner-year-for-lgbt-rights-in-america-20100127/