|
Xiahou Dun posted:Bad, New York! That's a bad New York! Don't blame me; I'm from Massachusetts 
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
I saw this in the GBS thread and thought it was worth having a discussion about.quote:I think marriage equality is a farce pursued by rich white gays who want to assimilate. It's a red hearing, preventing attention and money from going to important causes: like homeless queer youth, violence against the queer community, etc. Once "marriage equality" is established, a lot of attention will fade away without any real problems being solved, much like how paper privileges caused people to stop paying attention to the continuing struggles of racialized groups. quote:That's a nice hope. As from my example earlier, the hope that equal legal rights associated with the Civil Rights Movement would equalize the social and economic standing of Blacks in the country. Fifty years on, the statistics say that hope failed. I think it is important for the government to enact laws that gives equal status to the LGBT community, but I also understand that there might be negative consequences to the movement when there is so much focus on gay marriage in particular. I'm curious to hear more opinions on this. Thoughts? Edit: grammar ilovemyducks fucked around with this message at 21:59 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Echo_ posted:
That, for one, is false. Marriage has never been "universally" a religious institution and it certainly isn't now.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Echo_ posted:I think it is important for the government to enact laws that gives equal status to the LGBT community, but I also understand that there might be negative consequences to the movement when there is so much focus on gay marriage in particular. I'm curious to hearing more opinions on this. Thoughts? There's no good argument here. Civil rights laws didn't create true equality, but they're a necessary and important step. Likewise gay marriage may not create true equality but that makes it no less necessary and important. There's also a libertarian argument in there of "state out of marriage entirely" but that's not going to happen, nor is it desirable (because marriage is a package of important legal rights that's of tremendous benefit to have as a society, such as automatic inheritance and hospital visitation and the like).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Don't blame me; I'm from Massachusetts Massachusetts is the best state.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Such a good state we've evolved past using the word "state" for ourselves
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Hey, hey, you got the City, you got Westchester. All nice and dark purple. Anything we do, the upstate frowns on for a while. Don't worry, it'll come out in the wash.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Echo_ posted:I saw this in the GBS thread and thought it was worth having a discussion about. It's an utterly absurd thing that comes up. Yes, people who ONLY fight for marriage are missing a lot of major points but people putting 'counter culture cred' above ensuring every gay citizen has equal rights is cartoonishly wrong. As for the second quote, it's just another pseudo-intellectual who thinks the western concept of marriage is 'marriage as it always was'.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Hey, hey, you got the City, you got Westchester. All nice and dark purple. Anything we do, the upstate frowns on for a while. Don't worry, it'll come out in the wash. And of course it looks like rich, white Nassau county is the lump of grey near the city.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Echo_ posted:I saw this in the GBS thread and thought it was worth having a discussion about. There's an awful lot of liberals who suffer from an annoying condition that can only be described as 'care paralysis.' They seem to hold a wrong headed notion that to care about one issue is to abandon the others. "Oh no I can't complain about this issue because there are these starving children who are more important!" and so forth. It's nonsense. For example, just because you're researching the cure for cancer, doesn't mean you can't also work on cure for HIV and AIDS. It is possible to care about many things at once. Human equality lifts all boats. Giving marriage equality to gay Americans doesn't somehow secretly put the screws to poor gay teens. Everyone wins.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Yes, I'm pretty familiar with those arguments, and they can probably best be described as radical queer or queer liberationist. There's some truth in it, mainly the claim that marriage (if not necessarily religious) is traditional and conservative. I think it is, and I think the shift to gay marriage as the primary political cause for gay activists following the AIDS crisis of the 1980s reflects a rightward shift within the gay rights movement. (Borne out of the crisis too.) The problem is that radical queer ideology offers no solutions and has no basis for engaging with politics in any way. It's essentially empty, totally zero sum analysis. What it says is that any attempt at freeing a group from oppression only divides the oppressed against each other by privileging certain groups over others. So they say that gay marriage will privilege wealthy white gay men over trans people of color, because it means that gay men will have bought into an oppressive system. So what you get is political paralysis. No one should be freed because freedom privileges the people who are freed over those who are not. The other problem is that it's contradictory. It rails against white gay men "who want to assimilate," (how dare they try to live normal lives!) while suggesting that true liberation is being different from straight people and enforcing that difference. Instead gay men should actively reject the majority, and should not seek acceptance from them. In fact, you shouldn't want to be accepted -- you should want the majority to actively dislike you, fear you and be discomforted by you, because that's what makes you queer. Though, I don't think anyone should seek acceptance either, because acceptance should be owed to you, not sought by you. But they're in a weird paradox where being hated means they have been liberated. It's also no wonder it's becoming more marginal, since there's not as many anti-gay haters around as there used to be. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Didn't see a specific thread about Obama endorsing gay marriage, so I thought I'd just poke my head in here and mention that, while I know it's as much about politics and the election as anything else, I was extremely glad to see Obama mention that it was in fact partly due to his Christianity that he supports gay marriage. The most immediate descriptor of my religion from non-christians is (according to at least one poll) "anti-gay," - something which I think is a travesty and a hideous departure from Christ's teachings. I would be quite happy to see those of us who aren't assholes get half the PR the Anti-gay, overly political groups do. And so I'm not completely derailing the current discussion: I really don't see the long term benefit to 'queer liberationists.' That sort of sepratist behavior seems like it would just be drawing more lines in the sand and fueling the Us vs Them scenarios that are so conducive to bigotry - from BOTH sides of the fence. I support gay marriage 100 percent, but I worry that because so much of my church as stood against it that the pendelum could eventually just swing back the other direction when I'd rather it just meet in the middle. Spiritus Nox fucked around with this message at 22:29 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Echo_ posted:I saw this in the GBS thread and thought it was worth having a discussion about. The federal legislative plan for LGBT rights has always been placed ENDA before DOMA repeal. One of our biggest problems is that people surveyed believe federal law forbids LGBT employment discrimination. Marriage is the #1 issue because our opponents have organized 32 highly publicized votes on marriage. There is a ton of casual support that does not extend to the entire LGBT legal agenda. When Massachusetts and Connecticut finally added transpeople to their laws last year, the media ignored it, but national media will report on marriage bills before they're even close to a floor vote. If we call and complain enough, non-discrimination laws will become expected of any Democratic legislature the same as marriage. The complaints about the institution of marriage are ridiculous stuff that nobody cares about other than Andrew Sullivan when he gets angry about personal conflicts between activists 20 years ago. e: Colorado special session starts Monday. So civil unions will pass next week probably. 
UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 22:31 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:I live in PA, and yeah thats pretty much the case. The is actually a joke that PA consists of Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Alabama in between. I literally moved to PA from Alabama and I am astonished at how similar they are. A little depressing since I was hoping it would be a lot more liberal.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Aufzug Taube! posted:Yes, I'm pretty familiar with those arguments, and they can probably best be described as radical queer or queer liberationist. There's some truth in it, mainly the claim that marriage (if not necessarily religious) is traditional and conservative. I think it is, and I think the shift to gay marriage as the primary political cause for gay activists following the AIDS crisis of the 1980s reflects a rightward shift within the gay rights movement. (Borne out of the crisis too.) This really makes zero sense though. Like I have no idea who you're talking to but in Texas of all places AIDS activism is still a huge thing, you can't quantify 'activism' and say 'well this is getting more focus so it means...'. Marriage is a major talking point because there are a poo poo ton of states trying to take it away from us. I haven't been involved in any organization for gay rights that didn't have a huge HIV/AIDS awareness/activism wing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Echo_ posted:I saw this in the GBS thread and thought it was worth having a discussion about. The main problem with this argument is the assumption that those rich white gays would be focused on some other gay rights issue if marriage wasn't on the table, that is completely wrong. Most of my gay friends are not very politically active and the ones that are involved wouldn't be involved in gay rights activism at all if it wasn't for the marriage issue. If anything the fact that the marriage issue is such a big thing right now is bringing in more money and attention to the other LGBT issues. People tend to give the most attention to the issues that affect them personally and if wasn't for gay marriage there wouldn't really be any pressing LGBT issues for the rich white gays other than maybe the school bullying/suicide stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:This really makes zero sense though. Like I have no idea who you're talking to but in Texas of all places AIDS activism is still a huge thing, you can't quantify 'activism' and say 'well this is getting more focus so it means...'. Marriage is a major talking point because there are a poo poo ton of states trying to take it away from us. I haven't been involved in any organization for gay rights that didn't have a huge HIV/AIDS awareness/activism wing. Second, I think the idea that gay marriage activism as a response to "states trying to take [marriage] away from us" puts things in the wrong order. Before anti-gay amendments to state constitutions, gay marriage was already illegal or unrecognized. It was the push for marriage beginning in the 90s that provoked a reaction by anti-gay forces to formally ban it in constitutions as a stop-gap.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
Aufzug Taube! posted:The other problem is that it's contradictory. It rails against white gay men "who want to assimilate," (how dare they try to live normal lives!) while suggesting that true liberation is being different from straight people and enforcing that difference. Instead gay men should actively reject the majority, and should not seek acceptance from them. In fact, you shouldn't want to be accepted -- you should want the majority to actively dislike you, fear you and be discomforted by you, because that's what makes you queer. Though, I don't think anyone should seek acceptance either, because acceptance should be owed to you, not sought by you. But they're in a weird paradox where being hated means they have been liberated. It's also no wonder it's becoming more marginal, since there's not as many anti-gay haters around as there used to be. This is an incomplete and deeply misleading characterization of the radical queer position. Queer liberation is about people having the freedom to construct the kinds of sexual and emotional lives they want without fear of persecution, opprobrium, or artificial social hinderance. The problem with marriage advocacy as it's practiced in the U.S. is that it paints marriage as the only culturally acceptable queer relationship, and other sorts of relationships and arrangements are very explicitly characterized as less worthy of regard, protection, or even acknowledgement. These relationships evolved because they worked best for the people concerned, and the enshrining of marriage as the ideal relationship status for queer people actively harms the people who practice such alternative relationships. I have zero problem with people having the ability to get married, and indeed I think that they absolutely should. The problem arises when marriage becomes the only socially acceptable option, and people whose circumstances demand a different kind of arrangement are relegated to the fringes even more than they often are already (since a great many people with such alternative arrangements are poor queer people of color).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:This is an incomplete and deeply misleading characterization of the radical queer position. Queer liberation is about people having the freedom to construct the kinds of sexual and emotional lives they want without fear of persecution, opprobrium, or artificial social hinderance. The problem with marriage advocacy as it's practiced in the U.S. is that it paints marriage as the only culturally acceptable queer relationship, and other sorts of relationships and arrangements are very explicitly characterized as less worthy of regard, protection, or even acknowledgement. These relationships evolved because they worked best for the people concerned, and the enshrining of marriage as the ideal relationship status for queer people actively harms the people who practice such alternative relationships. I have zero problem with people having the ability to get married, and indeed I think that they absolutely should. The problem arises when marriage becomes the only socially acceptable option, and people whose circumstances demand a different kind of arrangement are relegated to the fringes even more than they often are already (since a great many people with such alternative arrangements are poor queer people of color). Well, yeah. But acceptance of gay marriage is still a huge step forward. And I don't see it as increasing some sort of bias against gays who don't wan't to get married, any more than some straights don't want to , except of course for the original bigotry which will still be there. At some point the bigotry will be "hmmm... yeah, maybe the MARRIED gays are acceptable, I guess... but those wanton single ones who blah-blah-basically behaves like straight people not getting married? Yeah, I still don't like -those-". And yeah, that's still bigotry, but it IS less. And that's how poo poo like this mostly works. One excrusiating step at a time. Is it enough, for now? poo poo, no. The eradication of bigotry and ignorance is ALWAYS too slow. But that doesn't mean small victories shouldn't be seen as such.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:This is an incomplete and deeply misleading characterization of the radical queer position. Queer liberation is about people having the freedom to construct the kinds of sexual and emotional lives they want without fear of persecution, opprobrium, or artificial social hinderance. The problem with marriage advocacy as it's practiced in the U.S. is that it paints marriage as the only culturally acceptable queer relationship, and other sorts of relationships and arrangements are very explicitly characterized as less worthy of regard, protection, or even acknowledgement. These relationships evolved because they worked best for the people concerned, and the enshrining of marriage as the ideal relationship status for queer people actively harms the people who practice such alternative relationships. I have zero problem with people having the ability to get married, and indeed I think that they absolutely should. The problem arises when marriage becomes the only socially acceptable option, and people whose circumstances demand a different kind of arrangement are relegated to the fringes even more than they often are already (since a great many people with such alternative arrangements are poor queer people of color). I understand your argument(it'd be better split into paragraphs), but it's a bit outside the scope of a marriage equality thread. Working to secure legally-recognized and completely equivalent domestic partnership legislation does not preclude gay or poly people from telling the entire system to gently caress off. The big deal thing here is that married people get a poo poo ton of advantages based on registering their status with the state(getting married). These benefits aren't available to same sex couples. There is no equivalent inequality right now with regard to people in poly relationships. The state doesn't endorse poly relationships at all. I don't see how marriage being an available option for gay people makes it the "only socially acceptable option."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I understand your argument(it'd be better split into paragraphs), but it's a bit outside the scope of a marriage equality thread. Working to secure legally-recognized and completely equivalent domestic partnership legislation does not preclude gay or poly people from telling the entire system to gently caress off. You don't see how that's the case with straight couples? Everything under the sun is pushing them into marriage, with piles of financial and social rewards that only can happen once you're married. My wife and I basically only got married because of the monetary benefits and protections it brought her-- we were in it for the long haul anyway, but neither of us thought we needed state or church approval of our relationship. I can see the same thing being used to coerce gays into marriage.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
Again I have no idea who you're actually talking to but I've never heard gay marriage advocates say that it was the ONLY option, just that, you know, we're citizens and deserve the same rights as any other citizen.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 14:05
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Again I have no idea who you're actually talking to but I've never heard gay marriage advocates say that it was the ONLY option, just that, you know, we're citizens and deserve the same rights as any other citizen. Oh they never do. It's just the only option they'll ever publicly talk about or ever spend one red cent on.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Oh they never do. It's just the only option they'll ever publicly talk about or ever spend one red cent on. yep people sure haven't spent any money on anti-bullying and suicide prevention in the last year or so
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Oh they never do. It's just the only option they'll ever publicly talk about or ever spend one red cent on. I'm not saying Gay Marriage shouldn't be legal or anything like that. But if you can't see society's not-so-subtle push to get people married, I think you need to check your eyesight. Also, missing the point that by pushing for the most basic of benefits (marriage is a pretty marginal benefit unless you're already middling to well-off) will just peel off support for other parts of the equality agenda basically ignores the whole general push for equality up until this point. Groups are only given equality so that they can be used to continue to oppress the remaining out-groups (see the gradual expansion of white to include more ethnicities) To act like this isn't a concern is a bit shortsighted.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Riptor posted:yep people sure haven't spent any money on anti-bullying and suicide prevention in the last year or so People didn't give two shits about bullying and suicide prevention until about a year and a half ago, and in another two years they'll stop giving a poo poo again. I work as a teacher in Minnesota, right next to the Anoka-Hennepin district that's made national headlines as a "suicide contagion zone," and I've been working with queer youth organizations a whole lot longer than that. Youth still get thrown under the bus by the mainstream gay rights movement all the time because people have this idiotic idea that randomly throwing money around is going to solve the problem. Look, it's a good thing that the Trevor Project is getting more money now, but that's not going to continue once something else becomes the liberal feel-good cause du jour. And frankly, even with a ton of money, the Trevor Project's reach is limited. They're first-rate at bringing kids through a crisis point, but without a drastic change in their environments, it's more likely than not that they're going to have one of those crisis points again, and next time they may not decide to call. Sometimes one attempt is enough to get people to pull them out of wherever they are, but some families simply don't have the resources. Those kids are the ones in constant danger; those are the kids who'll try to give it another go because they know that their mom and dad love them and they don't have any other option, and then a few months later will end up in a coffin because it was just too much for them to take. And all the while that this is happening, the marriage movement continues to soak up the vast majority of the money and pulling poo poo like they did in North Carolina where they run ad after ad about how straight people will be hurt too and won't you please think of your fellow straights when you vote. God forbid that they should have spent money putting a human face on the LGBT community in North Carolina. God forbid that they should have shown one old queer couple who were in danger of losing everything as soon as one of them died. Because humanizing the suffering of minorities has never been effective in winning people over, nope. Look, I want people to be able to get married. I want to be able to get married, because I know that that's the kind of life I want. But right now the gay rights movement is so myopically focused on marriage as our Holy Grail that we're ignoring a lot of problems that are much more relevant to a lot of people than marriage. And if we continue ignoring them, we run a serious risk of creating a movement that'll pack its bags and go home as soon as marriage happens. I don't want to see other queer people left out in the rain while my white privileged rear end is sitting high and dry.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:God forbid that they should have shown one old queer couple who were in danger of losing everything as soon as one of them died. Because humanizing the suffering of minorities has never been effective in winning people over, nope. I am sure these gay rights groups secretly don't care about gays and that's why they were running those ads, not that they thought they would be tactically useful in an attempt to block the amendment.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:People didn't give two shits about bullying and suicide prevention until about a year and a half ago Uh, yeah. People don't care about things until they do. I agree that the point at which people starting caring should have been about a zillion years ago, but this: Bel_Canto posted:in another two years they'll stop giving a poo poo again is just speculation on your part. You sound like you do great work, and I'm sure you've helped a lot of people, and for that I sincerely, sincerely thank you. It sounds like you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder that you and people like you haven't had more attention paid do you. I'd probably be pissed too if I were in your situation. But minimizing the work of others, work that genuinely does help people, doesn't seem like the most effective way to channel that energy. Listen, I live in Massachusetts and the halo effect or whatever you want to call it from marriage being legalized here has been astonishing to me; my parents used to be the sort of hands of "well, people can do whatever they want, I guess" tepid liberal you might expect from a middle class Boston suburb, but in the years and almost decade since marriage equality happened here I hear them talking really progessively on trans issues, not to mention their full support of gay rights. So yeah, maybe the majority of the time and money is being channeled into marriage right now, but if and when marriage equality passes in a place it doesn't just end there; it's a thing worth fighting for.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:
Hey bro, those ads mainly had those tones because A) Gay marriage was already banned, B) NC is a super homophobic environment, and C) the fact that literally everyone could be hurt by the bill is a totally valid thing to use against it. But yea, you got it right, gay rights group secretly hate gays and wanted to avoid humanizing them because ads in NC represent the entire movement.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'm not saying Gay Marriage shouldn't be legal or anything like that. But if you can't see society's not-so-subtle push to get people married, I think you need to check your eyesight. Society's done a poo poo job of that lately:   http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/05/29/u-s-trends-in-marriage-divorce-and-cohabitation/
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
There is an LGBT bullying law in every state with marriage equality and almost every state with civil unions. Almost all have LGBT housing, employment, and public accommodation protections and at a minimum employment at the state level. If you want to complain about the lack of effort put into LGBT issues outside of marriage, you're looking at the wrong states. There should absolutely be 100% coverage in any state that has reached the point of passing marriage or something like it but this is not a widespread failure.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:My prediction on the long-term prospects for gay marriage in the US: The trail to freedom started with Proposition 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v_brown We are going to the Supreme Court and bringing the 14th Amendment with us. Medium term prediction: Supreme Court Case upholds same-sex marriage as a right to equal protection of the laws in all 50 states in a 6-3 decision. Lemonus fucked around with this message at 03:11 on May 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Maybe this is a question more for a religion thread, but I don't see any around right now: So Christians are all about Jesus right? I mean they're CHRISTians. So Jesus is New Testament. He came down in the sermon of the mount and he was all "this is the new poo poo, those ways are the old ways, and these are the new ways" and made a new covenant with man, then sealed that covenant in blood when he died on the cross. So presumably, Christianity should just be "poo poo Jesus Said", and he never said anything about homosexuality, gays, or gays marrying. The most important bits were to love and worship the one true God above all others, fine, k, and then love thy neighbor as you love thyself. It doesn't say, "Unless your neighbor is gay", and most of the stuff you hear about anti-homosexuality comes from the Old Testament, Leviticus particularly, which is just a joke now, right? Where does the sentiment come from that homosexuality is anti-Christian? Is it just perpetuated by the priests and preachers? From what I've heard the word on it is extremely sparse in the New Testament.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:The trail to freedom started with Proposition 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v_brown Prop 8 is unique from every other ban on same sex marriage because it only served to repeal rights and the 9th Circuit ruled that was different from declining to extend them in the first place. Another aspect only applicable to 7 other states is that California had previously granted to all rights minus the word marriage to same sex couples.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Maybe this is a question more for a religion thread, but I don't see any around right now: But the early church is a very large topic to cover, honestly it would take a graduate level education to really answer your question.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:The appeals court ruling was incredibly limited and I don't think SCOTUS will decide on a broader application (like Walker's) in the next year. The ruling explicitly dodges the question of whether it is ever legal to ban same sex marriage because the CA Supreme Court already decided that right existed. Yeah, as much of a "loss" the 9th circuit decision was, it basically gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to rule Prop. 8 unconstitutional on a much more narrow interpretation than Vaughan Walker's decision would have provided for. Given the Supreme Court's love of ruling on narrow grounds, it's not improbable they'll rule using the 9th's narrow grounds rather than Walker's much broader grounds, and it'll be up to the Massachusetts DOMA case (and even that won't likely help except in getting Federal recognition.) Making Prop. 8 constitutional is pretty much a lost cause, but if they can limit the harm to California and those few states which have re-banned gay marriage (I think either Maine or New Hampshire was close to this scenario earlier this year?), the anti-gay-marriage groups will have still succeeded at establishing a firewall against other states having to recognize gay marriage. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Jan van Lohuizen, a conservative pollster who ran the numbers for George W. Bush's reelection campaign in 2004, just sent this talking points memo to Republican operatives, candidates and insiders:  They see the writing on the wall.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
B B posted:Jan van Lohuizen, a conservative pollster who ran the numbers for George W. Bush's reelection campaign in 2004 just sent this talking points memo to Republican operatives, candidates and insiders: Do you have bigger pictures?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:Do you have bigger pictures? Text of the memo is here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/bush-pollster-change-in-attitudes-on-gay-marriage-123235.html
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Nobody has managed to re-ban marriage. NH tried and failed horribly. They could make a very narrow ruling that only applied to California, but there's a suit out of Nevada and there's no way to rule in their favor without having it apply to all states with civil unions. But that could easily be in 2015 so turning civil unions into marriage wouldn't be very controversial. e: quote:People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 05:26 on May 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:51
|
|