Submitted to a Candid World

In a conversation with a coworker regarding this topic yesterday I commented “Gay is the new black” he said “What?” – What I meant is that there were fears regarding the electability of Obama based on his color regardless of what voters were saying they would do…nobody would know what they did in the privacy of the voting booth until the votes were tallied…Even Californians are not as “liberal” in their voting as they verbally are on the streets with their friends and neighbors…who it appears over half the state do not approve of. Whether you agree or disagree with another, it is unfortunate that Americans continue with their dishonesty toward each other. I have a lot more respect for an honest person who I am in total disagreement with then someone who just says what they think I want hear regardless of what they truly believe. Regardless of your stand on this issue it is a pity that California appears to be populated with so many liars…or is it actors?

Maybe the reason there IS a ‘Bradley effect’ is because people feel pressured by pop culture to feel one way while their sensibilities tell them something else.

Terrific statement; much appreciated from one half of a recently-wed same sex couple.

I would point out that your statement that “today…the state will annul thousands of marriages” is not accurate.

While this *could* be the end result of already-in-motion legal procedings, and while this is the intent and desired outcome of the prop 8 protagonists, AG Jerry Brown has stated that retroactivity (annulment) is legally highly suspect, and he would argue against it.

Picked nit aside, again, terrific post.

“cultural norms weakening” … why is change always packaged as a threat?

nice non-answer.

expansion of equal protection is always a good thing.

DM, You like change because it makes for a nice bumpersticker. I like change when it is necessary. Change simply for the sake of change is reckless.

And I’m not sure what protections would have been offered to gays if Prop 8 was struck down?

Ames, I’m curious as to why you draw the line between gay marriage and polygamy? I’m actually more inclined to support the latter.

i want to clarify, though, that if consenting adults want to enter into a polygamous arrangement, and the contractual arrangement that exists between one man and one woman now extends equally to all parties involved, then i don’t have a problem with polygamy … in theory.

Mike, there are still many instances where a heterosexual marriage has: child abuse, child neglect, spousal abuse, adultery, etc. And most common of all, divorce. And until we have allowed many homosexuals to marry over many years, we can hardly make any comparisons. But “traditional” marriage doesn’t even look so good on it’s own.

I agree with didionsmommy on polygamy. And that’s because for the purpose of these discussions I view (secular) marriage as merely a contract between individuals. There’s nothing inherent in that legal contract that need specify gender, nor anything inherent that prevents it from being amongst three or more parties.

Obvisously, there are aspects of religious marriage that prevent these inerpretations, but that’s not what we’re talking about. It’s the word “marriage” that obfuscates this debate, because while we’re talking about secular marriage, many still take it to mean the other. This debate is not about forcing the Catholic church or Baptist church or any other to grant and recognize homosexual marriages. This is about having the state expand its definition of marriage to confer those benefits to homosexual couples in a way that is equal without being separate.

Mike – it would certainly follow that if an individual were bisexual that they would have the right to a spouse of each gender. My earlier point was regarding honesty. I am tired of “PC” and hope the current children have a backlash…I have great memories of Halloween and Valentines day events in school and my kids have “Fall Festivals” and “Friendship Day” and parents were fearful to stand their ground and express their opinions openly. During my adulthood there has become a smugness about being in the know and any opposition was looked down upon. The true test of this next administration is if they really are tolerant or just want to push their agenda down the throats of the American people. Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

Candid, you’re just wrong.

Obama DOES oppose gay marriage. That’s why he could be >sadly< successfully quote-mined by Yes on 8.

That’s why I blogged that Obama supported Prop. 8.

In the Veep debate, Biden said both he and Obama opposed gay marriage in front of 100 million TV viewers. Obama made similar statements back already in the Democratic primaries.

You can take him off the pedestal.

And, yes, with the “obama” symbol as your URL icon, I’m rightly skeptical about the pedestal.

Your six point plan on this issue is great; just don’t expect Obama to be in the vanguard.

Oneiroi, when you say, “…the struggle for gay rights” I think the rights you can expect Obama to support are legal protections for couples i.e. medical decisions and a couple other items that come up. What you will NOT see is a push for joint tax filing, marriage, civil unions or much else. And I don’t think this is because Obama is afraid of the political fallout. I think he genuinely is not that concerned with the gay agenda and probably considers it a distraction.

I think gays are going to be one of the first groups that are going to be disappointed by Obama. I don’t blame that on him. I blame that on superimposed expectations that do not reflect the reality of his position.

That’s my point Ames…I don’t think he even cares if the justices plan on helping out. Gays may get what they want but it will not through any concern of Obama. It will just be a side-effect of nominating liberal justices.