How personally will you take the passage of anti same sex marriage

[dsc]

referenda and initiatives? There are several of these things on the ballot in several states. Most of them will likely pass by decent margins. Given that 5 to 6 percent of the electorate is LGBT, the margins will be worse than they otherwise appear. For instance, a 70/30 margin is actually a 70/25 margin amongst straight voters. That would mean that a very large majority of straights outright voted to deny us a basic right. I have no idea how personally I will actually take that vote when it comes in Ohio. I suspect I will take it at least somewhat personally.

[tom_paine]

1. While it has no effect on me personally, I will be PISSED!

It may well be that the Imperial Subjects of Amerika stopped deserving freedom long ago, and the THUD we heard on 12/12/2000 was just the corpse hitting the floor.

If it wasn't for the fact that they are dragging us down with them as the Nazis dragged the rest of Germany down, I'd laugh from afar the way I used to laugh at the Soviet Citizens who swallowed so many lies so easily for so long.

We are now them (well, not US, the Free Americans, but the rest of the nation). They are us.

[HuckleB]

2. These are the type of things that make me drink!

It boggles my mind to see prejudice so widespread and accepted. It boggles my mind to see so many people fall for such illogical arguments. It kills me to see them so willing to harm their fellow citizens without a whole lot of thought.

[bhunt70]

3. not personally since I'm straight but I certainly think it is ignorant

and prejudice in nature.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

4. I'll take it pretty personal....but i guess I will get over it.

Sine im gay and in a LTR, it will be directed specfically at people like me.

But I already think people, in general, are a bunch of shits, so I think I will get over it, as this wont be too disillusioning for me.

[Sapphocrat]

5. Uh, pretty personally.

It will just re-affirm that 70% of the electorate either really, truly hates me, personally, or really doesn't give a damn about me, personally.

But then, I already went through all that when California banned ss marriage in 2000. And with the flap over the San Francisco marriages, and the need to withdraw Mark Leno's bill from the state assembly, very little has occurred to change my perception of the hate/don't care attitude.

[DebJ]

7. maybe not that they hate YOU, but THEMSELVES...and so feel that

need to put others down to 'build themselves up' in their own eyes.

[Sapphocrat]

11. But... but...

But it's ALL about ME! :cry:

No, seriously, I hear what you're saying, Deb. And I agree with you. I think the bulk of anti-gay sentiment is based in religious fear, but most of the rest of it is entrenched in a "We got ours, so screw you!" mentality. That includes the nutballs who think the "sanctity" of their marriages will be destroyed (but who only use the Bible as a convenient brickbat).

I would like to see a study of I.Q. and education level as they pertain to anti-gay bigotry. I assume the results would correlate closely to that of conservatives in general. I also expect that the less intelligent and/or educated a person, the more desperately and unreasonably s/he oppresses others in order to stay on top of the social heap.

Nevertheless, even though I can intellectualize the roots of the problem until I breathe my last liberal breath, I can't help but take it all very personally. Part of my problem is too much exposure to too many wingnuts who should reconsider their anti-gay stance (i.e., moran relatives I have disowned in spirit, if not yet formally). But that's another long story, for another day. The upshot is simply that there are people who want to remain jerks, and really don't give a damn about me at all... personally.

It's nice to think that for every gay person a homophobe knows, that person's homophobia decreases exponentially. But that's not always true.

[atreides1]

6. I Won't Take It Personally

But it will show me who the traitors in this country are. And then let history take its course.

[Blue-Jay]

8. I'm straight and I take it VERY personally!

Every time basic human rights are denied, it's a slap in the face. Gay folks are the new "niggers" (pardon that term) to the average dumbass. The days of lynching a black man for dating a white woman are over, thank God, but at least we can still openly express our bigotry towards the FAGS.

Praise Jebus! We're still allowed to hate somebody in the open!

</not "turning gay">

Edit: I really need to start using the spell-check.

[Djinn]

16. Exactly

I'm not gay AND I'm not American (although I beleive our PM is working on signing us up as the newest state) but this is for me another case of: "First they came for" Nobody expects you to be black to oppose racial discrimination, people don't expect you to be female to oppose gender discrimination, so why should this only piss gay people off?

[foreigncorrespondent]

33. Yeah, Howard is about...

...to change our constitution so in the marriage area it states that marriage is between one man and one woman. So us Aussie queers are already deemed second class citizens, because Howards move is going to go without any form of opposition from Latham.

Yes Latham has lost my vote. I was an anyone but Howard girl, but with Latham's stand on gay marriage, I just cannot bite my tongue and vote for the lesser of two evils come election day.

[Djinn]

34. are you in a marginal seat at all FC?

I'm stuck with that bloated hack Martin Ferguson until he drops dead -the safest seat in the house with about a 25% swing needed to unseat him - I'd consider moving but the marginal seats seem to be in the naffest areas!

[foreigncorrespondent]

38. I have no idea. LOL

I just moved here (Bonbeach) in December, and as yet, I have no idea who the political people are. And we are having that much trouble with the AEC that they still haven't sent us confirmation on that they have received our electorial address change. We have sent them several since moving in.

[Djinn]

40. Probably Isaacs - pretty safe Labor

Sorry to say prob not much chance of a Green upset - you need to come closer in to town - and hang out with us Latte Lefties/Chardonnay Socialists!

[David__77]

9. It was personal to me here in California.

There's no way it couldn't be. I think though that things are moving in the right direction.

[Unperson 309]

18. There's About to be

a test case in CA, though, WRT gay marriage and inheritance.

Or there will be if this sequence of events follows as I think it will...

A very dear friend of our family just passed away last week. He was an Episcopal priest who was quite wealthy. Fr. Stewart Graham. His partner of two or three years (they had a ceremony) had expected to inherit their home.

Stew did not leave a clear will! His family may or may not contest the relationship inheritance issues. Since the case (if it coems to one) is in San Francisco, expect it to get fairly wide coverage.

Since Stew died very suddenly, he had *no* chance to make his wishes known and was DOA at the hospital. Nobody knows where or even *if* he left an updated will!

Keep an eye peeled. This one will be a doozy.

309

[roguevalley]

10. I will hate it profoundly as an anti american screed and feel great sorrow

for all my GLAD friends and relatives. :(

[jpgray]

12. Just as another 'safe' way to be a bigot

And it stems from selfishness, fear, and ignorance, like it always does.

[noiretextatique]

13. curiously, some of those most vocal against outing

excluding you, dsc...don't seem to be posting in this thread. as to your question: i will take it very personally.

[dsc]

14. they may be busy

That thread was a bit of a time sink. I was unable to check in on this thread until something like the 8th post.

[noiretextatique]

17. i eagerly await one response, in particular

and i will check back to see it later.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. Hey Noiret!

Missed you the other weekend! :hi:

Plans in the works for a late summer hang. :)

[doni_georgia]

15. Although I am heterosexual it pisses me off big time!

I believe that marriage falls into that category of "pursuing happiness" and deny marriage to gays and lesbians is denying them their inalienable right. I personally don't understand these homophobes who think it belittles or harms their own marriages. They need to get a fucking clue!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Marriage should be a civil act as far as government is concerned.

If anyone wants a religious ceremony, it should be a seperate affair.
My sister-in-law is gay and has been in the same relationship for over 30 years. I don't know if they even want to be married, but the laws forbidding it are just as wrong as the miscegnation laws from our not too distant past.

That said, I have no doubt that anti-same sex marriage laws will pass in most states (even here in liberal Washington) by sizable majorities. Just as anti-miscegnation laws passed in many states previously. Just because the majority want it, doesn't make it right.

But, on the bright side, I think that it's somewhat incredible that the debate has reached the level that people are beginning to even look at the possibility of same sex marriage and considering it.

It seems to me that it's not a matter of "if" but "when" gays will finally have the same human rights as the rest of us.

[Deja Q]

20. Utterly and completely personally. None of us should take it any less.

What should we do, lie down and allow them to treat us as sub-citizens?

[Laughing Mirror]

21. Extremely personally, to the point, in fact, at which I'm quitting the US

come July 1, for France in the pursuit of happiness with my life partner as I have tried but find it impossible to do here in New York, NY.

Au revoir America!

The only hope I hold out for my country came today in the magnificent speach given in New York by our real President, Al Gore. Watch it on C-Span everybody. It's a must.

[NoPasaran]

22. I will be royally pissed

I'm a straight, white, middle class, middle aged male and I cannot for the life of me understand the source of the fear and hatred that makes so many people like me want to deny basic human rights to others.

[Ms. Toad]

23. It's not on the ballot yet. . . .

I wonder if it would make it on the ballot if, instead of the 10% of bad signatures petition gatherers expect, the petitions got 50% or intentionally bad signatures - and no time to gather more...

[dsc]

24. that is rather risky to say the least

It is Sec of State Blackwell, a noted homophobe, who will be checking the signatures.

[Ms. Toad]

27. Not sure how Blackwell's homophobia makes it riskier than it already is

If nothing is done, chances are that enough signatures will be gathered anyway to get the amendment on the ballot.

If they stop gathering signatures when they reach 110% of what is needed, by the time they realize that only 50% are valid there may not be time to gather more.

Signatures are either from registered voters, or not. The individual looking at the signatures can't make registered voters out of non-existent people. (And the petitions can probably be challenged if he does.) Unless they are photographing/fingerprinting everyone who signs the personal risk of adding to the confusion is low (and it may not be illegal anyway - haven't checked that out yet).

I don't see much more risk than doing nothing and letting the amendment get on the ballot anyway.

[arwalden]

25. Can You Imagine How Bad It Would Be If We Lived In A "True" Democracy

majority rules!


-- Allen

[alfredo]

26. Mess with family, you mess with me.

Anti gay legislation is an assault against my family. I will fight them.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. As a straight woman...

who is a strong civil rights supporter and who has many gay/lesbian friends who would be effected by such an amendment, I will take it very personally.

And will do everything I can to make sure it doesn't come to pass.

[Pobeka]

30. I would take it personally.

It is a fundamental failure of American values. Where I learned in grade school "Majority rule, minority rights".

I am straight. I take this as a basic affront to human decency.

After the gay/lesbian issue though, the other minorities had better watch out, because these people live on fear and hate. They would (and already do), start evaluating other factions of their own religion -- hmmm, did you know that church down the street isn't even BAPTIST? And then they'll be in congress demanding a state-sanctioned form of Christianity -- no Protestants allowed.

I do hope the Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, non-Evangelicals wake up, because they are next if this succeeds. This is a time when our strength is in our diversity.

[Zhade]

31. Being queer (bi), I'd take it pretty personally!

NT!

[foreigncorrespondent]

32. dsc...

...I am glad you ask this question. Sapph and I are getting hit from both our countries.

Not only is the Bush* administration trying to get the FMA passed, but here in Australia, the Howard government is about to enter the clause in our constitution stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. This clause is going to go without any form of opposition from Mark Latham and the Australian Labor Party.

How do I feel? I feel like there is no place in this world for me. The U.S. may deem us second class citizens, and my country already has deemed us second class citizens. With the Howard government saying that this is not homophobia because they are leaving adoption rights laws alone.

Just today I landed a job which I begin next week, and even the excitement of finally having a job and having some form of income for which I am so desperate for right now, hasn't helped ease the pain of being deemed a second class citizen any.

And when I come here to DU and see people writing such things as queer tv is just another "special interest" channel, that only helps to deepen the pain.

And now, that is all I can write in response to your wonderful thread, my friend. I am just too choked up.

[misanthrope]

35. I'll think...

...it's just the same nation it's been for the last few centuries. What else would you expect?

[Technowitch]

36. Basically, it denies my marriage to my same-sex wife

Yes, my wife and I wed in SF on March 9th.

If this stuff passes, they are saying that our marriage is meaningless in the eyes of the law.

Mind you, it won't make a damned bit of difference in how we feel. In our hearts, and in our community, we are wed.

But it's the civil rights that'll be denied us.

Yet one more reason why we're thinking of moving to Canada, if the U.S. codifies discrimination against us.

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. Congrats on your marriage...

...and welcome to DU Technowitch!

[Andy_Stephenson]

42. Termite and I celebrate

18 years in august. No rights...no taxes.

it's simple really.

[put out]

37. I will be really put out. I live in Kansas

and it is looking like it will be on the ballot either in August or November. The right wing folks want it in November so that it will coincide with national elections and, therefore, draw every (fill in the blank and get as mean as you want) conservative to the polls to vote against homersexuality. Then the (fill in the blanks) can conveniently vote for bush since they're already there and missing "American Survivor" or whatever shit keeps them occupied and in the Lazy-Boy. Hope for an August ballot, folks.

Same sex couples are by no means to be denied any rights afforded to all citizens of my country. It makes me ashamed that this is even a question or controversy. How in the wide world could another couple marrying be harmful to my marriage? How? If we fuck up our marriage it sure isn't going to be because another couple wants to get married.

It won't affect me personally, except to know that so many of my neighbors are utter jerks.

[VOX]

41. I'll take it personally. My brother is gay, and if he and his partner...

want to get hitched, why the hell shouldn't they be able to?????

[Moloch]

43. Well I am gay so I take them personally somewhat,

however I still think we are making a big mistake pushing for marriages and not civil unions. LOTS of people think gay marriage would force churches to marry gays against their beliefs. We would have civil unions by now were it not for the push for marriage.

[mikeytherat]

46. EVERY "marriage" in the USA is a CIVIL UNION

A Justice of the Peace must be present for EVERY recognized marriage in the United States. Even if you're married in a church, the words "by the power vested in me by (insert state here), I now declare you husband and wife" are spoken because the minister/priest/rabbi is acting as an agent of the state, a Justice of the Peace (J.P.). Also, I do NOT have to be married in a church, but a J.P. must preside over the "ceremony." Finally, if I have not filed the State-mandated paperwork (marriage license), or if the minister/priest/rabbit is not authorized by the State to perform marriages, he or she can declare I am married until the cows come home, and it won't matter because no state in the USA will recognize it. In the United States The State, not God, has the final say about your "marriage."

This seems like such a cut and dry issue of Civil Rights because:

The STATE, not the church, decrees you are married; and

Married couples get many rights (power of attorney, monetary/financial, child visitation, etc.) for the price of a marriage license ($35-$50), and every else must pay big bucks for them (and here in Virginia, even if you DID get them outside of "marriage" and paid for them, the State can declare your paid-for rights invalid).

These are CIVIL rights granted by the STATE, but only to a certain group. This is unconstitutional, unfair and un-American! Most of the European nations have it right -- the State declares you joined and, if you really want it, your can get "married" at your church afterward, but the State ceremony is the one that counts; ironically, it's exactly the same way in the USA but, for some reason, we just don't see it that way.

mikey_the_rat

[Ms. Toad]

47. Not entirely true...

>>A Justice of the Peace must be present for EVERY recognized marriage in the United States. Even if you're married in a church, the words "by the power vested in me by (insert state here), I now declare you husband and wife" are spoken because the minister/priest/rabbi is acting as an agent of the state, a Justice of the Peace (J.P.).<<

In traditional Friends' weddings (legally recognized in every state) the couple declares their marriage to each other, and their declaration is witnessed by every attender at the wedding, but no one declares the couple to be married. A committee from the Friends Meeting (or a single individual, depending on state law) signs the marriage license certifying that the marriage took place in the manner authorized by the religious community. I have signed several such licenses, each of which has been recorded by the state and the couples are legally recognized as a married. I have never been authorized by the State to perform marriages, but my certification is accepted because I am (or was for each of those particular marriages) the person the meeting authorized to sign the license, certifying that we followed our rules (not that I performed the ceremony).

The couple does have to be eligible to be married under state law, but beyond that the marriage is under control of the religious community. It is the guidelines of the religious community not a particular process designated by law that dictates whether the marriage will be legally recognized.

[Piperay]

44. As a straight woman

I will be OUTRAGED that such crap could pass in the 21st century! :grr:

[Brian_Expat]

45. I stopped "taking it personally" long ago. . .

. . . and decided that business decisions should also be influenced. For instance, I will not reside in nor support economically (in ANY form) any jurisdiction that passes these sorts of laws.

[robbedvoter]

48. Extremely personally. Civil rights are my most important issue

Nothing else can work right in a society that demeans people. NOTHING.