What's The Deal With Some Straight Liberals?

[ruggerson]

Why can't they just unabashedly support marriage equality? Period. No hemming, no hawing, no "but we'll lose, because it's a wedge issue that works against us."

They will oppose an unjust war, even back when 70% of the country supported it.

They will take plenty of other unpopular stands, because it is the right thing to do.

So, why, when it comes to OUR issues, are they suddenly craven and cowardly?

I do realize there are many, many wonderful straight allies of the marriage fight, some of them very vocal and strong at DU.

But, far too many are either silent or openly hostile to our civil rights.

What gives? Why are we the issue where they lose their courage?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Craven and cowardly?

Oh, honey, you've got a lot to learn about sucking up. (OK, that was a joke.)

It's possible, you know, that it's just not a big deal to a lot of people. I have gay friends and family who don't care about the issue. I care more about it than they do, actually.

I think everyone should be FORCED to get married at least once. That would calm down a lot of things, I beliieve.

[ruggerson]

4. I don't know a single gay person

to whom it's not a big deal. And the folks that I know are not particularly political.

We can't fight in the armed forces for the country of our birth.

We can get fired from our jobs in most states because of who we are.

We cannot make our families legal.

And this is "not a big deal."?

And, yeah, craven and cowardly. I would go to bat, and have, for other people who are discriminated against, and expect no less in return.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. Did I mention that was a joke?

You care about the issue. I understand.

Others don't.

The matter of civil rights has always had to be shoved down the throats of the American people, in my opinion and experience. I remember that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed were it not for JFK's assassination, and LBJ, to his credit, seized upon that to make sure he pushed that Act through. Bless him forever for that.

But, on a larger scale, unless it's busting their particular world, people, for the most part, aren't that gung-ho about the rights that might be denied others.

Good for you. Don't stop defending, don't stop trying.

And I won't, either.

[ruggerson]

14. Well civil rights were a big deal in the North

for lots of white people who were not directly affected by it. But, in general, I think you're correct: if it doesn't rock their particular boat, most people aren't going to get bent out of shape about it.

Interesting, isn't it, that lots of liberals care far more passionately about Iraqis living under the threat of violence and poverty thousands of miles away than they do about the grave injustices some of their own fellow Americans are facing. You'd think they would care about both.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. No, oh, no, no, no

Civil rights back in the sixties - as I said when I wrote that the Act was never gonna get passed - was NOT a big deal for "lots of white people who were not directly affected by it." It was a hideously unpopular stance, and it took great courage for the Freedom Riders and others to do what they did. Understand that, because the country was changed by a minority, and that has to be a part of your information as you pursue your own particular Act.

No, I would never think that all people who share some common political beliiefs would share all of them. That's a broad characterization that is, on its face, invalid. People are people, they believe what they believe. While gay marriage matters to some people, it's not a daily event that affects life for most.

Right now, I'm not sure most Americans care about much beyond getting from one day to the next. With the gas prices and everything else going up so astronomically as jobs disappear, there are much more important day-to-day issues for so many people, and, alas, gay marriage becomes a frivolity that they cannot afford even to think about, let alone support or work for.

This is a very bad time in America, not a good time to champion a cause that deals with gays and marriage, which, at the best of times, is threatening to so many.

For now, I'd say, do what my favorite gay friends did: They live in Tuscany, but retained their Masschusetts residency, so they flew in and got married when the law was passed there. I was their best man (I'm a woman), since one of the guys has been my best buddy for almost 40 years, and we rejoiced. Then we all flew back to Tuscany and had a wonderful reception.

Seriously, move to Massachusetts, if you can. It's a start, and you'll certainly have less anger and more joy.

Good luck, though, with all of it.

[ruggerson]

20. I have to disagree

my mother actually flew down to march for civil rights, and she was a well off New Englander who had not a single black friend. And she was not alone in our neck of the woods. And the private school that I attended as a very young tyke TAUGHT us about MLK and the civil rights movement, and this was in the mid sixties, before his death. Now, maybe this was out of the norm, I have no way of knowing, but it was my experience in the town where I grew up. Civil rights was a huge issue for all of us where I grew up.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. I was there, too - as a college freshman working for SNCC

And, believe me, your Mom and I were in the vast minority.

Teaching about MLK? So? What does that have to do with political support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I'm talking about politics, and you're telling me about your liberal New England private school lesson plans? Of course that's what you were taught.

But, understand, that was a tiny, tiny, tiny enclave in a very, very, very big country.

Ever wonder how this Act was viewed in, say, Utah? Oklahoma? West Virginia? Virginia?

Do you know when Loving v. Virginia was decided, and what it was about? That was what our country was like - the majority of the country, not your safe little place.

When you say "I have no way of knowing," you're letting down all of us who worked for civil rights. You have a duty to know, and that's why you're thinking far too small. Go read up on the history of the Act, and learn what it was really like in America back then. Minorities such as your mother and I were in the vast minority, and you really should understand that. Otherwise, your views will be mocked as provincial and ill-informed by those who know better.

Just read about the Senators who voted against the Act. That's a good start. You should know these things. Your Mom would approve.

[ruggerson]

24. Uh, that's why I referenced the "North"

last I looked, Utah, OK, WV and VA were not in the "North," so they have no bearing on what the parameters of this discussion are. And the reason I brought up my "liberal New England school lesson" was to point out that there were parts of the country in the mid sixties that DID indeed take civil rights very seriously. Kids didn't create that curriculum that I was taught. ADULTS did. Because, I suppose, they believed it vitally important that we be exposed to it. So, again, there were white parts of the country that saw the civil rights movement as an extremely important measurement of our society. I don't believe, based on my own experiences as a kid that my mom was in such a vast minority. I realize there were huge swaths of the nation opposed to civil rights, but who passed the CR Act? If I remember correctly, it was mostly white congressmen who did it as a tribute to both JFK and LBJ and their consciences.

And, yes, I'm very aware of the decision that struck down miscegenation laws. The reasoning in Loving may very well be used someday as a foundation for deciding that various state DOMAS are patently unconstitutional.

On edit: typo

[OldLeftieLawyer]

25. I was in school in Boston, so I understood where you were

But, my references to the other states was to emphasize your need to understand what it was like in other places.

That's all.

It was not passed as any kind of tribute, believe me. Oh, do you need to get the correct information! It was hardly a tribute. Begrudgingly done, it was a political work of genius on the part of LBJ, and perhaps his finest moment.

There's a whole history out there, just waiting for your fine mind to show up and own it.

Have fun. What a time it was, oh, what a time it was.

Read about SNCC, too. That was a group ......................

[TallahasseeGrannie]

59. Straight person here..

educate me on something I should know. WHAT are the legalities when it comes to discrimination and homosexuality? Can a person LEGALLY be denied a job, service in a restaurant, hotel, whatever? Is it covered in the Civil Rights Act? Or is it kind of in limbo (as I assume, but really don't know)?

Thanks for any info you can give me.

[Touchdown]

64. Depends on the discrimination laws.

Federal, State, and Municipal discrimination laws usually don't have sexual orientation as a protected class, although ALL OF THEM have religion as a protected class. It's not covered under the Civil Rights Act, ADA, or any other federal/Constitutional law.

So, it doesn't happen very often, mainly because of ignorance in the laws (if they knew they could get away with it, they'd do it more often), but the things you mention are legal to do to gays, and do occur. Housing discrimination also. That little house logo with the equals sign doesn't apply to gays.

[MercutioATC]

2. Depends on how you define it.

"Marriage" has a long-standing tradition as both a religious and legal issue...so much so that many people are unable to separate "marriage" from religion (understandably, IMO).

Stripping "marriage" of all legal recognition and requiring a "civil union" (substitute your own term if that one offends) for ALL couples, gay or straight, for legal recognition seems a much better option to me.

It's the religious tie to "marriage" that's the major obstacle. Why beat our heads against that wall when we can just remove it entirely?

[jody]

6. Good idea, leave marriage for religion and civil unions for government. nt

[ruggerson]

8. But that's not going to happen

People are too attached to getting "married." And many don't even bother with a church wedding, they go to a justice of the peace and tie the knot civilly. They're not going to give up that ritual.

[MercutioATC]

11. But they have...and you just illustrated it.

They can call it "getting married" if they'd like, but people who go to a judge or civil official are ALREADY just getting a civil union...we just haven't made the legal separation yet.

...and that's why I think it'd work...it's something that a lot of people already do (ALL people actually, if you consider that no marriage is legal without a marriage license...which is a civil document).

[jody]

18. I know an older couple that had a religious marriage but not a license,

i.e. civil union, for various legal reasons.

[MercutioATC]

21. Then they're married "in the eyes of God", but not legally...

(common-law marriage statutes aside)

That's an option, too.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. A religious marriage ceremony

has no legal significance. Your friends have it wrong.

There are two kinds of marriages:

First, there's the civil ceremony, which is nothing but a contract between the couple marrying and the State that issues the license. That's all it is - a legal contract that requires further legal action (dissolution) in order to terminate it;

and then there is the religious ceremony, which satisfies the requirements of the religion, but has absolutely NO legal meaning. None. Zip. Nada.

And if people could just get their damn dumb heads around that, this gay marriage thing wouldn't mean dick and everyone would be for it.

It's the religious part that people focus on, and then they try to use the law - the civil part - in order to advance their very personal religious beliefs, a vile technique.

[jody]

26. No legal significance! That's the point so a couple is married in the eyes

of the church but the woman can still collect entitlements that she would lose if she remarries.

Perhaps my friends have it right and you have it wrong.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

31. No one married in a religious ceremony,

without also obtaining and executing a state-issued marriage license, is considered legally married, and, as such, has no access to legal recourse should the religious marriage break up and she were to marry someone else, either in a religious ceremony again or in a civil ceremony.

They're simply not legally married. It's that simple. They never even have to get a divorce. You need to be legally married to get a divorce, you know.

In the eyes of the law, the couple is simply not married unless they get - and execute - the marriage license and it is then recorded at the court house.

[jody]

41. You ignore the point. They are married in the eyes of the church their

primary goal but not married in the eyes of the law their secondary goal. :shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

46. No, I didn't ignore any point

You said that a religious ceremony still entitled the celebrants to "benefits." If you were speaking of the spiritual benefits, then you might have made that clear. If you were speaking of legal benefits, that was what I addressed.

A marriage in a religious ceremony without a state-issued marriage license is not a legal marriage. That's all.

So, I'm glad your friends are happy. That's all that matters, but that's not what the OP was about.

[jody]

49. I said "the woman can still collect entitlements that she would lose if

she remarries."

That means if a woman is collecting a portion of a former husband's retirement that she would lose if she legally remarries, she can still collect that amount even though she is remarried in the eyes of the church.

I apologize for saying you ignored my point. I should have said you didn't understand my point. :hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

50. A FORMER husband?

Oh, sure, that's unaffected because she's never legally remarried.

Thanks for clearing that up. I felt bad that you thought I was somehow not paying attention to what you had posted.

Isn't it nice when we can keep the lines open and make it right?

Thanks, and good luck.

[jody]

51. Have a nice day.

:hi:

[Occulus]

29. Do priests still say

"by the power of the State of X, I now pornounce..." during the ceremonies?

If so, why do they, if the ceremony itself has no legal signifigance?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. They said that, on the rare occasions that they said it,

because, traditionally, the bride and groom signed the state-issued marriage license before the religious ceremony took place.

Have you ever been married? You would remember that.

Now, if you notice, that's never said. The most traditional intonation I've heard has been either to skip that part, or to say - as they did at my wedding in 1969 - "By the power vested in me by you, I now pronounce you husband and wife."

So, the legal part has to be taken care of in order for the marriage to have legal status. Otherwise, it's just a religious ceremony, meaningful to believers, but it's not gonna get you each other's pensions. Or separate maintenance.

[Totallybushed]

3. I don't really know, so

take what I say as a guess only.

Liberals are like other people, their own issues are what is most important to them. While they may sympathize with say blacks or Hispanics or the handicapped or gays, and work to help them, if they see that support may cause their own pet interests to lose power and immediacy in the political arena, they may scale back in a strategic retreat.

Of course, there are lots of courageous people who will stand on principle and take the consequences. But we're not talking about them, are we?

[msongs]

7. so blacks and hispanics or the handicapped cant be liberals? nt

[Totallybushed]

53. It is absolutely

inconceivable to me how you arrived at that conclusion from what I said. Obviously they can be. But we were talking about non-gay liberals not supporting gay issues. Same thing for non-black, or non-Hispanic liberals, IMO.

Really, you owe me an apology.

[Gregorian]

5. It's an invisible line in this society.

Forgive me if I'm way off about this. But I see a way to compare the mentality. Regardless of the different consequences. There's a line that people just don't feel they can cross. Like legal drugs. It's almost unanimous that people can't see past what they think is right, to do what IS right. I can't even say some of the things I want to here. Even this forum would come down on me. But there are quite a number of things that this macho America isn't ready or willing to entertain. I hope I'm wrong. Because to me it means we are a close minded society. A really boring place.

[ruggerson]

10. I agree with you

I think it's deeply ingrained bigotry that most people refuse to address in themselves.

And they don't care about our civil rights, because frankly it does not affect THEM.

[kweerwolf]

13. Straight white liberals can support ...

... civil rights for blacks and no one ever thinks they are black.

But when you come out and support LGBT rights, I think a lot of people who might otherwise be allies fear that someone might think they are (gasp!) ... you know ... that way! And that's not a step many are willing to take.

[W_HAMILTON]

16. I don't know if that's such a problem anymore...

...and luckily for us, I think as time passes, it will continue to be less of a problem. Even when compared with just a decade ago, being gay isn't so "outrageous" anymore to most Americans (as much as dumbasses like Santorum, O'Reilly, Fox News, Phelps, etc would like you to think otherwise).

Plus, seeing as how liberal is used as an insult in our world today, if someone is strong enough to shrug off being labeled a liberal, I doubt they will worry too much about some random person thinking they are gay, either.

What you talk about may be more of a problem for Republican-types, though. They seem to place an unnatural emphasis on being alpha-male types, so yeah, heaven forbid they be seen as gay! :sarcasm:

[tatertop]

12. That's like asking: why can't all liberals unabashedly support Palestine

But I do agree - equal rights should mean equal rights for all.
I support equality for everyone, do you?

[William769]

34. "That's like asking: why can't all liberals unabashedly support Palestine"

Care to explain?

[katinmn]

15. I do!

Support marriage equality. No qualifiers.

:hi:

[cboy4]

19. It is outrageous that there's any person who considers

himself or herself to be a liberal to not be in favor of human/civil rights, period.

I support a lot of things that I'm not thrilled about, but I have an open mind.

Marriage is a human right because it grants many important privileges that civil unions do not.

Here's my thing about a lot of Christians:

Fine, you think the bible says homosexuality is sin.

Good, I don't care.

But why is it your business whether I get married?

If I get married, are you going to hell? Is earth going to stop rotating?

That would be a big NO.

[MuseRider]

27. This last week has been an eye opener here

hasn't it? I have been stunned by the willingness to throw your rights away just on the off chance that would secure a win when there is no reason to expect a win will help you. AND they expect you to throw away any fear that it might not help you.

I have no idea how to answer your questions because I am as much at a loss as you are.

I do have a statistic, as unscientific as it is, that might give you a little encouragement. I drove across half the state yesterday to meet with an emerging chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition and one of the members from the largest of our chapters stated that in his area the ratio is about 10 to 1 allies to LGBT people.

It isn't much but I stand with you.

[ruggerson]

30. Yes it is much

and you and others are great examples of courage to many.

[bliss_eternal]

28. My guess, ruggerson--

is the same reason that straight, caucasian male (and female) liberals will argue ceaselessly against women's rights--but still think they are for equality. The same reason they don't think they are bigoted, racist, homophobic or sexist in any way.

Because it does not affect them in any way, other than as a political platform--or an issue to be argued for or against on a political discussion board. It never occurs to them that these issues are as real as the people that support them. Hell, some of them fail to realize that some of the very people that support these issues share a board with them and may be hurt, offended or insulted by their off-handed remarks.

Because ultimately there will always be insensitive assholes in this world, in both parties--that can't see the people beyond the issues and how in a very real way the same people are affected in a real way by their lack of support of such issues.

Because in spite of their alleged liberalism, they can't own or accept that deep down inside, there is a part of them that isn't quite as tolerant or liberal as they think they are.

They need to control that which they don't understand, because they are fearful, whether they want to own that reality or not.

:hi:

[closeupready]

33. In 100% honesty, I believe "straight" liberals like that are not straight,

but rather either closeted gays or bisexuals posing as "straight" (or "het" - :eyes: ).

[William769]

35. It's really simple

They are not Liberal! Even though they claim to be one doesn't make it so.

[closeupready]

36. That, too. People who are liberal only insofar as it's not costly

and it serves their own purposes.

[William769]

37. And if it is only to serve there own purpose

They are definitely not Liberal!

[closeupready]

38. Exactly. Look at all the hippies who turned commercial

on the liberal values they claimed to subscribe to. Pfft. That lasted only as long as nobody wanted to buy them out. (Not for all of them, of course.)

[GymGeekAus]

39. Who controls the definition of "Liberal?"

Can't a person be liberal on most of their issues, and uninformed, ignorant, or even conservative on others? Of course.

Are those people "Liberals?" Honestly, in the end, the only label that I think matters is the one that a person selects for themselves.

I'm not going to presume to control the language, myself. But if a self-proclaimed liberal opposes full marriage equality, I do ask them why. Invariably, their reasons are non-liberal, and that's easy enough to point out. Typically a different standard is being applied when it comes to LGBT equality--well, that's pretty much the definition of prejudice, right?

I'm not sure if I'm a liberal on every issue. I mean, I support border security (although I support freer immigration). And I support documenting all people in the US regardless of their personal desire not to be counted. What's the liberal justification for that?

[William769]

40. Moderate comes to mind

Websters sums it up pretty good.

I don't have a problem with Moderates or even Centrists.

I do have a problem with someone claiming to be liberal when they are not.

ON EDIT: had to change headline misread post.

[GymGeekAus]

43. Bah. "Moderate" is PC for "unexamined."

The point of my post was this idea of ideological purity. Being a liberal on GLBT issues doesn't mean you can't be a conservative on something else. I can't construct an argument which always upholds the purity of language here, since it would be a liberal ideology to permit people to call themselves what they want. Nor can I find anything in the definition which implies that "liberalism" should be a universal philosophy which governs all of an individual's political thought.

I DO have a problem with Moderates or Centrists. It is my personal experience that those who self-identify with these monikers have no idea why they hold the beliefs they do.

But to wiggle a finger at a self-proclaimed liberal because they aren't as liberal as you are? That's hardly liberal, is it?

[William769]

45. I never said I was a liberal did I?

I consider myself a moderate & the reason being, I am a social liberal, fiscal Conservative (as long as the good of the people is not put in danger).

So I guess that means you have a problem with me?

P.S. I don't wiggle my finger, I shake it. :)

[GymGeekAus]

54. Please define: Social liberal, fiscal conservative.

Does it mean you support liberal philosophies as long as they don't cost any money?

[idgiehkt]

48. I sometimes think they know they have special privileges

that they don't want to open up to others.

I think in their guts it's a property rights/inheritance thing too.

[MuseRider]

61. IMO

Civil Rights for all serve everyone's purpose. Not understanding that is a large problem. If it does not appy directly to you it is not important? Where did that come from?

[carl_pwccaman]

62. But there are other Principles, too

To support civil marriage at all implies a sort of weird mix of religion and state, for something so private.

To get the state involved in expanding something that is of dubious and confused rationale -- state marriage licenses -- is touchy on principle.

Making it easy to get all contractual and inheretence, etc., benefits of marriage, is itself a rather simple concept.

Does strategy factor in at all? At what point did the Civil Rights movement push harder against miscegenation laws? Sometimes it may make sense to start with one set of issues and make headway on them first. Or to build a cultural change instead of trying to legislate or sue.

To judge a potential ally on strategic differences, differences that may actually help your own movement, would be short-sighted. Not to say all such differences are actually based in strategic insights that is helpful.

[davidinalameda]

42. ignorances and stupidity?

or am I oversimplifying this

[iverglas]

44. I think Phil Ochs nailed it

-- articulating what some here have said:

Love Me, I'm a Liberal

By Phil Ochs

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democtratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

-- iverglas, another old leftie lawyer (and no liberal) who agrees with everthing another one has already said here.
:hi:


(for the bits in Phil's lyrics that younger readers or foreigners like me don't recognize, notes are here:
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html )

[Smarmie Doofus]

70. And then there's this.....

http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/cannons.html

[benburch]

47. We interrupt this flame war for an important announcement!

[keithkam]

52. As far as Democrats go

I don't know why they don't frame it as the American thing to do because we have a Constitution that applies to ALL Americans, not some. Personal opinion on the matter is irrelevent and they don't need to personally support gay marriage at all.

[Logician]

55. I so agree with everything posted

Being a middle-aged married gay man in Massachusetts, living in a very liberal town, I have come to believe that so many liberals cannot step up to the plate on equal rights for LGBT folks because of not only a possible fear of losing special privilege associated with really being part of the dominant culture.

But in addition, I get so turned off by the so-called liberals who just plainly do not know what to say to me in social settings. I really think that if some of these folks had relatives who were LGBT, and that they really interacted socially and emotionally with LGBT folks, there would be more comfort and more passion behind their supposed support for equal rights, including marriage for gays and lesbians.

Look...my husband (who was my partner for 27 years when we were married in Massachusetts) and I are dads, and we have a wonderful son. Naturally, we are active in parent groups in our school district. There are routine parent social events through our son's school. When seated among our liberal straight friends, you can almost feel this wall.... of a lack of real understanding that LGBT folks are so much like them in so many ways....they should just speak politics, baseball, culture/ music... But no, there is this separation, and it is noticeable.

Interestingly, there was one man at the last parent event whom I noticed was quite easy-going and natural-acting. No distance... real spontaneity and some warmth. I come to find out from my spouse that this man has a gay brother who has a partner... and so on...

Sometimes I just do not understand what straight folks thing of my day-to-day life and my family. They obviously do not have a clue.

BTW, I do think LGBT folks should relocate here to Massachusetts. It is really a progressive state overall. Once we rid ourselves of the boil on the butt of the Commonwealth known as Mitt Romney, there should be alignment of democratic philosophy in both houses and in the Governor's office. Our state is really much happier that way.

[Pushed To The Left]

56. I am a straight liberal, and I support marriage equality 100%! n/t

[closeupready]

57. Thank you!!!

:hi: :hi:

[swimmernsecretsea]

58. Yes, thank you.

I know there are plenty out there. I've talked to a few. You deserve our most sincere appreciation.

[election_2004]

60. It usually doesn't affect them....

It's that simple.

However, when they have close friends (and even more significantly, close family) who are members of our community (LGBT) - - in those cases, in general, straight liberals are much more likely to care passionately about the issue.

[mephie00]

63. I fail to see the correlation...

I'll agree, I'm sure that a majority of Americans, liberal or conservative, understand that the issue of same sex marriage doesn't effect them. If you don't plan on having one, then it's not something that really effects you. But for some reason, there is a vast network of conservatives that they the very issue does effect them... and their families, and our culture and possibly that same sex marraige will even cause the sky to fall.
It doesn't effec them, but for some reason the issue became a front burner issue during the 2004 ellection, right up there with terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. I'm gay, and even I can't see how same sex marriage can rank up there with terrorism, Iraq and the economy. So I don't see how if the issue effects people makes that big of a difference in how zealously the support (or in the case of the conservatives) fight against the issue.
The right to an abortion is a big issue that many people have strong feelings about. There was/is talk about how abortion is not banned in South Dakota. So why is that and issue? The state has one of the lowest populations in the entire nation, half the population (men)will never be in a situation where they have to rely on the freedom of choice, and of the other half of the population, only a small percentage of them will ever have one. The issue doesn't effect them.
The same can be said about Iraq, or by that matter, any issue regarding aid over seas. Not to mention, majority of the nation was not hit by hurricane Katrina. More recently, majority of Americans aren't illegal immigrants, let alone immigrants. I never had any Enron stock... did you?
If an issue effects us or not, I fail to see how that has much of a correlation as to if we support or oppose it. There are numerous issues that don't effect us yet we support and oppose them. I always had this optimistic idea that it dealt with compassion and empathy. So then I just feel a little dissapointed that so many people can feel compassion for the Iraqis and our soldiers in Iraq, feel empathy for a young woman who finds herself with the burden of an unwanted pregnancy, investors in companies with corrupt CEOs, American and foreign victems of natural disasters, immigrants, Cindy Sheehan, etc etc etc... but people just tend to run out of compassion and empathy for two people of the same gender that want to get married. I certainly hope that is not the case!

Likewise, I'd also like to ad, that with the issue of people being more empathetic to the cause of equal rights for gay people having to do with if they have gay friends or family seems a little silly. It's 2006! Most people know someone who is a different race, someone who is a different religion, and someone who is gay.

[election_2004]

65. Let me clarify

Likewise, I'd also like to ad, that with the issue of people being more empathetic to the cause of equal rights for gay people having to do with if they have gay friends or family seems a little silly. It's 2006! Most people know someone who is a different race, someone who is a different religion, and someone who is gay.

I should have said that it depends on how close they are to a gay person. Most people who have extremely close gay friends support those friends' right to get married, or at least have a civil union. Even some Republicans are conservative on fiscal policy, defense, and abortion - - but those same Republicans (usually when they're younger in age) who have close gay/lesbian friends will often be just fine with the idea of same-sex marriage, because it affects people who they care about.

The abortion example is different: heterosexual men will feel more strongly affected by it if they are fathers (or when they have the intent to someday be fathers, if they're younger), because they feel empathy for other men whose offspring are being aborted. This is NOT taking into account the views of pro-choice men, of course.

When someone is merely an acquaintance, that same degree of closeness isn't there - - so the support for gay rights won't necessarily be as strong. When a heterosexual has only fairweather friends or acquaintances who are LGBT, their understanding of (and thus, their support for) gay issues will be more tepid, and they may be ambivalent about it.

The conservatives whom you've described in your post are most likely outright hostile toward (or detached from) many of their LGBT friends and family.

[Logician]

72. I respectfully disagree

You are making an assumption that everyone knows someone who is gay. Yeah, perhaps if you are a city dweller in a very progressive neighborhood-- and in the under-35 year old demographic. Not so,if you live in a socially conservative neighborhood like South Boston or Charlestown in metro Boston-- these were vast neighborhoods of conservative Catholics, most of whom were unaware of LGBT folk.

I now live in a supposedly enlightened city in the Commonwealth, and guess what? If most people know a gay person, it is very superficially-- and that is precisely why such liberals are not more invested in the fight for marriage equality.

Just my opinion, as an observer....

[freestyle]

66. Their Bibles obscure their Constitutions

Religion is the elephant in the room on this one, and lots of people are afraid of what will happen if they question their own or someone else's religion. Many religious people have a hard time accepting that the rules they may choose to order their own lives are not acceptable as the basis for interactions between citizens and government, and should certainly not be imposed on anyone else.

What is interesting is the divergence in Jewish and Christian views. The people who have lived and wrestled with the Torah for thousands of years in general have a much more nuanced view of it than the people who (should) primarily view it as reference and history.

[Smarmie Doofus]

69. Hmm... I'm not so sure.

>>>>>The International Association of Orthodox Mental Health Professionals, and Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality advocate conversion therapy (a.k.a. reparative therapy) to convert Orthodox homosexuals to heterosexuality. However, the American Psychological Association and other professional groups have stated that reparative therapy to convert homosexuals is scientifically ineffective—and possibly harmful. It appears that the success rate at converting an adult's sexual orientation is a small fraction of 1%.>>>>>>

The watchwords here are 'scientifically ineffective' and 'possibly harmful".

Most orthodox opinion seems to be exactly where the RC church is : the orientation is 'irrelevant'; the *behavior* is 'sinful' or 'abomination'.



>>>>>What is interesting is the divergence in Jewish and Christian views. The people who have lived and wrestled with the Torah for thousands of years in general have a much more nuanced view of it than the people who (should) primarily view it as reference and history.>>>>>>

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. honestly i am not straight and i support gay marriage but

people die in war...no one dies from lack of marriage...and to equate the two is a bit far fetched in my opinion

[election_2004]

68. Maybe we don't necessarily *die* from discrimination....

But we are perpetually degraded, and must retain a living reminder of that throughout our daily existences.

Until, of course, laws are changed to reflect domestic parity.

What about when a gay/lesbian person's spouse dies, and they are unable to inherit authority over their lover's estate because of hostile blood relatives and the lack of legal protection?

From my perspective, that potential injustice is permanent - - and right on par with sending people off to die in an unjust war.

[Deja Q]

71. Had a "liberal" I used to know find out I was gay, I'd be murdered.

His brother, who I am close friends with, told me so. I will not adumbrate the details, as religion is also involved and you can guess which one that is. (It has nothing to do with nailing a framed scapegoat to a big letter "T" either...)



As with all things in life, it's about self-importance.

None of us is immunne.

[Maat]

73. I don't know about SOME straight liberals ..

but this progressive PFLAGer stands 110% behind same-sex marriage rights, and I want California to be the next state to legalize it (we have pretty complete domestic partnership rights now; in law school, we took a look at the Code, which defines marriage as a civil contract. Everywhere there was a mention of marriage-related rights, there was a mention of domestic partnership rights ... or everywhere I took a look).

I'm going to have a PDA meeting at my house in August, during which several GLBT couples will speak and get to know other local progressives better. It is through working together that we will eradicate all of the ignorance.