In contrast with The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, with whom I have have a relatively honest disagreement (see yesterday's post here and Michael's response here), the National Review just doesn't appear to have its facts straight about gay marriage. They write:
One of the great coups of the movement for same-sex marriage has been to plant the premise that it represents the inevitable future. This sense has inhibited even some who know perfectly well that marriage is by nature the union of a man and a woman. They fear that throwing themselves into the cause of opposing it is futile — worse, that it will call down the judgment of history that they were bigots.Emphasis is mine. But the error is the National Review's; both gay marriage and civil unions are becoming more popular with the public, although at a relatively slow rate.
Contrary to common perception, however, the public is not becoming markedly more favorable toward same-sex marriage. Support for same-sex marriage rose during the 1990s but seems to have frozen in place (at least according to Gallup) since the high court of Massachusetts invented a right to same-sex marriage earlier this decade.
Below is a chart comprising polling data from PollingReport.com on the gay marriage and civil unions questions, with trendlines derived via LOESS regression. This chart includes all surveys in the PollingReport.com database, except those where the respondent was given a three-pronged choice between gay marriage, civil unions and nothing.
The National Review is correct that the trend toward greater support for gay marriage and civil unions stalled out some in the wake of the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision in November, 2003. (In fact, it may have temporarily reversed itself). They are wrong, however, that gay marriage has failed to gain support since that date. Per the LOESS curves, gay marriage has gained about 8 points of support since November 2003, while civil unions have gained about 13 points of ground. Because of sampling variance and vagaries of question wording from survey to survey, the trend isn't always perfectly smooth. But the overall trend is fairly manifest; the rate of increase in support for gay marriage and civil unions has if anything accelerated since the Massachusetts decision.
This does not mean that gay marriage is "inevitable". On some "cultural" issues such as marijuana legalization, there have been periods of years at a time when the "liberal" position was losing ground (although marijuana legalization has since regained support). The public's views on abortion, meanwhile, have been stuck at more or less the same numbers -- with a narrow majority/plurality taking the pro-choice position -- for literally decades.
Support for gay marriage, however, is strongly generational. In a CBS news poll conducted last month, 64 percent of voters aged 18-45 supported either gay marriage or civil unions, but only 45 percent of voters aged 65 and up did. Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010's.

83 comments
Yes, and the fact that civil unions are over 50% means that is the winner for the repubs. The repubs can argue that by being for civil unions they are saving churches from gay marriage, and they can finally be for something.
In more important news - why are up before noon? Did you get a real job in NYC?
One of the most important (but not surprising) poll findings after prop 8 last year, was that people who personally knew out gay people voted against (and so for marriage), while those who voted for the proposition were less likely to be aware of real gay people around them.
The obvious implication is that the spread of legal marriage and civil unions, by increasing the visibility of gay couples, will steadily weaken resistance.
This will obviously be most marked in the states where legal unions are introduced, but there will also be a spillover effect. The trend now is indeed irreversible.
Nate, I hope you keep track of all these sources that are just outright liars. That will make for some good content in itself some day.
Speaking of old voters being replaced by young voters, I wonder how gay marriage support clusters around the birth years of respondents, and if there are inflections in a LOESS curve on that. I'd suspect such inflections are related to events.
They exist for racism, at least: For example, you mention 45 year olds: Born in 1964 and spent their entire lives with civil rights legislation enacted. 64 year olds were born in 1945: After of WWII, and raised to adulthood (18) with racism being socially acceptable.
Anyway, interesting chart.
Quigley wins Rahm's old seat:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/07/mike-quigley-elected-to-s_n_184412.html
@Brad
Nate has mentioned he sometimes writers articles the night in advance and then has the posting delayed until morning.
See:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/worst-pollster-in-world-strikes-again.html
I need a copy editor.
You and Nate both. ;-)
Andrew Sullivan also took a rip at the National Review.
Maybe this obsession with silly issues like whether gays should marry is responsible for the politicians losing control of the economy?
Pause for thought.
Seriously, Nate you have too much time on your hands. And so do I for reading any of it!
A more serious issue is surely the poor state of heterosexual marriages - i.e. the rapid rise in the rate of divorces over the last century. Discuss that if you dare, Nate.
Good to see writers are acknowledging the inevitable failure of their silly pursuit. Of course the quoted article contained the obligatory out-of-touch social conservative "nu-uh," but that is as close as an acknowledgment of truth as you will get from them.
Terence, I recall the same thing happening in the 1970s when there was a ballot initiative to make illegal having gays and lesbians be teachers. This was brought out in last year's movie, "Milk", about the life of Harvey Milk, gay rights activist and local legislator in San Francisco. I recall in the movie Milk asking all the gays to "out" themselves to as many friends and family as they could because he felt that someone who actually knew a gay person on friendly terms would not vote for this measure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiative
Milk was correct. That strategy from 30 years ago is just as good today as it was back then.
I find it interesting that, despite the generational split for supporing gay marriage, it is older judges that seem to be giving it much of its momentum. This is an issue where I would expect the courts to be lagging behind the public sentiment. Of course, the legal argument in opposition to gay marriage is incredibly weak, from a legal perspective.
I so wish you would stop calling it gay marriage or same sex marriage. We're not advocating for everyone to marry someone of the same sex-we're saying that no matter what the gender combination is, any adult couple should be allowed to marry-male-male, male-female, female-female, tranny-tranny, whateva-whateva.
This is important because it stresses that we're not trying to take away anyone else's rights, or to invalidate their marriages. If I and my boyfriend get married tomorrow, it's not going to harm you one bit-nothing will be taken away from you.
We just want to live our lives and be left alone. You don't have to like us or accept us. We just want the same rights as you before the law, that's it. Your churches aren't going to be made to do anything they don't already want to do.
Just let us live in peace.
I find it interesting that this time around with the 'outrage' over gay marriage that the Republican talking heads are brandishing aound the poll numbers that 'prove' their point of view. This is unlike last time when the sole argument seemed to be that gay marriage would undermine straight marriage. Hmmm, I wonder why they are abandoning that line of attack? Could it be that in the 5 years since that straight marriage hasn't come to utter rack and ruin and that the sky is still firmly in place. When the opposition's rationale changes then the outcome is inevitable. The Republicans are clinging to this issue like the people floundering in the water after the Titanic went down, grasping at anything they think will float.
BTW, the Washington Post's carttonist, Tom Toles has an excellent cartoon about this subject - one of his best: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/tomtoles/?hpid=opinionsbox1
A few minutes ago, it struck me that we might be witnessing the end of the social conservative movement, as evidenced by the recent breakthrough of gay marriage. Recently, there have been a few articles (in Newsweek, for example) about the evangelical retreat from politics. With the Reagan coalition falling apart, things might be speeding up now. California's prop 8 might very well be the swan song of the old social conservatism.
Gay marriage is just the most obvious proof. You could also mention the War on drugs (close to an end, regarded as a failure), marijuana legislation (soon?) and stem-cell research (ban repealed).
aaaa片俱樂部
im vlog辣妹論壇
a片城
色情情色網站
辣妹裸體自拍秀
3gp影片下載
免費情色視訊
視訊情色表演秀
無碼a片免費
YouTube真人表演
色情網站
a片免費看
無碼視訊
免費一對一視訊聊天
gogo258男同志聊天室
愛戀104
iPartment愛情公寓
成人小說
免費觀看小電影
0204情色影城
aa片試看av強暴
制服美女巨乳
松島楓免費影片
女優影片無碼直播
免費a片影城下載
洪爺色情聊天影城
無碼偷拍a片線上看
85cc免費影城
辣妹視訊美女聊天室
無碼av女優影城
av視訊美女交友
成人網站灰色地帶
aa win666 usaa免費看aaaaaa片子aaaa片
免費日本av女優
av自拍
ut 聊天室環球辣妹聊天室 90691
辣妹視訊美女聊天室
辣妹視訊美女交友
陳水扁金庫揭密
鬼髮2
鬼片下載
OL辦公室激情
a片 倉井空免費影片
av- 侯珮岑
超級星光大道
辣美眉show
免費檳榔西施摸奶影片
愛戀104
台灣無限貼圖區
無名相簿正妹親密照片
I have a lot of strongly-held beliefs, but there are only a handful that are controversial that I'm SURE I'm right. This is one of them.
There's just no coherent argument against it, just homophobia. Therefore, as younger generations grow up more comfortable with homosexuality, I agree that it is inevitable that same sex marriage will be legal.
Same-sex marriage seems, statistically, to be good for mixed-sex marriages as well. The state with the lowest divorce rate for heterosexuals is Massachusetts. So, same-sex marriage not only isn't dooming the Commonwealth, it appears if anything to be good for the institution that the bigots claim they're trying to protect.
I think mixed-sex marriages can also be an excellent thing, and not just because my own is working very well indeed. But it works because I'm married to someone I love and chose on his merits, not because strangers pressured me into marrying him because of his gender.
this is a prefect issue for the republican/conservatives. they have a chance to stand up for less governmnet, getting the governmnet out of personal lives, and greater individual freedom.
instead the show they really support big government, governmnent running our personal lives, and less indivicual freedom
Startler: I don't think any rational person thinks anyone is suggesting everyone should marry someone of the same sex. The term "income tax", for example, doesn't suggest there aren't any other taxes, or that only people with income should be taxed. What would you you prefer to call it?
Just to say it, the article in question pegged itself to Gallup polling. I'd be curious to see THOSE numbers -- and maybe get some insight from Nate as to what (if anything) in the methodology at Gallup led to a difference with the aggregated poll numbers (if, in fact, there's much difference)
I think he'd probably prefer it be called "marriage", Matt.
The better example would be "interracial marriage", which I think for most people is just considered "marriage" now.
The term "same-sex marriage" probably won't ever go away entirely, but it will drop out of use as it becomes more commonplace.
The Gallup data is about 1/3-1/2 of the way down the page at this link. The Gallup numbers are a bit more stable, but can be read to be tending toward accpetance of gay marriage, depending on your start date.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/Marriage.aspx
Lots of interesting questions and data here.
Erik-
The Gallup data shows strong support for inter-racial marriage, but for a history of that go read the Loving v Virginia ruling where it became unconstitutional for states to stop inter-racial marriage. In 1967 there was still some pretty scurilous stuff out there...
@Terrence:
I totally agree with you on this; visibility is the key to accelerating acceptance. This is one reason why I think that even if the Obama DoJ chooses to review DOMA and only challenge it on the basis of "full faith and credit" (aka states must recognize each other's marriages), even if it doesn't touch the part that bans the federal gov't from recognizing such marriages, that it'll still have a net effect of accelerating a trend towards marriage equality.
@Vicki Rosenzweig:
While I agree that gay marriage does nothing to weaken straight marriage, we must always be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. MA has strong marriages because they have a well educated populace that ends to marry later and in better financial circumstances. You would need to show me decreased rates of divorce following the institution of gay marriage in that state to provide any evidence that marriage equality actually "strengthens" the institution from a practical (rather than ideological/theoretical) standpoint.
Nate,
I think the NR is going to ping you on the fact that they indicated that support for same-sex marriage has stalled out in recent years *according to Gallup*.
Your analysis was interesting and well thought out, but it did not specifically address the fact that NR only used one poll for their justification.
Just some thoughts,
B.
My biggest problem with conservative positions on gay marriage is this tendency to hold, as Goldfarb does, that somehow by laundering inherently discriminatory policies through the process of ballot initiatives, legislation, or some other mechanism of "popular" will, we are some how equating the outcome as both legal and right. What ever happened to protection from the tyranny of the majority?
There is a distrubing theme in much of the comment about the Iowa decision, the Vermont legislation, and this article. It can be summed up as "Who cares?" Both Brad and Santa Turdo took pains to communicate that. I am at a loss.
The current state of civil rights in our country is kinda important. We aren't in a place like the U.S. just to make money, or relax in our easy chairs. The only threats to us are not ones that threaten to get in the way of that treasure or comfort. We are in the portion of the world that sometimes takes human dignity into account when making public policy and claims to do it all of the time. It is difficult to understand why its not important to monitor how that experiment is going. The fact I am not a non-documented immigrant doesn't mean that our policy towards them has no impact on me. I am not accused of terrorism, but the fact that Jose Padilla was both an American citizen and denied the right to habeas corpus for years has an impact on me.
The impact is, beyond my shared humanity with all the people I mentioned, I cannot assume I will be in the majority on every issue that matters to me. I cannot just rely on the ballot box. Even as a middle-aged, middle-class white guy, I might end up being somebody that the governmetn can treat unfairly and avoid an outcry.
It's in my self-interest to cry out when the folks who aren't me aren't being treated with justice and to celebrate when that is beginning to change a bit.
Glenn-
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have made it clear that gay marriage is legal under the equal protection of both the national and most state's Constitutions. That said, one reason you do not see a vigorous debate in this thread is because we just had a vigorous debate on this subject two or three days ago.
I believe that the people against gay marriage sound a whole lot like the former bigots who were against inter-racial marriage. I am sure you did not actually read Loving v Virginia as I requested a few posts back, but please go read it now. This is just about how the gay marriage debate should be managed by the Supreme Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Bigots now should be slapped down in the same way as bigots were then.
Oh Glenn, and make sure you read my posts a few days back about how proud I am of Iowa...
Now take the chip off your shoulder and quit being so paranoid.
NY Fed predicts recession over...
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/04/ny-fed-model-suggests-economic-recovery.html
Brad,
Thanks for your quick replies. I was commenting about the "In more important news - why are up before noon? Did you get a real job in NYC?" post. And I clearly touched a nerve. You should not have been lumped with the other poster who did only make one comment and whose comment I fairly characterized. Sorry about that.
I have read Loving, as I have read the recent decisions with interest. I have to admit that I have taken no particular interest in your posts on the matter. Please take no offense.
Yes, 14th amendment law has given opponents no LEGAL room to move. That isn't the only point, however.
To build on my eariler post, we are about to have a whole series of decisions about this issue that will seriously weird-out a significant part of our population. They will likely not have the knowledge of 14th Amendment jurisprudence you do. If they did, they might share Scalia's opinion-- that the 14th Amendment ate the Constitution-- as he said in Johnson. They love their Constitution, just ask them.
So back to why that matters. We run the real risk of folks who are sympathetic to the end result yawning their way into a situation where the scared dominate the dialogue.
Juris, Sullivan later posted this little beauty comparing the National Review's viewpoint in 1957 on blacks being able to vote versus their viewpoint on gays being able to marry today.
Another day, another class of people to hate. The National Review, still classy after all these years.
I never really thought about "gay marriage" as a meme. But now that it's been pointed out it seems better to say "Equal Marriage".
Really I really want to say "Equal Marriage Rights", but it should be pretty hard for anyone to argue against "Equal Marriage".
Jason
Very interesting news! Great blog! I am a student blogger operating http://www.electiongazette.com. Since your blog is such a great source for people, I was wondering if you could put my blog on your site and/or spread the word. Thanks!
I like equal marriage .
I accept that knowing someone gay would be significant, but another factor may be reading or hearing about cases of substantial harm. Not so long ago, someone died in a hospital in Florida (I think) without her partner being allowed to visit or be involved in decisions. These things will happen as long as there isn't equal marriage.
He's right about one thing, those who oppose same sex marriage and/or civil unions will be looked at as biggots, just as those who opposed civil rights for women and AA are. And i'm sorry, but rightly so.
Oh right-wingers, when will you ever stop spouting unedited talking points as if they're of any value?
"Don't focus on civil rights, focus on the economy!!!" That's the official talking point as of yesterday. Anybody listen to yesterday's Diane Rehm?
Let's get real. Homophobes oppose it. People who don't (think that) they know any gays oppose it... and pretty much no one else does.
I don't want to hear any more about what you think your God says, or hear any more of your faith-based pseudo science. Haven't we learned well enough that the preachers most opposed to gay rights are trying to out-preach their own gay demons?
Glenn-
That post was firmly tongue in cheek.
Thanks.
I am actually for no marriage under the law, and marriage only being a church tradition. I am for everyone having a civil union, the word is just toxic to the right wing crazies.
That said, I would love to see a Nate post on the failure of marriage as discussed above. The people not planning on marriage, the divorce rate, and the children living with a single parent stats have to be astounding.
Statler, why would the term 'gay marriage' imply that gay people are forcing straight people to marry people of the same gender? I don't think anyone takes it this bizarre way.
The word 'gay' is just specifying the type of marriage under discussion. When the issue is marriage across race/ethnicity, or without consent, or to a partner chosen by others, they're referred to as a mixed marriages, forced marriages, arranged marriages. The adjective specifies the type of marriage. When the sexuality of the spouses isn't the subject under discussion, then it's just referred to as 'marriage', as in, "Bill and Bob's marriage is on the rocks."
If it genuinely upsets people, then we should call it equal marriage or something. But I can't really see where the offence is coming from.
All I want is to be with the man I love for the rest of my life. I don't want to cause you any trouble, or hurt anyone. I just want to have the same rights as you have already.
Part of that sameness is using the same words for the same things. Think about it this way: if you were to refer to Barack Obama as The Black President instead of just the President, and that's all you ever called him, what would that say about you? It would say that you don't think of him as being a President in the same sense as all the other Presidents. Otherwise, you wouldn't use a special word for him.
And that's really what this whole thing is about. We don't want civil unions, because it's a different word-it means there's somehow something different in your mind about us than how you see yourselves-after all, heterosexuals don't get civilly unionized. They get married.
If you believe that there is something different, something inferior or strange, about our lifelong partnerships, then it makes sense to use different words.
If you think that Barack Obama is the President, and not just the Black President, then you would just call him President Obama and not Black President Obama.
I'm just like you, in many ways. I have the same emotions you do. I work just as hard and pay taxes like you do. I've got dreams and aspirations, and I want my kids to have happy childhoods. I love my country. If you and I are not so different-if the differences that exist are really kind of trivial-then we shouldn't use different words.
I look forward to the day when 'gay' and 'straight' aren't words we use to describe each other anymore. I want to see a day when nobody cares anymore about what gender you fall in love with-when it will be as ordinary to see me and my boyfriend holding each other as it is to see you and your spouse embrace.
I'm here to recruit you. Not to be like me, or to join some cause-I'm here to recruit you to join the same club to which we all already belong-the human race, where differences aren't something we fight each other over or establish hierarchies of superiority and inferiority over. Where we can just be. And nobody has to live in fear or terror, or feel like they don't belong. I'm here to recruit you to join America.
Because America is the most beautiful place in the world to be.
My question is, why did gay people ever think they were going to get equal protection under the law by referendum? We ended slavery at the point of a gun, and then codified it in the courts. We desegregated the south in the courts, and then enforced it at the point of a gun. Gay people thought people, even in California of all places, were just going to say, "Oh, sorry. Of course you're right. Sorry about all that bigotry."? Naive. Why, when the pollsters tell us "how Americans feel about it", don't we say, "Who gives a flying *&#@ at a rolling donut how they feel? 60 years ago, they didn't want to share their water fountain. Today, they think they're entitled to shove their relgion to control the execution of a contract I make, with another consenting adult, to engage in private behavior and be treated equally under the law after having done so." Obviously, this is a matter for the courts, and the courts again, and the courts AGAIN, until it's over. Gay is the new black, and I for one am tired of all these kid gloves with these religio-centric abusers.
Kathryn,
I disagree with you. Maybe I'm overly optimistic here, but I'm going to say that to most people violence is an unnatural thing.
Think about it- you have to do special things to your mind to prepare yourself to commit violence-you have to build up your opponent as someone you hate, someone who deserves to be hurt. Or you have to psych yourself into thinking that it would be fun to hurt them. Or that they somehow threaten you.
Without all these mental tricks, you will find it very difficult to be violent. That's because violence requires delusion-you have to lie to yourself to do it.
I can't speak for anyone other than myself-the reason why i came out is because I was tired of lying, to myself and to others. I don't want to see anyone as the enemy. The mental weakness it takes to fall prey to violent urges is something I find undesirable.
Again, I don,t want to hurt anyone or change their lives or make them do anything differently- I just want to live in peace, as your equal, without conflict.
I think that's what most people want. That's the natural thing to do.
I think gay marriage, or at least civil unions, are coming to states near you very soon. I also think it unlikely this will require the national guard...
The 'black President' analogy is a good one.
It's quite uncontroversial, and in fact quite common, to refer to Obama as a black President, when his colour is the issue under discussion. In your examples it isn't, and so drawing attention to his being black stands out as carrying an agenda.
Likewise, if I were to say, "I haven't seen much of Bill since his gay marriage," that would be suspect, since the issue under discussion is his absence, not his sexuality, and it would sound either like I was strangely trying to link the two, or that I had an issue with gay marriage in general, or both. But to say, "Gay marriage will be legal in all states within fifty years" seems to me uncontroversial.
I'm entirely sympathetic to your desire not to be defined by, let alone despised because of, your sexuality. And from now on I'll call it 'equal marriage' in public, since it apparently offends, and I don't want to offend. But I don't think it ought to offend.
Listen, I don't really expect to require the national guard. And certainly, one can hope that even if it did require some federal support of that type (where, at the marriage-license office?), that it wouldn't come to actual violence.
But people never got civil rights by asking for them. Ever. It will take the courts, and a stiff spine from people who get tired of pretending that all views are worth respecting and that how these relgious autocrats "feel" is a consideration when protecting people under the law. There are all sorts of views that get no traction whether they're based on relgion or cultural values or whatever, because the law is clear. This whole conversation is total horse%$%#, and it needs to end, with gay people having the same rights I do. The polling, the earnest reporter, giving a forum to bigots to preach their "views" ... if we'd used that as our first tactic with black people, they'd still be having to get up to give me their seat when I get on the bus tonight.
Bryce writes: "I need a copy editor."
I reply: Here I am! But I don't come cheap. :-)
Kathryn,
What I don't understand is how you can advocate for violence and yet you can't bring yourself to type the word 'shit' without using some obscure symbols. Are you worried that small children are reading this page, and thta you will have inadvertently taught them how to curse?
Listen, I,d be less concerned about hearing a 6 year old say 'shit' than hearing the same child advocating for a violent overthrow of society.
As far as the civil rights struggle Black people went through (and still are going thru), the most effective tactics were all nonviolent. They staged sit ins and Freedom Rides and marched through Selma.. unarmed.
Women did the same thing. Susan B Anthony went and voted illegally, and she did it without charging down the hill with a machine gun shouting "Wolveriiiiines!"
Sorry, I recently watched 'Red Dawn' for the first time, and I'm still marveling at the campy bullshit of that movie. It'll be a few weeks before i'm over it. 300 did the same thing to me, I dunno why. Spartaaaaaaaaa!
Anyway, the effective civil rights movements were all peaceable. So's this one.
Bryce writes: "I need a copy editor."
I reply: Here I am! But I don't come cheap.
You've got quotation marks on Bryce's comment but none on your own. Nate, hire me instead.
civil unions are just bigots' way of saying, "okay fine, you can ride the bus. but you have sit at the back."
Ok. Again. I did not advocate violence.
I typed symbols in place of "shit" because I didn't know if the site would bounce my post if I used the word.
And Paul: Yes. There is no such beast as Separate but Equal. Separate is not Equal, and one would think we'd have learned by now to refuse to pretend it's anything but...wait for it....
Horseshit.
To respond to a point made a few posts up by Fred, I think the Iowa court hit the nail on the head about the civil union/ marriage thing.
That is to say that marriage is both a set of legal rights (like a civil union) and a conveyer of culturally-imbedded status and assumptions. Only marriage can provide both.
We cannot turn the clock back and split the legal and cultural parts. There is also the open question about what would happen if we tried. Doing so might do violence to anyone not married in a non-Christian (and I mean Christian in the same way that folks who doubt Catholics are Christian mean it, or put another way Christian= whatever I think) ceremony.
The solution has to make do distinction between different people who are married. Lets all remember what Plessy v. Ferguson meant. If you ask the writer, separate but equal meant something. It mean equal before the law but socially separate. The legal fiction is that something can be both legally equivalent and allow space for people who might not want to share a social space not to have to.
In other words, judges said everybody has an equal right to sit on a bus but where can be legislated. Can't afford for anybody to sit on the back of bus on this one.
Statler, you said, "As far as the civil rights struggle Black people went through (and still are going thru), the most effective tactics were all nonviolent. They staged sit ins and Freedom Rides and marched through Selma.. unarmed."
They may have been unarmed. The guys who escorted their kids into school? Armed. To the teeth. And the gun-toting Guard was not violent. They were defensive. Defending the law by force. Becuase simply ASKING for courtesy and fairness only went as far as the march down the road; didn't take the kiddies into school.
i think on this issue the way the polling question is posed is very important.
Statler--
I am entirely in agreement with your goals, and moved by your statements of them. But this?:
"Think about it- you have to do special things to your mind to prepare yourself to commit violence-you have to build up your opponent as someone you hate, someone who deserves to be hurt. Or you have to psych yourself into thinking that it would be fun to hurt them. Or that they somehow threaten you.
Without all these mental tricks, you will find it very difficult to be violent. That's because violence requires delusion-you have to lie to yourself to do it."
Violence REQUIRES "delusion"? I'm sorry, but that is so clearly wrong you harm your own cause if people actually think such a proposition is crucial to your arguments.
I can imagine several examples of violence--ranging from small to large, and individual to group--in which "delusion" need play no part whatsoever.
I don't disagree that some violence certainly can spring from demonizing your opponent in the way you describe. But that does not describe the entire universe of possibilities when it comes to the causes of violence.
They are wrong, however, that gay marriage has failed to gain support since that date. Per the LOESS curves, gay marriage has gained about 8 points of support since November 2003, while civil unions have gained about 13 points of ground.
This is almost exactly the same argument used by global warming denialists--that the rise hit a peak and is now falling. Yes, it hit a peak and fell, but that has since reversed.
jeanine,
From personal experience, I can address your questions.
I was involved in a long-term relationship. My partner was ex-Navy, and when he developed lung cancer and hospitalized at the VA hospital in Baltimore, I was initially denied visiting privileges at that hospital until several nurses 'conveniently ignored' the VA rules. He then was transferred to another hospital that was inconvenient/impossible for me to go to - the reason given was 'rehab and recovery' from the radiation treatment.
Eventually he released himself from that hospital - told the staff he was going to take a walk on the grounds, but actually was driven off the grounds by some friends.
In the more than twenty years we had been together, he had been totally estranged from his family, not seeing any except one sister (also a black sheep in the family). His only brother made no attempt to tell my brother that their father had died - my partner only found out, by accident, years later.
When my partner died, I officially had absolutely no say in how a funeral (if one would have been held) would be handled, where it would be held (if held), or any other matter. The 'official' say in what happened was with his (more than 80-year-old) mother who lived in Florida.
Fortunately, during my partner's final six months of living, he had a reconciliation with his mother, sisters, and to some extent with his brother, and I met them for the first time. They allowed me to make the decisions, decisions in accordance with what my partner and I had discussed, then 'officially' made the decision for legal purposes.
Since there was no estate in my partner's name, I don't know what path that would have taken if we had had to face it.
In another case in the state of Maryland, take a look at Flanigan v. University of Maryland Hospital System (Lambda Legal discussion at: http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/in-court/cases/flanigan-v-university-of-maryland.html ). This was a case of a man admitted to shock-trauma, his partner having in his possession a Power of Attorney to make health care decisions, visitation rights and all other rights, including medical decisions, were denied.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@Mike in Maryland:
That sucks. If you had made these decisions, wouldn't it have been possible for your partner to leave a will stating his wishes and make you the executor?
Fifteen years ago, my older sister was named the executor of my younger sister's estate (my younger sister was murdered by her ex-husband and had prepared for the worst, which happened about a year later) and had very little difficulty executing my younger sister's wishes in full, including adopting her child, and despite the wishes of the child's father and his family.
Maybe we got lucky with the judge, I don't know (but we did have an excellent attorney representing us).
Bruce,
This is a fundamental difference between you and me. I think violence is insane. I think deliberately hurting someone else is a sign that you have deluded yourself into seeing that person as someone alien to yourself, and that the reality is that when you harm other people, you bring ruin to yourself, and that whatever rush of sadistic glee you experience in the short term will be followed sooner or later by the pain that such actions always provoke.
Simply put, I do not think it is smart to go around harming other people.
If you disagree, fine, but please do me the kind favor of keeping your violent tendencies away from me
Tony,
If my partner had made a will (since there was no estate nor dependents, there was no pressing need for a will), it is questionable that a court would have upheld what I decided if his family disputed the will, or my decisions as executor of that will. At that time in Maryland, there were few laws on the book about the legal rights of non-married partners - since then, several laws have been enacted, some over the veto of former (thank G-d) Boobie Ehrlich, that give better legal standing of persons in cases of non-married partnerships.
Also, a will comes into effect after the person's death, and in most cases is concerned with the estate of the deceased, not the arrangements prior to death, and the arrangements for funeral, burial (or cremation), etc. As an example, my partner wanted cremation, but if his family had wanted a funeral with burial in a cemetery, their wishes, not my partner's nor mine, would have been the ones that most likely would have been followed.
As to your family, I'm sure the fact of your sister being murdered by the ex assisted the judge in determining who would be the best parent for the child. A competent attorney also helped, I'm sure. A criminal act goes a long way in helping justice decide who is responsible, and who is not. Non-responsible actions by the adults (as exhibited by the ex) are prime considerations in determining who should NOT have custody of children not yet of legal age.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Has anyone else noticed that extrapolating the pro-gay-marriage trend line has it crossing the 50% threshold in late September of 2012, just in time for the Presidential elections?
Marriage is a religious institution and as such the government has no business attaching rights to it.
Call all marriages civil unions legally and be done with it.
This is a fundamental difference between you and me. I think violence is insane. I think deliberately hurting someone else is a sign that you have deluded yourself into seeing that person as someone alien to yourself, and that the reality is that when you harm other people, you bring ruin to yourself, and that whatever rush of sadistic glee you experience in the short term will be followed sooner or later by the pain that such actions always provoke.
Are you shitting me?
This from the guy who was threatening people on this website and calling them his enemy; even though they fundamentally agreed with him, but disagreed on minor points?
The irony meter is about to explode.
Kathryn, I think that the increasing number of states which have enacted equal marriage rights, including Vermont which enacted it by popularly-elected legislature, are clear evidence that what you say is false. Moreover, the upward trend in polls proves that peaceful activism and courts can change people's hearts and minds. It may be slower, but it is the right way to do things.
Instead of merely using polls, what about using results of actual anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives? Not a lot of data here, certainly, but in California, you have Prop 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, pass with 61% in 2000. Then you had Prop 8, which overturned gay marriage and reiterated that it is between a man and a woman, pass with 52% in 2008. That's progress, although you might question whether it's an apples to apples comparison.
Statler-
Holy crap! If somebody points a gun at my son with every sign he's going to shoot, and I use violence to disarm that person, I'm "insane" or "delusional"?
Remind me not to be anybody in your sphere of life.
And ponder just who is "insane" while you are at it.
Well who do you think is more crazy?
Me, the nonviolent gay guy,
or This lady?
She's got god, guns and country-do you feel safe with her around your kids?
Neither, thanks. And fortunately those two (equally nonsensical) extremes do not fully cover the universe of choices I have.
Gays should have the same "benefits" as married people in a civil union. But marriage is an institution designed for procreation and family. Two guys or two women is not a "marriage" and they shouldn't call it one. There's really no reason not to. Again, I'm ok with them having the same benefits. But a gay relationship is not the same as a heterosexual one.
Speaking of interracial marriage, it's interesting how supported it is nowadays. If we could see people's true thoughts, I don't think it would be as highly supported as it appears. White men, for instance, have much more of a reason to oppose interracial marriage than to support it. Most black-white marriages are black male-white female, directly reducing the white female pool. No matter what they tell pollsters, white males have good reason to oppose interracial marriage.
John said...
Gays should have the same "benefits" as married people in a civil union. But marriage is an institution designed for procreation and family.
So John,
My brother's widow remarried several years after my brother died. She was well past child-bearing age. All three of her children were grown, two of them married, and the third planning on marriage (since 'accomplished').
Should I have protested the wedding, since she was incapable of bearing any more children? After all, you clearly stated marriage is an institution designed for procreation.
If you don't think I should have protested, why not?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@John:
Who cares what marriage was designed for? The computer was quite explicitly designed to compute missile trajectories; however, we have discovered some other uses for it.
Anyway, marriage was *not* designed for procreation, we were procreating just fine before marriage was invented. Marriage was designed to grant publicly recognized property rights on women to men. If anything, and to remove the male-master tone of it, monogamous marriage was designed as a public and binding pledge of each party becoming the property of the other, and having the rights of a property owner should the other become incapacitated or die. This is why a spouse has the right to visitation, medical decision making, inheritance, and whether to continue life support: These rights are continuations of an ancient tradition of property ownership. It has nothing to do with family, or children, or sexual contact. Sterile people can marry.
Your belief about what marriage was "designed" to do is flawed, and thus your conclusion is completely wrong. Gays are no different than couples in which one person is sterile; they cannot reproduce, but they may love their prospective spouse and wish to grant that person all the rights over them that come with marriage.
Civil unions cannot provide that; by virtue of being a different contract they will be forever subject to the whim of the courts to claim that they don't include Right X or Right Y. The very fact that people want to call it "civil unions" instead of "marriage" implies there is something about "civil unions" that is not "marriage," and that wedge will always exist for any bigot on the bench that wants to hammer on it.
The only way to ensure equality of unions is to call it the same thing and have it BE the same thing.
It drives me crazy how the corporate media uses orchestrated tactics to set the reality for people's futures and families. This "civil union" vs. "marriage" split just shows me how manipulable we all are. Was just to an episode of The Joan Kenley Show (progressive Bay Area podcast) called The Media: What’s True, What’s Not on the same topic - media manipulation, and inside stories that challenged my opinions.
Tony C:
Good response to the definition argument, except that the computer was not designed to compute missile trajectories.
"Computer" referred originally to employees of the Manhattan Project, typically female, who carried the computations on the atomic bomb. Computers, in the original sense, weren't really designed for anything.
Electronic computers were designed to take over from those employees who had coffee breaks, sick days, and even stopped work and went home in the evening.
Since the machines were doing the same work (only faster) they were called the same thing. Which takes us back to your marriage/civil unions argument.
Indeed, if they're supposed to do the same thing, why give them a different name.
@John D:
"Computer" was originally a job description for a human, that is true. The first electronic computer (vacuum tube style) was designed to compute missile trajectories.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
Post a Comment