Yes, they can (and yes, they DID!)

Being a midwestern night owl, I was about to go to bed after drying my eyes over Hoffman’s loss in NY23 when this headline popped up:

“Maine voters repeal law that would have allowed gay marriage.”

Yes, for the last five national elections, Maine has been loyal to the Democrats.

Yes, Maine has a Democrat for a Governor.

Yes, Maine’s members of the U.S. House are Democrats.

And if that’s not bad enough, Maine is also responsible for RINO, Olympia Snowe.  (The one John McCain should have picked, remember?)

Somehow, the national mandate on banning gay marriage continues to pass in state, after state, after state.

To the members of my community giving all of your support to RINOS and/or liberals, ask yourselves how forceful big-government politicians have managed to persuade Americans on this issue.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Yes, they can (and yes, they DID!)

  1. “I was about to go to bed after drying my eyes over Hoffman’s loss in NY23 when this headline popped up”

    That’s hilarious (the loss, not the crying; although that is weird).

    “Maine voters repeal law that would have allowed gay marriage.”

    And that is fucking sad. It seems like we as a nation have come such a long way, then shit like this keeps happening. I don’t get it…

  2. “And that is fucking sad. It seems like we as a nation have come such a long way, then shit like this keeps happening. I don’t get it…”

    I often get raked for saying this but what the hell.

    Same sex marriage is a flop. The number of same sex couples getting married relative to the same sex population in a given state does not justify the trouble this issue brings.

    It high time the Human Rights Campaign I mean the Hapless Rejects Clique starts battling on gay issues that really impact and matter to gays.

    Yes the voters of Maine rejected same sex marriage yesterday and that follows the path of gays and lesbians rejecting it regardless of what the law says.

    California has over 36,000,000 million people living in and a paltry 32,000 same sex people have chosen to legally marry. If that isn’t a flop then nothing is.

  3. On the local level, my town said NO to a half cent sales tax increase. There are approximately 25,000 people in my town. The City Manager makes over $200,000 a year.

    The Mayor of San Jose (population over 850,000) doesn’t make that much.

    My town voted for Obama 75%!!!!

  4. It just goes to prove that anti-gay sentiment is NOT a party problem.

    It is a PEOPLE problem. Liberal, conservative, it doesn’t matter. You can’t villify Christians or Republicans for the lack of laws allowing gay marriage. You can’t blame Bush. You can’t blame McCain.

    You have to blame everyone.

  5. “Somehow, the national mandate on banning gay marriage continues to pass in state, after state, after state.”

    But note that Maine continues to have Domestic Partnership laws that weren’t at all affected by the “No” vote on Same-Sex Marriage.

    Granted, Maine’s DP law is more narrow in scope/coverage than California’s — in other words, Maine’s DP law is *not* “everything but the word ‘marriage’ ” — but it does protect such fundamentals as inheritance of property in the event that one partner dies without a will, and also medical power-of-attorney if one partner goes into a coma or is otherwise incapacitated.

    What I find especially interesting and encouraging is that in the last week before the election, the anti-SSM folks in Maine put out a new TV ad called “It’s Possible”, which made a point of reminding viewers that they could vote against Same-Sex Marriage without taking Domestic Partnership laws away from gay couples. (The earlier ads from the anti-SSM side had simply attacked SSM without saying anything at all about Maine’s existing DP laws.) So I assume what must have happened is that focus-groups showed that some moderates were reluctant to vote against SSM, in the incorrect belief that this would also be a vote against Domestic Partnership. And thus the anti-SSM side was essentially forced to give lip service to DP law, or else risk losing moderate votes.

    (You can easily find the “It’s Possible” ad by Googling).

  6. “And thus the anti-SSM side was essentially forced to give lip service to DP law, or else risk losing moderate votes. ”

    I politely disagree.

    The big panty wad issue is the word “marriage”.

    Enough people don’t like calling same sex unions marriage. Call it anything else, give it the same legal standing as marriage, and boom, no issue among enough people.

    I am gay and I don’t care what same sex unions are called. I prefer they be called something other than marriage because in the U.S. the evolution of marital law has always involved a man and a woman as the fundamental couple.

    Even inter-racial marriage was between a man and a woman. Changes in the divorce laws involved men and women married to each other.
    Same sex couples don’t have legal history when it comes to marital law. We have zero. We are new to the game.

    But the Hapless Rejects Clique is so horny dog seething to have the word marriage that they will slaughter the futures of millions of same sex people just to allow one same sex couple to marry and call it that. The Hapless Rejects Clique does not care about gay people.

    What do I mean by slaughtering the future? Only 20 states plus DC have any laws that protect gays/lesbians from workplace discrimination and housing discrimination. When a state bans same sex marriage, then it is less likely to promote job and housing protections for gay folk. Every person needs money to live and needs shelter too. So this twisted desire for same sex marriage is impeding the progress on real fronts that benefit every single lesbian and gay person in America. The Hapless Rejects an an evil lot and I for one and not afarid to say so.

  7. I hate to stir the pot and go somewhat off topic (but on topic sort of as well), but I think the gay marriage issue and DADT are absolutely intertwined. If President Obama abolishes DADT (and I’m sure he will, just as I was sure it would fall no matter who was elected).

    Here’s the connection – the military is probably the last calling in the United States where one partner’s status is completely dependent upon the other. My ability to get medical care, shop at the commissary, and access services on base depends wholly on my marriage to my husband. Furthermore, our marriage is what determines his rates of housing pay and separation allowances during deployments, as well as compensation for PCS (moves).

    Can you IMAGINE the giant cluster-fornication that would arise if this issue isn’t settled before DADT falls?

    It needs to be settled. And since the use of the term “civil union” has overwhelmingly shown in polling to be a positive one (as in, in nearly all places that gay marriage amendments failed polls showed that the same benefits entitled “civil union” would have passed, sometimes overwhelmingly) I don’t see why there is such an averse reaction to using it.

    Then again, this does not affect me in the first person – only through my family members and my daughter.

    I would love to know how others think this can be resolved – because it absolutely needs to be. And soon.

  8. AFW, you crack me up. “Cluster-fornication” is the best way I’ve heard anyone use that term tastefully!

    I agree with you, actually, and it’s something I have thought about but have never really been able to hash out in my own mind. At the very least, civil unions would be important to the fall of DADT. And if the policy falls, there will be a much bigger, harder push to force gay marriage on everyone, too.

    I’m still struggling with whether I believe that full marriage is ever going to be appropriate for the GLBT community. On one hand, emotionally, I want that with another person. But logically, I have to bear in mind what full marriage is meant for and what changing the definition may mean for our society.

    At any rate, marriage will not be something the population at large will accept overnight. Civil unions may be a bridge to attaining what we seek, but I’ll take it–we should be willing to take anything. I don’t see marriage as a human right, I see it as a privilege. So naturally my views are going to differ drastically from others in the community.

    Clear as mud? ;-P

  9. AFW writes: “I don’t see why there is such an averse reaction to using [the term civil unions]”

    Because SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL!! Equality! Equality! Say no to Prop H8! Separate is not equal! Aaawwwwk, Pretty Bird!

  10. And by the way, I award John a gold star and a fun-size Snickers bar for “Hapless Rejects Clique”.

    (And come to think of it, “horny-dog seething” is a most elegant turn of phrase, too.)

  11. “Because SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL!! ”

    I knew this disucussion would pop a zombie mole up from the tunnels. Welcome to the fray.

    If Civil Unions and Marriage provided the exact same Federal protections and state protections then how is that unequal? That’s easy? Such things are not unequal. They are the same.

    In states where same sex marriage is allowed, they are in effect the same as civil unions provided that state has such a thing.

    State recognized same sex marriage lacks Federal recognition along with Federal benefits just as civil unions do. So, big deal. You get to use the word Marriage. Big effing deal.

    It’s one thing to want the same legal protection. I want that. But I don’t care what they call it. I’d rather win the war even if a battle here or there is lost.

  12. “I’m still struggling with whether I believe that full marriage is ever going to be appropriate for the GLBT community.”

    Could you expand on that. I am curious what you mean.

  13. I don’t back gay marriage for a lot of reasons including concerns for religious liberty and just the reality that tampering with social institutions as fundamental as marriage which precedes the formation of the US and transcends cultures as being between man and woman. People who bang the gay marriage drum are, I think, aiming for more than legal contract rights, but for social legitimation.

    That being said, I could be persuaded to accept some sort of contract framework that provides the benefits usually accorded to marriage, provided that they are not considered marriage by the state.

  14. “I hate to stir the pot and go somewhat off topic (but on topic sort of as well), but I think the gay marriage issue and DADT are absolutely intertwined. If President Obama abolishes DADT (and I’m sure he will, just as I was sure it would fall no matter who was elected). ”

    Don’t you mean the gay ban in the military? DADT can go away. But that does not mean gays will be allowed in the military. If DADT goes away, then the military goes back to its former way of handling gay service members whatever that was.

    I don’t know if this is 100% true or not. But, in 1992 I was acquaintences with a former Navy man who like me, smoked. We would often chat in the smoking area. He worked for the business next door.

    Clinton was elected and gays in the military was a hot issue. A local service member came out publically and was kicked out of the Navy. He was all over the local TV news.

    The man told me the guy was kicked out because he made his unit look bad. When this acquaintence was in the Navy he was aware their were gay sailors in his unit and plenty of people were aware of this up and down the command chain.

    As long as nobody made the unit look bad, nobody was hassled. Going on TV and berating the Navy for its anti gay policy made the Navy look bad. In military culture, that’s a major no no according to this guy.

    I don’t know if any of what he said is 100 percent true. But, most of it makes sense.

  15. So I was just motivated to whip up a little spoof of the HRC logo, featuring a wavy “approximate” sign, and the slogan “Say YES to Civil Unions — Separate but Similar.”

    I guess one potential problem is that in our irony-addled age, people could take this as a sarcastic slam on civil unions, rather than the straightforward endorsement that is intended. But anyone who likes it is welcome to steal it for your own blog/FB page/whatever.

  16. As long as nobody made the unit look bad, nobody was hassled. Going on TV and berating the Navy for its anti gay policy made the Navy look bad. In military culture, that’s a major no no according to this guy.

    Here’s what I get from most of the contacts I’ve made. Keep in mind this is not everyone’s experience. There are nasty assholes everywhere, and there are bullies who are looking for a reason to pick on someone. In that case, it’s not the fact that someone’s gay that is the reason they are being picked on for being gay – it’s because the bully knows that picking on someone for that reason will get a reaction.

    And there are genuinely people who are unwilling to work with gays in the military – but not as many as some would have you believe. I personally know several gays that are in the military, and they do very well, although I feel for them that they have to separate parts of their lives from their profession when family is such an integral part of the profession.

    The thing is, everyone, and I do mean that with about 95%, knows the sexual orientation of those particular people. It’s never talked about – but aside from showing up at functions with a same sex partner or stating it outright – everyone knows. There are comments by some – but some people will make comments about anything. Being straight in the military doesn’t insulate you from the same sort of thing.

    These people are respected and promoted because above all they do their jobs well. I WANT them to have my husband’s back because they will do the job and keep him as safe as God will allow. And at the Milblog conference this year, the general who spoke to us on live-feed stated that surveys of deployed troops had been done and the issue of working with homosexuals wasn’t the issue many think it is.

    As with anything, though, the real issue is who you are. If you are going to be responsible for someone’s life – and that is what the base of this profession is about – then you must be MILITARY first and gay second (the same is true for straights – and often we spouses refer to the military as “the other woman”. The fact that we are right now on my husband’s third deployment shows who comes first regardless of sexual orientation). If you come in GAY first and in the military a distant second, you create resentments that color the whole debate in a shade that doesn’t naturally exist.

    If you come in FEMALE first, the same thing stands. Or if you come in CATHOLIC first. Whatever. Your first duty has to be being a part of the team – because that’s what everyone’s life depends on.

    So in my experience, John, I think that what your friend said is true to a point, but it’s a little more than that. People’s lives depend on everyone doing their job. Much, and I do mean MUCH will be overlooked if that job is done well and the team functions.

    http://tinyurl.com/yz2gecl

    SGT Stout was a case in point – his team wanted him to be allowed to stay in.

    Also, the blogger Shawmut is an excellent resource for DADT info.

    (sorry I took this so far off topic, Steve)

  17. Robert McGee, that logo was high-larious! I love it.

    John, what I mean by appropriate ties in with some of your thoughts on the gay marriage issue. So few actually take advantage of marriage rights, and some of those that have are already divorced. The lesbian couple in CA that was among the first to marry have already been divorced, and they said that the strain of their activism led to the death of their relationship. I question whether it would be appropriate to redefine marriage to move beyond the boundaries of a man and a woman because we as homosexuals largely don’t want the same things that heterosexual couples want.

    AFW, every single one of the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen I know all say they don’t have any problems at all with the members they serve with who are gay or lesbian. One who shall remain nameless told me about a lesbian he served with who was the best damn soldier he’d ever met–she carried a picture of her partner with her and believed in her mission, and she served with amazing dignity. Everyone knew that no matter what, they could count on her to get her job done, and at that better than anyone else in her MOS.

    I think that granting civil unions might well take care of the marriage/military issue. The more I think about it, the more I believe that marriage should remain under the sole definition of being between a man and a woman.

    (Despite that, however, I have to say–I don’t like Elaine Donnelly. The woman has never served a day in her life and is, to me, a blithering idiot.)

  18. “But anyone who likes it is welcome to steal it ”

    I did not wish to go there but I am going to go there.

    Civil Unions vs. Marriage is supposed to be this evil Separate But Equal that is horrible and wrong.

    Well…how about Hate Crimes Laws? We have one set of prosecutorial laws for certain crime victims and a completely harsher set for a different set of victims based on a factor that can’t be changed. Why is this form of Separate But Equal allowed? It certainly is separate. It certainly is not equal?

    Do tell how you distinguish one form of Separate But Equal as acceptable yet a completely different form of it is not? Could it be one form doesn’t benefit you?

  19. “The more I think about it, the more I believe that marriage should remain under the sole definition of being between a man and a woman. ”

    Wow! That took guts to admit.

  20. I’ve always believed that…..people always go on about the ramnifications of tax code for married folks, but in 2008, the standard deduction for married filing jointly was 10,900.00. The standard deduction for a single person was 5,450.00. That’s fair.

    If gays wanted to invent their own institution, they could.

    Regardless of your personal position, the route the activists are taking is proven to be a losing recipe and it always will be a losing recipe – and will continue to hinder the individual rights we should be focused on among gays that you mentioned earlier.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s