The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

You know, I'm not letting anyone off the hook.

I disagree. If a person takes hateful actions, and I'd say opposing equality is a hateful action, any justifications or delusions they may have do not change that action, and as I said, it matters not a whit if the person taking that actions believes they did what they did out of love for the eternal soul, or whatever other reason they have, to the oppressed. Voting against equality is a material act with a material effect on the material world--the immaterial doesn't change it.

I don't think you're reading what I'm actually typing, but I don't find myself shocked at this very much. My point is very obviously not that these people are to be forgiven and their actions ignored, but that there are different types of people who produce this behavior for different reasons. It's pointless and actually more of the same problem to treat them all the same. It matters in that you can possibly approach and speak with these people rather than point at and condemn them.

Many of those people will come around through experience. I know a bunch who have. It's great. But many others will never come around no matter how much experience and perspective they get, if they bother to seek such things out at all. Not much reason to kid glove them until they change, if they change.

The disconnect here is shocking. "Let's hope people just change from other influences rather than find the people we might reach out to and in fact reach out to them. In the meantime, let's not bother treating them any different than someone who will never change their mind ever, because finding out the difference between these people is just useless. PS why won't people take the time to understand their fellow human being?"

But it seems you assume I must be foaming at the mouth all the time, constantly calling people Worse than Phelps. You shouldn't. I seem very reasonable in a lot of my daily life.

I never said much that actually implied that at all. What I actually said was -

It's not different to the oppressed, but your statement above really drives my point home. Because they do not agree with gay marriage, they're idiots and ignorant people who will never be open to discussion or changing their minds, and thus should just be shoved into the same box with folks like the Phelps family.

...

So if you want to treat someone like those people in the phone calls - many of which were obviously not in crusade mode and could likely come around eventually - the same as our friend Rick Santorum in the idea that we're coddling the hateful who should just be punished and have their nose rubbed in it, I think that is in turn somewhat hateful and unfair as well. There is a spectrum of people opposed to gay marriage, not just one flavor of ignorant, backward idiot that we just need to wait to die off.

I have some guesses how you treat one group or the other (my guess: the same!), but I don't think you're constantly running around shouting at them and trying to yell at them at any chance. Nothing I said implied that, but you felt the need to twist my statement, which was very neutral about your behavior, into something I didn't say so you can paint me as someone making poor assumptions about others. I wish you wouldn't.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I don't think you're reading what I'm actually typing, but I don't find myself shocked at this very much. My point is very obviously not that these people are to be forgiven and their actions ignored, but that there are different types of people who produce this behavior for different reasons. It's pointless and actually more of the same problem to treat them all the same. It matters in that you can possibly approach and speak with these people rather than point at and condemn them.

You're clearly not reading my point, which is that how they ended up at hate does not matter.

Bloo Driver wrote:

The disconnect here is shocking.

Holding people accountable for their actions, good or ill, and changing that perception according to those actions is a disconnect? When people do a thing, calling them doers of that thing, and then when they stop doing that thing, ceasing is a disconnect? I find that shocking.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Nothing I said implied that, but you felt the need to twist my statement, which was very neutral about your behavior,

Truly?

Bloo Driver wrote:

Because they do not agree with gay marriage, they're idiots and ignorant people who will never be open to discussion or changing their minds, and thus should just be shoved into the same box with folks like the Phelps family.

Bloo Driver wrote:

It's pointless and actually more of the same problem to treat them all the same. It matters in that you can possibly approach and speak with these people rather than point at and condemn them.

Hmmm...

See, my real issue, is I dislike the language of tolerance being co-opted to support the intolerant. As a society, we "point at and condemn" racists, rightly, because they believe things that are in direct opposition to our ideals, the things we claim we are. Equality, Justice, that sort of thing. Being respectful of a "lifestyle" centered on disrespecting another lifestyle is beyond absurd.

Bloo Driver wrote:

PS why won't people take the time to understand their fellow human being?"

All sorts of reasons, I assume. Ignorance, fear, limited opportunity, cultural pressure, and sometimes outright malice would be my top guesses. It may seem strange but it happens. Check Rev's link one page previous: that representative persists in oppressing his own brother's rights. What closer experience could he have? And he still insists he loves his brother, and even his brother's widower. I don't see much wrong in saying this guy does not, in fact, love his brother, his actions are so hateful toward his brother's memory.

NSMike wrote:

Compelling Things

Indeed, quality post. I'm sure it reached those ready to take in its import.

I think you two are talking about two different types of people. Bloo seems to be talking about people that don't like gay marriage, and SpacePPoliceman seems to be talking about people that not only don't like it, but are actively working to limit the rights of gay people. I agree that someone that doesn't approve of gay marriage (or gay people in general) doesn't necessarily hate them (at least not with the full potency the word can have). I also agree that hate can be appropriate word for how people who work against gay rights feel about gay people.

I think Space's interpretation of what you were implying about his behavior is fair based on the following:

Bloo Driver wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Agreed. Maybe this is bad, but I'm really not in the mood to let the hateful off the hook anymore or coddle their hate with delicate words. Ignorant hate, malicious hate, whatever, I doubt there's much difference to the oppressed. Yeah, flies with honey, but I also have my doubts that honey will work on those flies.

It's not different to the oppressed, but your statement above really drives my point home. Because they do not agree with gay marriage, they're idiots and ignorant people who will never be open to discussion or changing their minds, and thus should just be shoved into the same box with folks like the Phelps family.

Edit: Pointless, childish outburst.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

What do you think is going on here, exactly?

Well, I thought we were discussing perspectives, but after "Screw that and screw you," clearly I was wrong. So, fair enough, I won't bother. Carry on.

I'm gonna take that all down because it certainly wasn't fair or useful. But I will just mention that I hardly think your replies stood firmly in the territory of only discussing perspectives.

Edit: Good faith.

Stengah wrote:

I think you two are talking about two different types of people. Bloo seems to be talking about people that don't like gay marriage, and SpacePPoliceman seems to be talking about people that not only don't like it, but are actively working to limit the rights of gay people. I agree that someone that doesn't approve of gay marriage (or gay people in general) doesn't necessarily hate them (at least not with the full potency the word can have). I also agree that hate can be appropriate word for how people who work against gay rights feel about gay people.

I just find the word "hate" so simple and flat when it is being used to describe a wide array of behaviors. It feels like cheating, really.

Also, no, to be clear - I am also including people who would vote down gay marriage in my assessment. If that's what you mean by "actively working", anyway. I mean, giving away thousands of dollars to stop marriage equality is a pretty terrible act, no bones about it. But there has to be more to it than just saying, "Oh, what hateful people!"

I think Space's interpretation of what you were implying about his behavior is fair based on the following:
Bloo Driver wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Agreed. Maybe this is bad, but I'm really not in the mood to let the hateful off the hook anymore or coddle their hate with delicate words. Ignorant hate, malicious hate, whatever, I doubt there's much difference to the oppressed. Yeah, flies with honey, but I also have my doubts that honey will work on those flies.

It's not different to the oppressed, but your statement above really drives my point home. Because they do not agree with gay marriage, they're idiots and ignorant people who will never be open to discussion or changing their minds, and thus should just be shoved into the same box with folks like the Phelps family.

I still disagree. What I said to what he equivocated it to was grossly inequal, but he seems far more concerned about chopping up text to make it easier to distort than to actually take on what I'm speaking to. Which is fine, it's the Internet. I should be a little more inured to it at this point.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I still disagree. What I said to what he equivocated it to was grossly inequal, but he seems far more concerned about chopping up text to make it easier to distort than to actually take on what I'm speaking to. Which is fine, it's the Internet. I should be a little more inured to it at this point.

You know...my first two posts were quite wordy on my opinions, my next less so because I was just restating and being put on the defensive. So, if you think anything I clipped was that far out of context, then you definitely need to become more inured, and we'll leave that as the last word?

Gay marriage. Anything new in it?

I'm really tempted to go hang at a friend's place in Capitol Hill tonight, Seattle's nominal gay neighbourhood, so I can watch the entire place go batsh*t-nuts when the gay marriage initiative passes.

But alas, I am old and employed, and I need my beauty sleep.

I think that part of the problem may be that "bigot" became something of a taboo word. It more accurately describes the attitude. In both of these cases, the good old Ill Doctrine "what you are vs what you did" distinction also applies.

So: these people may not see themselves as bad people. They may not feel that they hate gays. But they most certainly act in a manner which is bigoted towards gays.

And, to me, that's a huge reason to refer to this as bigotry over referring to it as hate. We mean the same thing when we say these things, but while anything involving the word "hate" implies a certain emotional state in the actor, "bigotry" (to me, anyway) implies it less. Specifically, if you say that someone is acting in a hateful manner, you're still implying a mental state. That makes it a lot harder to stay in the "what you did" conversation.

Speaking in terms of "prejudice" is perhaps even better, but all of these words have problems of semantic drift and taboo due to their connotations.

Edit because I'm too excited and can't wait for no stinkin' poles to be finalized.

I think Question 6 is gonna do well, Wizard. I hope so.

Marylanders for Marriage Equality
We did it!

This is a monumental victory. Tonight Marylanders across the state stood up and affirmed our longstanding tradition of supporting fairness, equality, and religious freedom. As the crowd cheers at the Baltimore Soundstage, ripples are being felt across the country as we stand up proudly as the first state in the nation to approve civil marriage for all loving, committed families.

Legislatures and courts have legalized marriage equality in six states and the District of Columbia. Maryland is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through a vote of the people.

Tonight’s win would not have been possible without the unparalleled leadership of Governor O’Malley, the resolve of the LGBT Caucus in the legislature, and the exemplary commitment of the Human Rights Campaign, which has been here day in and day out for more than a year working for full equality.

Most importantly, we want to thank Marylanders just like you - everyday people who took a chance, stood up for their values and stood in long lines to cast a ballot that would make a mark on history.

We did it. We won for families, for fairness, for equality.

We just changed history. Thank you.

Josh Levin
Campaign Manager

On Behalf of the Marylanders for Marriage Equality Coalition and Staff

I support the crab cake of equality

You know, as stupid as it ever was to accept that people should vote to discriminate or not, at least the whole "it has never passed a State vote" line isn't valid anymore. I approve of even this small amount of forward progress.

Marriage equality is passing in Maine by 8 point. EIGHT POINTS!

That is amazing.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Marriage equality is passing in Maine by 8 point. EIGHT POINTS!

That is amazing.

Lobster and Crabcake have both come out for civil rights. Crustaceans ftw

WA gay marriage R-74 ahead 52-48, 66k margin, leading in 8 of 39 counties, including King (65-35). Map: http://t.co/HFErs5se

FYI - Gay marriage is now legal in every state in New England except Rhode Island.

I believe every gay marriage issue that was on a ballot (4 in all) landed in favor of gay marriage.

This essentially flips over the depressing feelings I had after the Chik-Fil-A nonsense. I'm not sure why I considered people eating chicken valid in the first place. This is far more satisfying.

Nice to see NOM's lies didn't work a second time! (Still disappointed it worked the first time though).

Oh well, it's certainly nice to share the historic milestone with Maryland.

The constitutional amendment in Minnesota to ban gay marriage was defeated. It's not even legal as of yet; it was a pre-emptive strike of bigotry to stop any future "activist judges" (those people who have an unfortunate tendency to actually read the Constitution) from making it legal in a court case. So, nothing has changed as of yet, except I am really damn proud to live here. Now when do we get to line up and vote Yes like Maryland, Maine, and Washington did?

Tanglebones wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Marriage equality is passing in Maine by 8 point. EIGHT POINTS!

That is amazing.

Lobster and Crabcake have both come out for civil rights. Crustaceans ftw

Yes, but the bible teaches us that crustaceans are evil.

Snark aside, it is awesome to see that progress is being made.

What a great feeling to wake up to this morning: four HUGE wins for marriage equality.

I am now taking bets on how fast the states' rights folks who wanted marriage equality decided at the state level and by popular vote will now be calling for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

I give it 72 hours or less.

Personally, I was hoping for just one win last night. Just one, so NOM wouldn't be able to use that line about how "every time it's put to a vote" and crow about how they're on the right side of history.

All four? My God, I'm over the moon on that one. A friend of mine in MD announced his engagement to his partner, as did one in WA. In one night, the number of states that would allow Phoenix Rev and I to be married (were we not already) jumped by 50%. Hopefully the vote in MN sets up a structure that will overturn their statute banning marriage equality in the near future. Hopefully, last night's wins are the pebbles rolling down the hill that will soon kick off the avalanche of marriage equality throughout the US.

There's a story that PR has related previously, but it's about when he and I picked up our marriage license. We went to the city hall, did all the paperwork and such, and then went out to the car with the document. I was driving that day, and when we got to the car, all I could do was sit and stare at my hands for a few minutes. When I'd come to the realization that I was gay back in college, I'd had to resign myself to the fact that I'd never be able to marry, because in 1994/5 it wasn't even an option anywhere in the world. All of a sudden, in my lifetime, the opportunity to actually marry the man I fell in love with was not only an option, it was really going to happen.

Now, I get to see my friends be able to experience the same joys I've had. 4 years ago, PR and I watched the results for California come in, and our joy at being newlyweds was tempered by knowing our rights had been messed with by the passage of Prop 8.

4 years later, we watched the results come in, and we were able to share that rush of joy I'd had in 2008 with our friends in Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Our friends in Minnesota may be coming soon, and hopefully I'll be able to attend my friend's wedding, just like he attended mine.

High five, Ed.

This is a quote from a friend of mine from a previous discussion on Facebook.

Also worth noting is that in the years after CT approved gay marriage, polls showed public support shot up - maybe because the gates of Hell didn't swing open, people didn't marry horses, the moral fabric of society stayed A-OK, and so on. Because gay marriage laws only impact the folks who are finally gaining the rights they deserved from the beginning.

I'm really hoping that last night is either the first signs of or the cause of that kind change on a national level.

SixteenBlue wrote:

This is a quote from a friend of mine from a previous discussion on Facebook.

Also worth noting is that in the years after CT approved gay marriage, polls showed public support shot up - maybe because the gates of Hell didn't swing open, people didn't marry horses, the moral fabric of society stayed A-OK, and so on. Because gay marriage laws only impact the folks who are finally gaining the rights they deserved from the beginning.

I'm really hoping that last night is either the first signs of or the cause of that kind change on a national level.

IMAGE(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/10/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0509-ssm1/fivethirtyeight-0509-ssm1-blog480.png)

I am honestly more proud right now than I ever have been of living in Maryland.

I want to add my personal warm wishes to everyone personally affected--

Rubb Ed wrote:

All four? My God, I'm over the moon on that one.

--but whoa, let's keep the sexy-talk to a minimum.