Well, Massachusetts Democrats have proven that we’re ready to lead on gay marriage, probably adopting a pro-marriage platform plank for the convention this year. John Kerry, on the other hand, seems to be unhappy with this, possibly looking for another shot at the White House.
.08 has a fine post on all this, including his bullet-pointed reasons (I love bullet points) for supporting it as a delegate. I’ll be an alternate at the convention this year, and if it comes to me I’ll support it for the same reasons. As his second bullet points out, supporting gay marriage is absolutely a mainstream/majority position in this state, it’s been a winner in local races for state rep, and most Democrats support it. (Of course, not all Democrats support it, but we can agree to disagree for now — in the long run, I’m confident more and more folks will come around.)
Now, I don’t have any illusions about the short-term, nationwide impact of this. Gay marriage is decidedly unpopular in many, even most, areas of the country. The Right will indeed use this as a cudgel to show how decadent we are, and how Democrats are infested by Satan, etc. And many Democrats, like Kerry, will distance themselves from it.
Tough. By their very nature, Progressives are always going to be ahead of the curve on many issues. But sometimes you have to stand on principle, and make the most eloquent, compassionate, and dignified case you can in defense of a minority position. I’m sure that we’re right in insisting on civilized attitudes towards gays and lesbians. I’m not going to give up on my gay friends, colleagues, and neighbors because it’s politically inconvenient for John Kerry in the short term.
If politics is the "art of the possible", then it’s required of us that we do what we can. By no means do I disagree with David’s recommendation to think strategically about this issue. For now, the state Democrats seem to be willing and able to take a punch from the outside press and pressure groups. I’m not worried — the electorate has been pretty resilient so far, making it safer to take a bolder stand. And really, it’s an opportunity for us in MA to show the nation what we’re doing right.
I’m all for gay marriage in the platform. And please don’t misunderstand my basic point on “thinking strategically”! The point is not necessarily that we should go for civil unions rather than marriage; rather, it is that we should go for legislative solutions rather than judicial ones (and consequently, if civil unions are all we can get from a legislature, as in CT, then we should take it and say “thanks, nice work,” rather than moaning about discriminatory legislators). By putting gay marriage in the platform, we (maybe) increase slightly the odds of having more pro-marriage legislators on Beacon Hill, which increases the odds of obtaining legislative solutions (such as a legislative rather than judicial repeal of the 1913 law). I see no reason for the party to shy away from this issue. MA is out front on the issue; we are right, and we should lead the way.
I’m not going to give up on my gay friends, colleagues, and neighbors because it’s politically inconvenient for John Kerry in the short term.Your gay friends, colleagues, and neighbors appreciate you saying so. It’s quite unpleasant to be preemptively thrown overboard when the going gets tough.I’m sick of John Kerry’s “blame the gays” explanation of his failure. How’s about “global test” in the first debate?! The guy sucked as a candidate, period.Instead of running scared and trying to obliterate social issue distinctions between the parties, why aren’t the Democrats trying to highlight and sharpen some of the economic issue distinctions? Or are there any distinctions? Are there any ideas at all? Is there any vision for this country on which to build a coalition?No one is asking the Party to support gay rights and nothing else.
The point is not necessarily that we should go for civil unions rather than marriage; rather, it is that we should go for legislative solutions rather than judicial ones (and consequently, if civil unions are all we can get from a legislature, as in CT, then we should take it and say “thanks, nice work,” rather than moaning about discriminatory legislators).I totally agree with this view, except for the asserted opposition of saying “thanks, nice work” with moaning about discriminatory legislators.Can’t we (and shouldn’t we) do both?
I don’t remember Kerry doing any blame-the-gays talk after the election. None at all. I do remember that Bill Clinton advised Kerry to take some anti-gay positions during the campaign, and Kerry refused. Kerry’s always had a consistent position: pro civil unions, against gay marriage. I disagree with him (I’m for gay marriage), but I don’t see anything wrong with him sticking to his position on this.
I don’t remember Kerry doing any blame-the-gays talk after the election.Surrogates certainly did.I do remember that Bill Clinton advised Kerry to take some anti-gay positions during the campaign, and Kerry refused.On the contrary, Kerry took his advice. During the campaign, he announced his support for a Massachusetts constitutional amendment to undo the SJC’s Goodridge decision and make marriage hetero-only. He also got Kennedy to remain silent on the issue–the previous year Kennedy had announced opposition to a similar amendment, and he has since announced opposition to the one that’s under consideration now.These decisions hurt the fight against the amendment here. It might have been justified if he had gone on to win the Presidency, but he didn’t. He kicked Massachusetts gays in the teeth and accomplished nothing by doing it, other than sharpening his image as a politician with his finger in the wind. This latest, apparently unsolicited opinion is nothing but gratuitous pandering to Louisiana homophobes.I’ve supported Kerry with dollars, signage, letters to the editor, and my vote. I won’t do it again–not for Senate reelection, and certainly not for President.
I tend to agree with .08 that the inertia, momentum, and percentage of people who support equal marriage rights in Massachusetts will only increase over the next few years.On the one hand, it means that the longer the legislature stalls, the more support they’ll have when they do move on the legislation. Stalling now would seem to improve the probability that gays will get full marriage rights instead of some half-hearted compramise.On the other hand, the longer they stall, the longer a minority population in the state goes without equal rights.In the mean time, I have a suspicion that the more gay marraige enters neighborhood conversations (not be in the news, not politician-speak, but us regular joes talking to other regular joes), the more people will move from “leaning against it” to “indifferent” to “leaning toward it”. You’re not going to change a bigot in one conversation, but there are many grey areas in people’s minds between no gay rights and equal rights, and every good conversation helps to move one mind a bit closer to equality.
No. we haven’t moved on, Charley. This has been shoved down people’s throats before they ever thought about it. Then told they are biggots if they do not agree. Now state party is taken next step.This will hurt because this state dem party has been taken over by persons whose main interest is gay rights with teacher’s unions’ interest a close second. Unfortnately these are not the concerns of most working class people who should be voting democrat. The state dem party should not be the personal sounding board of a select few and their pet causes. But that is what it is and now they are driving away people who support civil unions and not yet comfortable with gay marriage.Thanks for screwing things up even more then they are , Phil. But you will attract more “fans” with this endeavor.
The state dem party should not be the personal sounding board of a select few and their pet causes.Are you challenging the accuracy of the reported polls, troll? In particular, the one that reports 71% of Dems support the right of same sex couples to marry?
tell me about this poll, worl citizen. A link perhaps would be nice, and then i will be happy to comment on it. You sound like it is a big deal to challenge “the accuracy of the reported polls.” Paaleeezzee
I cannot overstate the the negative impact that occurs when people are accused of being biggots. They take a defensive position and fight hard and never give in. Unlike Civil Rights Of The 60S gay marriage (GAY MARRIAGE, NOT GAY RIGHTS) snuck up on people. And in the same breath they were told if you do not accept less, such as civil unions, you are a biggot.Well surprise. Many many many people, (who won’t admit so to progressives and gays that make up majority of readers of this blog)said “fuck you” and dug in their heals. They are pissed. And these people could have easily been won over.But the arrogants prevailed.
arrogance
I’m talking about the one Phil Johnston mentioned in the Globe article linked to in the original post. (unhappy) I assumed you had clicked through already and would know what I was referring to. (I don’t subscribe to Globe archives, so you’ll have to find the original on your own if you want to see it.) In any case the exact numbers from one poll are all that relevant, and I didn’t mean to imply that they are.My point was the platform plank seems to have broad support among Democrats. What is your evidence for calling this a “pet cause” of a “select few”? Because it doesn’t affect you and because you personally don’t support it?Re: “bigots”That old story. If only you weren’t so rude and pushy, people would love you and would have granted you your rights a long time ago.
The poll results are at http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/bg305.pdf.Thanks to sco at .08 for the link.
Can’t this place get a smarter troll? I can’t figure out if this one is satire or not.
Read the poll. Thne question starts out with “in general” then asks if if respondent if marriages should or should not be allowed by law. This to me includes civil unions. That is a lousy question, I want to see the question phrased as ‘in general, do you believe a marriage should be tetqween a man and a woman.Sopry Zed, i’m the best you get. If this blog just wants to be a love-in between the mutual admiration society then so be it. But why can’t John Kery, a democrat,m take a position on an issue at the state democratic convention. Is it because he does not agree with the democratic party chairman and his merry men.What happened to critical thinking.
Hi Troll,The question is phrased this way:?Let?s turn to another topic? the issue of gay marriage which was legalized in Massachusetts last year. In general, do you think gayand lesbian marriages should or should not be allowed by law??Should Be Allowed: 56% Should Not Be Allowed: 37%I don’t see what’s unclear about that. Look, if you don’t agree with what most people think, it’s fine to stand on principle, but please don’t claim we’re “shoving this down people’s throats.” However you want to read the poll, it certainly would not indicate that.And to others: Troll may seem irrational to us on our little “love-in”, but he represents the feelings of a significant portion, even a majority, of the national electorate. And these folks need to be won over, with real patience, understanding and compassion for them and their feelings. I don’t claim to be perfect on this count.I don’t want a culture war. I want a culture peace.
Here is my point on the poll. 1. My opinion on gay marriage is does not matter, but I favor it. (I am pissed at myself for telling you this because it sounds like I am pandering to get credibility with you. but it seems i am being seen as Archie Bunker because i think the other side has a reasonable argument. ie. the SJC dissenting opinions)Any way I have seen many polls before that were way off. There is nothoing wrong with challenging the results of a poll. Especially when it contradicts evryday observations. I have not had time to research this particualr poll and look for others. Maybe I will.This poll is inconsistent with what I hear people saying. People that surp[rise me. People I thought were more liberal. I am probably a little older then most of you, and my circle of friends and associates includes all trypes of different politics, age, ethnicity, and economics.This poll does not match what I am hearing. And I believe becaiuse I am not an active progressive in the state democratic party, like most of the readers of this blog, active in gay rights, in tune with the strong progressive movements in Cambridge and Somerville I talk to a bigger circle of people with diferent politics, age, etnicity, and background. People who are not afraiod to tell me how they feel. I do not buy these numbers. Sorry. Does that make me a biggot?
Chaley, thanks for defense in your last comment. With friends like you…..
One of our loftier aims in starting this blog was to create a bridge linking members of the so-called “progressive” community who otherwise wouldn’t necessarily know each other, and also a bridge linking folks of different viewpoints who might find something here to be of interest. And, really, what good is any bridge without a troll lurking underneath it?Seriously, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I agree with The Troll sometimes, and disagree with him other times. Just like I agree sometimes and disagree other times with everyone else who posts their thoughts here (including my co-bloggers). And, unlike a true internet troll who is just out to disrupt (and whose comments I would feel free to delete), “the Troll”‘s comments are always civil and always advance the debate, misspellings and all. I, for one, welcome anyone who challenges what I or anyone else around here has to say, as long as the challenger has a reasoned basis for doing so. The great thing about the Socratic method is that when you are forced to defend your views, you inevitably improve your ability to articulate them next time. If this place can serve as a virtual Socratic method for those who post here, so much the better.
Hey David, F U.No, seriously, thanks. You are right I want people to defend their view, and many timnes this is lacking.Boxing fans and people experienced in jury trials know that reasonable people can see the same thing completely different. Gay marriage is such a personal issue to many who contribute to this blog that they marginalize those who may see things differently. It is not on top of peoples list of issues, but when many are pushed.I for one cannot compare the semantics as to “civil union” and “marriage” to woes suffered by blacks pre civil rights days. Or even post civil rights days. I for one find that offensive and that is what I see gay community doing. That is the strategy. Keep saying it like it is so and then it will be accepted by main stream media and anyone who objects is a biggot. Sorry, not here buddy.Some times I think this blog is made up of a college class and david is the professor. he is the only consistent reasonable voice here. I have know idea right now if i agree with hi often or not, he just is reasonable.P.S.I might even start editing my comments before I push post.Nah
Kerry has been consistent, but that doesn’t mean he is right or is immune from attack.Kerry knows that going to the South and commenting on the MA Democratic party is not going to play well here, he wants us to attack him — works better for his Southern strategy if he’s on the outs here. It’s just a shame that his base would be treated so poorly.He had every opportunity (as did you Troll) to attend platform hearings and offer a dissenting opinion (maybe you did). I attended 2 hearing and there was nothing but support for this plank — which replaces the old one that was outdated. The people who get involved in the direction of the party are always a little ahead of the rest — it’s called leadership — if you don’t like it, get more involved. I also support the Troll point of view, and he has a point that progressives don’t talk to enough “average voters” — the problem I have with him is his arguing style — he often argues against things no one has said and willfully misreads posts and comments. My favorite troll post is the single word “arrogance” post above — averaging 3+ misspellings and typos a post, I’m not sure what to make of this correction.
Noho, i may start editing my posts, But really dude, you have too much time on hands
As for party delegate – Been There. Done That. Like many disgruntled dems. Party not interested in being inclusive. Hence new rules limiting delegates. You are kidding me about getting involved, right?
Mostly kidding troll — but not about getting involved — it’s the progressives/activists who are being shut out by the new rules. The party is skewing power to office holders (government and party officials). The part of the party that you say is not being inclusive is the part that agrees with you — they want to cool down the platform and play it safe for a 2006 gov win.
Troll, I don’t see anyone here throwing around the word “bigot”. Can we discuss this issue without it all coming back to “stop calling people bigots”? Because I’m happy to grant that, fine, most people who oppose gay marriage aren’t bigots, but there is still far more to the issue than that.
The reason that “bigot” gets thrown around, in my opinion, is because there really isn’t a sound public policy reason not to allow gays to marry. It comes down to “uncomfortableness” or “tradition”. Bigot might be too strong a word for people who really do favor gay rights, but need to overcome a long held belief that had never been challenged before. I think if those people get a chance to think through whatever issue they have with it, they are likely to come around. In this sense, the troll is right on — there is no reason to attack someone who you could engage constructively.It’s also important to remind people about the current difference between church and state sanctioned marriages. There will always be a difference — no one is expecting that churches will be forced to sanction them, but it is reasonable to believe that some might — the state has no power to force a church to sanction a marriage it does not want to.For instance the Catholic church does not marry some divorced or non-Catholic couples. I believe that they don’t officially sanction any marriage where the participant don’t agree to try to have children — no one is suggesting that they change those rules, and the same goes for gay marriage.So anyone suggesting that it’s not allowed in a particular religion and therefore should not be allowed by the state, needs to explain why these exemptions are allowed.They also need to explain why polygamy is not legal (sanctioned by the bible).Or we could recognize that there will always be a difference between church and state santioned marriage and move on.
I don’t disagree with any of your points no-ho. Except for the biggot part. When this was a hot button issue in the legislature last year the gay lobby to labeled people biggots who did not support them. You cannot deny this. This was part of the strategy and that is what the gay lobby did. Then they compared it to Selma Albabma and som,e black ministers objected. So what did the gay pr do. Label these guys as black homophobes. That was the strategy and I didn’t like it. Now can you assume I am anti gay from that statement.Perhaps I am anti Boston Celtics because paul pierce acts like a 2 year old.I try and critical because no one else is here. I am sorry i am not dogmatic about progrerssive causes, but rather critical in my thinking.
Troll, who is “the gay lobby”? Serious question. I’ll bet you that any politically connected gay activist went out of his way NOT to call most opponents of gay marriage “bigots” because they knew they were fighting an uphill battle and needed to develop relationships with those legislators who were on the fence over the issue. We all recognize the default position is to oppose gay marriage and that people need to reason their way to our side. The progression does only work one way and time and reason are on our side, so we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from being intransigent. What’s more, we know that our opinion is still a minority view nationally and a contentious one in Massachusetts, so we don’t have the luxury of demonizing those who disagree with us. A few cases and disputes have lodged in your brain, and in a specific way. Fine. They still need to be put into perspective. Not everyone, indeed not even many people, are going around attacking people they disagree with on this issue. Lots of us have to deal with it in our own families and friends and know you don’t get anywhere by attacking people. So please stop beating this dead horse about “you call people bigots! That’s all you do!” And to get another thing straight, there certainly ARE some people who oppose gay marriage because they are bigots, and aren’t shy about their bigotry. You should have seen the shit the Article 8 alliance dumped all over Somerville during the Ciampa sticker campaign. They get in the paper as much as the people you’re complaining about. Yet I don’t label every opponent of gay marriage I meet as a wannabe Brian Camenker.
Than ks for telling me that Brittain. Without you I never would have known there are biggots out there who oppose gay marrigae.Keep up the good work Brittain.Thanks for consistantly repeating the obvious.Would you agree that the Gay Lobby argues that gay mariage is a civil rights issue?
Would you agree that the Gay Lobby argues that gay mariage is a civil rights issue?As well they should, without apology.
By the way, in case there was any doubt that this was a contentious issue among liberals/Democrats, check out the comments thread on Kos. Nearing 700 comments as I write this.What I’d really like to see is a 700+ comment thread on how we convince people that gay marriage is a good, wholesome, even conservative idea. THAT would be productive.
that would be nice , charley
Troll, I never said that some people don’t throw around the word “bigot”, I just said that they shouldn’t — my exact words were “there is no reason to attack someone who you could engage constructively”. I think that also applies to your attack of brittain, which I think is unwarranted — also being contrarian does not automatically make you a critical thinker — you still need to present logical arguments and cited facts. And, of course, you should insist the same from us.I believe that the government has to have a reason to stop a marriage — I do not believe that people being uncomfortable with it is a valid reason, even if they form the majority (interracial marriage only starting polling in the majority in 1991!).This is absolutely a civil rights issue — the government is using the force of its power to cause harm for no reason other than that’s what the a lot of people would like it to do — that’s pracitically the definition of civil rights.
Troll, Yes, I believe it is a civil rights movement. As long as gays are discriminated against in the law, we will be fighting for our civil rights. It’s not just about marriage. It’s about not being arrested for our sex lives, not having kids taken away from us, not being discriminated against in hiring, not being subjected to harsher penalties in the law because of our sexuality. To say this is not to say it’s the same as what people call “the Civil Rights Movement.” Of course we’re addressing a completely different set of experiences and a different set of legal obstacles. And I don’t know a single gay person who’d compare his situation unfavorably to being black in the south in the 1950s. But civil rights are not just an issue for black people 40 years ago–they’re a concern for any American who believes in equality. So yes, it is a civil rights struggle, even if it is not as titanic a struggle as the one blacks have faced.
This is what I Believe in:SPINA, J., with whom Sosman and Cordy, JJ., joined, dissented on the basis that what was at stake in the case was not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individual rights had been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Is that an unreasonable position? Does anyone know where it is from?I will have to get back and do some work today.
Hey, all, I just wanted to thank those patient ones who are engaging in the “discourse” with the Troll and also giving Kerry some well-deserved criticism.I’ll sit this one out, because you all are handling it so well.
Most are handleing it well MEM, but too bad this and other blog’s like it are only read by the converted.