The original post is here.
His comment I now reproduce here for you:
You think I’m a shill… you are wrong! And you are wrong if you think I am anti gay marriage. Gender has nothing to do with being entitled. I am an incredibly strong advocate of rights of the majority. If you really believed in the ‘rights of the people’, you wouldn’t have achieved your goal by threats, coercion, bribery and over a million dollars thrown at the fight. You would have let it go to a referendum vote of the people of the commonwealth and let the chips fall where they may. Citizen sponsored initiatives are the basis of our government. That is democracy. I applaud the ‘yes’ voters who stood up for their convictions against overwhelming pressure. Someone here refers to them as prejudiced?what a small minds you have. Anyone who disagrees with you is considered prejudiced.. lovely! How many reps switched their votes at the last minute or just didn’t show up in one case because they were intimidated by lobbyists and organized gay groups? How many jobs, etc. did the governor offer for votes? Is that your idea not being prejudiced? How is it that every other state in the union is wrong and MA is right about this issue? Our state government is as corrupt as ever.
My response:
“Citizen sponsored initiatives are the basis of our government. That is democracy.”
You mean the government where the legislature has to approve the initiative before it gets on the ballot?… that government?
You may think that the rules need to change? actually so do I. I happen to think the 25% threshold is far to low. When rights are enshrined in the constitution, they are there precisely because it is harder to amend or change than any other form of legal redress. This difficulty is by design, precisely to protect the minority from the majority, including their “incredibly strong advocate[s]”. These rights are protected precisely because they are not open to a simple popularity contest. Popular opinion once held that people could be property, remember, and the fact that it was popular didn?t make it right,… so yes? “MA is right about this issue” whatever the national popular opinion. MA, alone among the states, was right about Nixon too in 1972.
The SJC ruled that gay marriage was protected as a matter of the constitution. The constitution is hard to change. The attempt to change it failed. The system, however flawed it is, worked in this case.
As for “threats”, “intimidation”, and “job promises”, “coercion”, and “bribery”, I think you had better come up with some examples before you start slinging mud. When you don’t, your open your points to discredit. If you find real credence to any of those allegations, believe that those on this blog would take any of it seriously.
“Anyone who disagrees with you is considered prejudiced.” I find it funny that you would bring this up since nobody on this post has even used that word? never mind declaring it applicable of “all who disagree”. Maybe you feel you are being attacked for prejudice in your own private life.
Either way, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “prejudice” as:
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one?s rights; especially : detriment to one?s legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
“Disregard for one’s rights” is exactly what was a play here. The term is therefore apt. As for “…applaud[ing] the ‘yes’ voters who stood up for their convictions”, know that one can have prejudiced convictions that those that do deserve no praise for such. World history is piled with the bodies of those murdered by people of “conviction” so that, in and of itself, is not worthy of praise.
It should also be noted that there is one perfectly legitimate form of “intimidation” and “coercion”… the threat of constituent voters of support withdrawal. To borrow a phrase of yours… “That is democracy.” Gotta love it.
The guy who you quoted first says:
<
p>
<
p>
Then says:
<
p>
<
p>
Sounds to me like this is a great example of veiled prejudice on his part. Although not everyone is a bigot who wants to “let the people vote,” 90% or so (guess) want it on the ballot so they can vote to take away rights of a minority thus it’s OK to call these people prejudice, bigots, etc. I would surmise that one could say the same of people who wanted to put a “reinstate slavery” question on the ballot. It would probably be safe to say that of the people who want that on the ballot, upwards of 90% are prejudice, bigots, etc. True or false?
I hate broad generalizations, including this one. I think that there are reasons that people are against marriage equality, and while prejudice is one of them, it is not the only one. I’d highlight three:
<
p>
ignorance: wherein a voter is unaware of what marriage equality means. Believes the worst propoganda, and thinks that gay marriage will directly impact their marriage, and that all practicing homosexuals are leather-clad exhibitionists who will practice inappropriate eroticism in public areas. Probably has no gay friends — that they know are gay. Likely would benefit most from meeting actual gay couples.
<
p>
abdication of moral reasoning: wherein a voter has released their moral reasoning to the caprices of another force, typically a religious or quasi-religious arbiter. This may be an organized church, a single clergyperson, or a religiously-imprinted civic group. Said person explicitly adopts their positions without critical consideration.
<
p>
and yes, there is
<
p>
prejudice: wherein a voter is fully aware of the reality and consequences of marriage equality, and uses their own moral reasoning to decide against it.
<
p>
While I think many of our Legislators votings against equality belong to this last category (including the anti-equality legislator with whom I have the most experience, Senator Bob Creedon), I would be willing to put most of the anti-equality citizens in the first two.
…the state of being prejudiced does not necessarily include, by definition, self awareness that one is prejudiced. Isn’t this the insidious part of prejudice?… that we don’t often recognized it in ourselves?
<
p>
Given that prejudice is a particular flawed mode of thought, I propose that the other things you point out are an explanatory cause of prejudice. That is to say that you can be ignorant, or abdicative of moral reason, which may result and prejudicial thinking. I appreciate the desire to be distinct and not general, but I do think these concepts are wraped up in each-other and are not alternate explanations from prejudice, but are rather explanations for prejudice.
<
p>
Dr Altemeyer’s work, incidently, confirms that on the ignorance front you are indeed right… in that to the extend people are exposed to members of ‘other’ groups, they become more tolerant of the ‘other’. It really is a must read. He also shows that one of the characteristics of “right wing authoritarians” is the tendency not to be able to self-identify as such.
I have absolutely no trouble at all in saying that everyone who voted against marriage equality, PLUS everyone who wanted to put it to a popular vote, was prejudiced.
<
p>
The categories you mention above are only parts of what makes up that prejudice–and often just excuses for prejudice–but prejudice is the ONLY reason. It’s rather refreshing to have an issue that’s this clear.
<
p>
According to the American Heritage definition of prejudice:
<
p>
ignorance is not exempt, nor is “abdication of moral reasoning.”
<
p>
There are NO reasons other than prejudice to vote against marriage equality. There are different reasons why people are prejudiced, but it comes out the same at the ballot box or the floor of the legislature.
Perhaps the commenter on LeftinLowell would be able to answer this question for us:
<
p>
If supporting discrimination doesn’t make someone prejudiced, then what does?
The good guys won on this one. Does the motivation of those on the losing side really matter on this one?
However, if you cross reference those who voted for the anit-same-sex marriage amendment with those who voted for Senate Bill S321 and have not yet removed their names…
I can tell you who I and my organization will be watching and trying to defeat.
<
p>
It is time to clean House…
Because, even if they don’t try again (and that’s a big if), people try to do things like this all the time (immigration policies, anyone?) – and let’s not forget that marriage equality is banned in every state except for ours in this country, so it’s still very relavant and while the good guys won one important battle, we’re still losing the war.
…because the frame of this debate is going to be very important as it spreads throughout the country. It will become increasingly important for there to be a major (if not majority) consensus that supporting denying the benefit of marriage to same sex partners is bigoted and prejudicial. It is going to take a critical mass of citizens believing in the rectitude of marriage equality and the accompanying stigmatization of those who do not approve in order to elect sufficient numbers of legislative representatives to be swayed by such public opinion. It will be equally as important so that judges sitting in other states and in the various federal circuits are able to take judicial notice of the change in our long standing and fundamental traditions and values. Let us not kid ourselves into thinking that fighting the good political fight is in itself sufficient. The victory in MA would not have been possible if so many of the citizens of this state were not so inclined to disregard the opposition to marriage equality as irrationally bigoted. It is important to remember that those who oppose same-sex marriage being commonly regarded as prejudiced is evidence that it is commonly regarded that marriage equality is a civil right of the inaliennable variety.
Before and on places like LeftAhead, supporting an amendment to ban marriage equality is prejudiced – whether people like it or not. It doesn’t feel good to be called a homophobe, but as the song says in Avenue Q, “everyone’s a little bit racist.”
<
p>
My point being is thus, there are two different kinds of “racism” or homophobia or what have you. There’s the obvious, extremely potent Kris Mineau kind… and then there’s the silent, ignorant kind… where people really don’t know any better. However, that’s still a ‘fear of gay people’ which is the very definition of homophobia.
<
p>
The real great point here is that those people are easily converted. Every time someone comes out of the closet, five or six of those people become enlightened. They may be against same-sex marriage now, but will easily fiercely defend it once they actually meet some gay people or realize that the people they know and are friends with every day are either gay or family with gay people, etc.
<
p>
My mother was always one of those people who really didn’t understand gay people or trust them. The one person she did know who was gay had all the stereotypes and eventually died from AIDs – not a very good first introductory – and she barely knew him at that. So, needless to say, she made some comments over the course of my life that made me not want to come out… which is one of the reasons I didn’t do so until my twenties. However, she instantly accepted me and never really went through any of the stages most parents go through when they learn they have a gay child. Was she homophobic before? Slightly. Was she the day she found out her son was gay? No.
Ownership of One’s Self is Sometimes a Life Long Challenge
<
p>
This is all millions of people know about gay people. They know about how the gay population was the main reason there was near-epidemic levels of AIDS infections a while back (it’s true, don’t argue, own up to the crimes of your culture, I do), they see these gay parades that make them feel uncomfortable..all they’ve heard is promiscuity, orgies, rampant atheism, drug use…Heck, one of the first gay men I met was Wiccan.
<
p>
The thing is, under this pretense, I would vote against marriage equality for these animalistic beasts, freaks of nature the bunch. If that was what I knew, nobody could call me prejudiced to want them to not have the right to marry, because to me, a person like that would be sub-human.
<
p>
However, I had the opportunity to meet gay people. I met a lot. My best friend in high school had a gay uncle and I went to a party he through and met umpteen gay men..some of them in womens’ moo-moos. Traumatic? At the time. But I also met a bunch of really nice guys and ate some fantastic food. It took a lot to change my notions about the gay population, but it did change.
<
p>
It’s really easy to sit back and call all these people homophobes and prejudiced. It’s beyond easy. It takes zero effort.
<
p>
But you know what, you guys didn’t win this by sitting back and calling everyone a homophobe. You walked the walk and SHOWED people why the preconceived notions they harbored were wrong. You showed them that the gay population isn’t a festering mess of STDs and promiscuity. John Hosty…been with your boyfriend (part of being accepted is dropping this other language. “Partner” is an outdated term.) for 13 years? Doesn’t sound very promiscuous. Do you expect someone to really listen to you and give you the time of day if you have already prejudiced YOURSELVES against them with all this homophobe talk?
<
p>
Don’t work yourselves up in a tizzy because you can’t get everyone to like you, because there isn’t any group in America that everyone likes.
Next year, you’re totally coming to the Pride Parade =p
If you come to CPAC next year, I’ll come to your pride parade. How’s that? I’ll even try to find the contingent of Log Cabin Republicans and see if we can made some magic happen.
… on one of the reasons I put this post on BMG in the first place. As mentioned in the post, I found that the fact that nobody in the post had even used the word ‘prejudice’ before the commenter became defensive on being labled as such. I speculate that maby he or she could be recieving this feedback from some other place only to vent about it on LiL. This person obviously feels attacked, but the post didn’t attack anyone.
<
p>
I also suppose that it is possible that they feel attacked without feedback from some other place.
<
p>
This lead me to the question that, even if we didn’t bring up the word, is the word apt? I came to the conclusion that it is, by definition. I do think it is possible to be prejudiced and not be a homophobe, because the underlying premises of your beliefs could rise from flawed assumptions that have nothing to do with an irrational fear of homosexuality… so I wouldn’t use that term in a blanket sense. But prejudice does seem to apply.
<
p>
I think it is important to recognize the reality of what is going on here. It is prejuce. Screaming it in someones face is probably not productve, but recognizing reality is. The unfortunate part is people rarely live thier moral lives by intelect alone. This means that explaining this to someone probably stands less of a chance at successful correction of the flawed ideas than social exposure to ‘other’ people (see Dr. Altemeyer’s book above… its free and onine). I actually credit MTV with much work in this area. By delving into the lives and details of may homosexuals, they probably single-handedly engendered more understanding in young people than those young people’s exposure to the real homosexuals in their own lives.
<
p>
In recognizing the reality that the term prejudice is particularly apt in this situation, it brought me to reflect on why the commenter was so defensive. They may (conciously or sub-conciosly) not want to be labeled as prejudice because of its associated negative character. That is a good thing. People should feel bad about being prejudiced. The commenter just happen to feel so bad that they failed to see that the term was apt. They didn’t see it in themselves.
<
p>
One hopes that one can recognize flaws in their chacter so that they can be overcome. But, as I said above, people seem often to ignore the facts in front of thier face about themselves and thus seem resistant to informed by others about such issues. Exposure seems a much more effective solution. I just wonder how many of these people who have overcome prejudice through exposure recognize the reality of the prejudice of their previous views. By emphazising that they now just treat homosexuals like they treat any other people, they affirm their current behavior. But the more self-realizing truth to be understood is not the ‘rightness’ of their current attitude but the ‘wrongness’ of their previous prejudice.
<
p>
The first person who came to mind as I read this is our very own Senator Panagiatakos. As I understand it, Sen. P. — at least by his own account — has actually been quite supportive of the GLBT community in general, his staunch support of the anti-marriage amendment notwithstanding.
<
p>
I posted some time ago on LiL that Sen P’s view on same-sex marriage is indicative of prejudice in the sense that he has already “pre-judged” the issue on the basis of his very strongly held (presumably religious) beliefs regarding marriage. However, I think it would be a stretch to say that Sen. P. is a homophobe — or at least I would need further evidence before making such a claim.
<
p>
I also get the sense that Sen. P does not view his prejudice as being a “bad” thing in this instance, which speaks to your point about people rarely living their moral lives by intellect alone. As you well know, he was pretty heavily lobbied by his constituents, but remained steadfast in his position.
<
p>
The flip side, of course, is that even those who have seen the light on the matter of same sex marriage don’t necessarily get to where they are “by intellect alone,” and I’m not sure that this heart-over-head issue is as one-sidedly negative as you make it seem. Our intuitive sense of compassion seems to be inherent to who we are as human beings, although oftentimes this quality becomes obscured — even, dare I say, through over-emphasis on the intellect.
<
p>
I wonder if more people are persuaded simply by the “logic” of marriage equality, or rather by the emotional connection formed as they hear the personal stories of those directly effected. From the stories told by those who finally came around on marriage equality — Reps. Golden and Ross come to mind immediately — I think the power of that personal, emotional connection cannot be discounted.
<
p>
In sum, to me it a “squares and rectangles” situation: While all homophobes are by definition prejudiced against gays (et al), not everyone who shows prejudice is necessarily a homophobe.
Just a remark. It is possible to be prejudiced without being bigoted. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that a bigot is stubbornly unwilling to give up his prejudices even when being presented with new information.
<
p>
I suspect that most people have preconceived notions, which might be analogous to prejudices. If someone can and is willing to overcome his preconceived notions, so much the better.
“
<
p>
I guess you could say that a bigot is a stubbornly prejudiced person. I guess it would follow that all bigots are prejudiced but not all prejudiced people are bigots.
<
p>
I don’t think that it is the case that bigots understand their own prejudices but overcome their understanding with stubbornness. I think it would be more correct to say that the preconcieved notions that define a bigot’s particular prejudices are subbornly resistant to reason.
http://www.m-w.com/d…
… realization of morality is important. I can act in such a way to educate a child that something is wrong, but I do him or her a far greater service if I am able to get him or her to understand why it is wrong. My fear is that arriving at moral rightness by feeling alone doesn’t support the level of understanding.
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong… its not like I’d prefer that people intelectually know right from wrong with no emotional understanding… that would create a world of ‘right’ moral behavior while we may all be imoral ‘in our heads’.
<
p>
But it seems to me that the intelectual understanding of various moral propositions creates the foundation to extrapolate those moral codes to ‘not yet encountered’ moral choices. If all I have is an emotional understanding, I may not have adequately developed my moral ‘instincts’.
…..of my culture???
<
p>
Do you really expect to be taken seriously with this shit?
<
p>
I for one, don’t need YOUR support, not when it comes with so many back hands and back stabs.
Failing to recognize that homosexuals were one of the primary reasons aids exploded in the 80’s is ludicrous. However, the trend is going away because of gay groups pushing for condom use among other things. Disconnecting gay culture from aids is like disconnecting German culture from Hitler. Older people still don’t trust Germans because of the Nazi’s, similarly a lot of people are weary of homosexuals because of aids. While gay culture has changed since the 80’s in order to stop the problem, they still haven’t shed the stigma, which is a hurdle that you guys face.
when you say that “homosexuals were one of the primary reasons aids exploded in the 80’s”. the primary reasons were 1) we had a new, unrecognized sexually transmitted disease, and 2) once recognized, the federal government refused to take action because it was just killing faggots. you need to read up on the history of AIDS and Ronald Reagan and all the other good christian soldiers who were quite happy to realize that something was knocking off the queers. People are NEVER to balme for catching a disease that they don’t even know exists or how it is transmitted. It is sick and viscous to suggest otherwise.
……seriously challenged intellectually if you are going to compare a sadistic madman who intentionally murdered millions of people in the quest for world domination and ethnic purity to a group of people who were stricken by a disease that they did not know existed and then further suffered the true culture crime of the established power structure ignoring their plight because they weren’t that sad to see fags dying. You sicken me. Seriously. I’m fairly certain that you are not ashamed of yourself, but I’ll go to the trouble and be ashamed for you because what you have written is just that disgusting.
<
p>
Just because a bunch of old bigots think fags should die and brought a pox on society does not mean that it is true or that the object of their bigotry need take ownership of the hatred spewed in their direction.
<
p>
And for the record, the lions share of aids contracted and spread globally has not been as a result of gay sex. So, not only is your spew hateful it is also grossly inaccurate.
<
p>
They knew all about the other STD’s out there. Still care to throw on a rubber? Nah, I’ll risk it. I need that extra 30 seconds.
<
p>
Go ahead. Defend that position. I’d love to see what reason you could possibly come up with a feasible defense.
… in the begining, nobody knew about condoms helping. Besides that, given that a certain amount of the population abstained from condom use, hetersexual or homosexual, it was going to hit some segment of the population regardless of orientation.
…in the beginning, nobody (in the US) knew what was happening or what the cause was. And now JoeTS the bloviator wants to blame what occurred subsequently on some monolithic gay culture. The commenter is an idiot–there is no gay culture, and nobody had any idea what the cause of the pandemic was. Some–including anti-gay Massachusetts state officials (and, yes, there were more than a few of them at the time)–wanted to blame it on butyl nitrate (a/k/a “poppers”–hence the ban, which continues in MA to this day).
<
p>
We followed the progression of HIV/AIDS a bit at the time, from our perch in a suburb of Boston. We noted the “problem” in NYC weekly in the weekly editions of New York Native (where we first learned of the “problem” and its sister publication the monthly Christopher Street. I actually doubt that many here would remember them, but Native predated the NY Blade, and was much more interesting. But the Native and CS died out, probably with its contributors.
<
p>
I’ll stop reminiscent, but, I’ll just ask JoeTS one last question, before I start ignoring him altogether. What is it about your impression of the “gay culture” that would keep my partner and I together since Sept 1978, probably long before you were born? There’s nothing in the larger (read “straight”) community to suggest that our relationship would have ramained so long–indeed, in the straight community, half of all marriages are dissolved before their 15th anniversary. So, what is your justification for being down on a non-existent “gay culture,” when an existing straight culture is so crummy?
<
p>
is what you seemed to be pointing out earlier, talking about many peoples discomfort with gm or open homosexuality in general.
<
p>
that’s a far cry from all of this hitler, aids crapola.
<
p>
the whole point, i thought, was that not everyone who feels some kind of awkwardness towards the subject is a spewing bigot. but if this was the point you started to make, i should mention that you’re beginning now to spew.
… it started with his first comment on this thread.
1. How many unplanned pregnancies happen to hetero women each year?
2. How many hetero people contract STDs each year?
<
p>
You’re full of crap with this line, Joe. Just admit it and move on.
1: too many
2: too many
<
p>
I never denied it.
….it was the late seventies/early eighties. You weren’t even alive so you have no idea what the sexual world was even like then. People didn’t wear condoms. Not gay people, not straight people. Pretty much just sailors on leave. It wasn’t common practice because the STD’s that were out there were curable with an antibiotic and people were just beginning to learn about herpes at the time as well. People wear condoms now because of the AIDS epidemic. You are expecting that gay people should have exercised clairvoyant safe sex.
<
p>
You are nothing but completely wrong about this. Stop backpedalling and digging yourself deeper into this ridiculous hole and just apologize for your unfounded, bigoted, disgusting remarks. They are indefensable and every attempt to defend them just makes you look worse.
You finally hit the nail on the head and did what I was trying to get out of you the whooole while.
<
p>
You see, I’m not stupid. I know full well that from WW2 to the 80s, the only people who used condoms were military personnel. “Put it on before you put it in?”
<
p>
My stubborn arguments were an example of ignorance!
<
p>
However, you responded in a fashion that would have you think I am prejudiced, and even now you have called my comments bigoted, but there was no prejudice or bigotry in my words, only ignorance. Someone made a great point when they mentioned how MTV had done a lot to cure ignorance. They didn’t cure bigotry and prejudice, but they helped cure ignorance.
<
p>
That was the point I was trying to make in the original post, that there are people who are ignorant but not necessarily prejudiced or bigoted towards gays. It would appear, however, that you have lost the ability to see the difference, which was what my feigning of stubborn ignorance was trying to prove.
<
p>
<
p>
That would have been a perfect first response. It is relatively benign in tone and has information rather than “you’re a hateful shit.”
<
p>
I probably could have thought of a more tactful fashion to make my point, but I felt I’ve made it.
I think not, because i’ll wager that no one is paying any serious attention to you any more. you went about it in such an obnoxious way with a group of people who have been through HELL AND BACK for the past several years, that your cruel method of trying to get at a point is all that will be remembered. not any point itself, if there is one, which i could care less at this point. what an ass.
…you made an affirmative comparison of gays to Hitler and referred to those who were stricken and killed by a dread disease as cultural criminals with the added salvo of “don’t deny it”. If you had said “I was under the impression that gays caused aids” that would have been ignorance. You took the ignorance and made a negative value judgment on a group of people which is bigotry. So, not only have you been inflaming the feelings of people with bigoted BS, you don’t even understand the point you were trying to make.
<
p>
My first response was completely appropriate because your words were not ignorant, they were hateful. I know the difference. Cleary, you don’t.
<
p>
Very badly done. You have a lot of growing up to do.
to make is that you are willing to become a contortionist in order to sugar-coat your idiotic commentary regarding the “crimes of [the homosexual] culture.” Your ignorance–characterized by more than a little self-serving ornamental bigotry or prejudice (take your pick)–is manifestly evident.
<
p>
Why don’t you take responsibility for what you wrote like a grown-up? Here’s some good advice: if you don’t know what you’re talking about, read what the people who do know what they’re talking about are saying. Couch your commentary in terms that indicate you are not on firm factual or contextual footing. Ask questions. Avoid cobbling together hearsay, skimmed articles from newsweeklies, gossip from your friends, half-baked analysis from family members “who were there,” and wildly inventive conjecture reflecting your personal sensibilities. What always, always, always results from habitual cobbling is a historical landscape that never existed and you become the guy everyone rolls their eyes at when you open your mouth.
<
p>
Do the right thing. Apologize and move on.
…also that at the time, many consevative Republicans and, in larege part, the Catholic church and some protestant denominations were responsible for working very hard to make sure that people at risk did not get the education about safe sex and condoms that they needed. Even today this is largely true. It’s been over twenty years and a huge number of American youth don’t get the sexual education that they need. And you would expect that people at the beginning of the epidemic would know better than many know today? You make no sense.
<
p>
… is to ignore that what we are talking about is a disease. It is an STD. Homosexuals just happen to be among their first victims. If it didn’t hit them first it still would have exploded. Promiscuity, although statistically more common among a subset of the population in homosexual men, is still statistically common enough among heterosexuals to constitute a significant other subset of the population. Siginificant enough that if it wasn’t homosexual men it would have been promiscuous heterosexuals that would have been its first victims. If you understand that at present emphasising homosexuality in looking at the disease is an irrelevant distraction, then you must also understand that AIDS didn’t need homosexuals to start.
<
p>
I’ll leave the rest to raj.
<
p>
As far as Hitler is concerned… You’d have to say that GWB is somehow ingrained in what it is to be American since Americans elected him. You’d have to deliberately ignore the American traditions he is attempting to destroy in his two terms. German culture was just fine until a bunch of biggots took advantage of a national crisis to rise and change the laws to solidify their power (sounds familiar, huh?).
factual inaccuracies, distorted stereotypes, misguided right-wing talking points, ignorant statements, and flagrant applications of Godwin’s Law wrapped up in one comment in some time. I can’t even begin to parse this offensive nonsense. I just don’t have it in me.
<
p>
You do get the prize, however, for the most egregiously idiotic string of five consecutive sentences I think I’ve ever seen on this site. Bravo.
… point out the details of inacccuracies. It can only help.
Item (i). Worldwide, HIV/AIDS is predominately a heterosexual disease. There are several speculations as to the origin, but nobody knows for sure. Some believe that it originated from a similar virus SIV from monkeys who were ingested by humans. It may very well be that HIV/AIDS was rampant in Africa before it was recognized in the US in the early 1980s, but it was not recognized in Africa as such.
<
p>
Item (ii). In the US, HIV/AIDS has morphed into a disease whose primary new infectees are minority (read “black”) men, and even moreso, their female sex companions. Take that under advisement. I’ll tell you why–homophobia in the black community–the men go on the “down low” (if you don’t understand the reference, do a google search).
<
p>
Item (iii). HIV/AIDS activism in the big cities of the US (primarily NYC, and to a lesser extent San Francisco and Los Angeles) was never totally homosexual. Large numbers of people, particularly in NYC, who were active in ACT-UP, the HIV/AIDS group founded in 1987 (or so) were straight victims. How did they become infected? I don’t know. And you don’t know, either.
<
p>
Item (iv). Disconnecting gay culture from aids is like disconnecting German culture from Hitler. Older people still don’t trust Germans because of the Nazi’s, similarly a lot of people are weary of homosexuals because of aids. Thanks for bloviating, but, citation? You are bordering on Godwin’s law territory. (Do a google search if you don’t understand the reference.) You seem to be becoming unhinged.
<
p>
Item (v). While gay culture has changed since the 80’s in order to stop the problem… The sad fact that you have is that there is no monolithic gay culture. Your inability to recognize that casts the veracity all of your aspersions into the vertical waste bin. I am gay, apparently you are not, and I have been out and gay since probably before you were born. You don’t have the slightest idea what you are bloviating about. There is no gay culture.
… …you are ignoring your own advice when you talk about these alleged ‘crimes’. You are painting a stereotype of “promiscuity, orgies, rampant atheism, drug use…”. What the hell does atheism have to do with it anyway. and in what way is that a crime!
I was providing some context to the outdated image people have of gays.
…right, that’s why you just couldn’t avoid the Hitler comparison above.
… it was misguided. Seriously… do you want to call the diseases the colonial Europeans brought to the new world a perpetration of a crime? There is certainly alot to answer for morally about colonialism, but bringing disease was just a natural accident that you can’t possibly call criminal.
why this comment rated a zero.
<
p>
seemed rather salient to me. not a grand slam, but a zero?
… the first time a read it and I asked myself the same question. It seemed to me that there were salient issues brought up that were productive to talk about. Then I saw Anthony’s post above and I find I agree with him. “Crimes” is inflamatory. Although to consider what happened back then as some kind of “crime of homosexuals” is actually salient in a conversation about prejudiced, but not in the way I think Joe intended.
…to understand what is salient about it. Its basis is completely founded in hateful prejudice that presumes that getting sick and dying is a cultural crime. He could have given the formula for stable cold fusion after that statement and still have warranted a zero.
… come after the crime reference that I missed. His points about exposure being a useful tool in the fight against prejudice are salient.
…but he is not getting a pass from me. Seriously, cold fusion wouldn’t be enough so self evident ruminations of prejudice after exhibiting a heaping helping of the same ain’t gonna cut it. The entire post is a waste of space.
…I took JoeTS’s entire post as being sarcasm.
<
p>
It’s unfortunate that there are no HTML tags to indicate sarcasm.
… but I don’t see it.
<
p>
Lynne oftentimes puts in her posts when warrented, but not always.
…buy it. And if one is going to wax sarcastic about the aids epidemic one can’t really afford a ham fisted approach.
(NB: this is to Mr. Lynne as well)
<
p>
Some of us over at the old NYTimes gay rights message board, recognizing that it was oftentimes quite difficult to determine whether one was posting in sarcasm or “tongue in cheek,” adopted the pseudo-HTML codes /sarcasm (end sarcasm) and /tic (end tongue-in-cheek). It actually worked quite well. It would be a shame if one could not use literary devices like sarcasm, tongue-in-cheekiness, even irony, in expressing oneself. It is oftentimes difficult to do so in a text medium–usually that is reserved for voice inflection–so we came up with another means to do so–the pseudo-HTML codes. Maybe people here might consider adopting something similar.
<
p>
Regarding JoeTS’s comment, it was so extreme that either JoeTS is totally ill-informed, totally off the wall (neither of which I got from his previous comments) or sarcastic. I’ll let JoeTS confirm or deny my suspicion if he wishes to, but that’s my take on it. And if he denies my suspicion, I am in a position tear his comment to shreds.
I’m not saying you’re wrong,… I’m just saying that if you are right, I can’t tell.
… the crimes issue itself… it is salient because it is, and is illustrative of, prejudice. Not what Joe had intended but there it is. Again… I agree with you.
and having unprotected sex is an actual crime. People go to jail for it.
You [willingfully methinks, based on past behavior on this thread] missed the key fact in the claim:
<
p>
Knowingly have Contract[ed] AIDS and having unprotected sex without notifying your partner is an actual crime.
<
p>
That’s two key parts you left out. Please stop being so sucky on this thread.
…you have written is wholly incorrect. First off, contracting aids is never a crime and would never be included thusly in the definition of why any behavior is or is not illegal. Bad choice of words and further evidence of the whole you are digging yourself into.
<
p>
Second, there are some jurisdictions where having sexual relations with someone when you know you are HIV positive and you fail to use a condom or disclose your status is criminal, usally a felonious assault. You have to know you are positive and you have to either not disclose or not take precautions. Having unprotected sex is not, as you have written, a crime. If you have unprotected sex with someone who knows you are HIV positive no crime has been comitted. This sort of behavior is certainly questionable, but not criminal.
<
p>
If you are going to try and make legal arguments to back up your bigoted rants at leat make accurate ones.
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned, those who voted in favor of the amendment, but who claim that they were doing so in order to “let the people vote,” were merely using that claim as a subterfuge to cover their prejudice. If the state constitution suggested that any and all state contitutional amendments proposed by initiative petition be submitted to the electorate, it could have been so written.
<
p>
But state constitution doesn’t say that. It keeps the legislators, sitting in ConCon, as gatekeepers to temper the amendment process. If enough in the electorate don’t like the result, they have one obvious out: vote in legislators more to their liking. It really is as simple as that.
<
p>
BTW, we have a perfect example of a major state that allows amendments its constitution to be very easily voted on by its residents: California. As a result of that state’s easy amendment process, CA has become virtually ungovernable. They can’t even pass a budget (matching taxing and spending) without a super-majority, because of a state constitutional amendment.
…
<
p>
The thing I am particularly worried about with citizen petitions is that, as California has demonstrated, far from being a brave new democratic tool, it becomes another aveneu for monied interest to affect laws. As it turns out it is even more efficient than lobbying.
Remember Proposition 13 limiting property taxes and imposing the super-majority requirement for income tax increases? The primary beneficiary has not been the little old lady on fixed income, as some believe. The primary beneficiary has been business interests. The reason regarding property taxes should be obvious.
Washington State is dealing with this problem now. Initiatives get passed that don’t pass constitutional muster, but do: cause a lot of confusion and waste endless amounts of time and money.
…is largely ungovernable thanks to citizen-initiated referendums. Essentially voters have mandated spending that exceeds collected revenue under the restrictions they have also mandated. So we had governor Gray Davis recalled because of that, and Schwarzeneggar “solved” the problem by borrowing the difference, shafting future generations.
<
p>
I’ve lost track of how many scholarly articles I’ve read on direct democracy that use Massachusetts as a “good” example and California as a “bad” one.
My first vote was June, 1978 — I had turned 18 a few months before and got to vote against Prop. 13 and for that year’s Democratic sacrificial lamb to be given up to Pete McClosky.
<
p>
If you have spent any time in CA at election season in the last 30 years, you will see The Battle of The Lobbyists. They take over the airwaves, threatening Armaggedon will come, babies will foam at the mouths and the entire coastline will fall into the sea if you vote for Prop. XXX. There is no rational place for negotiation or debate — it’s all shouting over poisoned bullet points. There is no way that Gov. Hiram Johnson — who was responsible for the concept of the proposition just before WWI — could have ever predicted how his idea to take away the lawmaking process from the robber barons would have backfired so badly.
<
p>
Thank GAWD we have both a Con Con to save us from the tyranny of lobbyist-driven mobs.
I think early on in this debate the YES supporters/voters could have appropriately been described as prejudiced, i.e., they had pre-judged the individuals and the issues based on their own limited and insular worldview. At this point, however, I no longer think “prejudiced” is the correct term. “Bigoted” is. Since the early stages of this debate, a tremendous amount of information has been made available, and we have first-hand evidence–the lives and stories of real people–that SSM is good, decent, and pro-family.
<
p>
For example, my rep Lew Evangelidis had frequent contact with married couples and their children who live in his town. Lew even attended a fundraiser for The Bridge of Central Massachusetts’ Safe Homes, a program for GLBT youth who need support and a place to stay. Through all this, however, Lew willfully disregarded the humanity of these people and their stories in order to cling to his misguided and factually inaccurate mantra. Despite their pleas, he was apparently perfectly willing to impose his personal sensibilities on these people, some with their children begging him to change his mind, to preserve the dignity and standing of their family unit. No dice, though.
<
p>
And he is not a stupid man; he is simply, at this point, a bigot.
…have been legislators who were prejudiced, but not bigoted. By ‘letting the people vote’, a legislator never has to have his preconcieved notions seriously challenged,… abdicating the responsibility of examining these notions as a job of the voter. They could conceivably be open to having their notions challened (i.e. not be stubborn about them) and rationalize their ‘yes’ vote in proposing that the voters themselves get to examine (or more likely, ignore) thier erroneous pre-concieved notions.
what you describe, “By ‘letting the people vote’, a legislator never has to have his preconcieved notions seriously challenged,” is just too convenient. I as it as a cover for not having to face up to bigotry. Could there be one or two legislators who really, truly think they have no referee role in their vote, and are there only to rubber stamp any and all amendments. Maybe. But I’m not convinced that any of the sitting legislators qualify.
… I do think that it is ‘just too convenient’. That is why I characterize it not as justifications but as rationalization. I think the act of not recognizing that it shouldn’t be up for a vote in any way is in and of itself prejudiced. The ‘let the people vote’ aspect is an insidious opening toward not only sidestepping the issue of examining the premises for their prejudice, but providing a rationalization for the prejudice itself. I’m just trying to analyse the moral and mental mechanisms that let someone vote ‘yes’. I’m just pointing out that the rationalization, by bypassing any need to examining the underlying premeises, provides non need to be stubborn about examining those prejudices… thus allowing for one to be prejudeced (having bad pre-concieved notions) while not bigoted (stubbornly sticking to bad pre-concieved notions in the face of reason and/or evidence).
to examine one’s underlying premises, one is actively and willfully protecting one’s point of view. The side-step is simply too cute by half. I’m afraid that behavior still qualifies as bigoted.
… rationalization, evasion and stubborness below. The very nature of it being a sidestep lends itself particularly well to being employed in rationalization.
… “Could there be one or two legislators who…”
<
p>
I don’t know enough about them to say one way or the other. I only observe that the rationalization opportunity makes it possible.
While theoretically speaking such a legislator might exist, in cold, hard practicality, I’m doubtful. Those who clung, like Evangelidis, to their “let the voters vote” rhetoric reveal much in that response–their cowardice. Each of these legislators knows that his/her job is to make informed decisions on behalf of the voters s/he represents. At the end of the day, this is still the job.
<
p>
The dichotomy you describe is not terribly consistent with typical human behavior. “Yes” I could have my mind changed that the civil rights of minority populations shouldn’t be subject to the vagaries of the majority BUT “yes” I’m going to support putting these rights at risk anyway? No way. The sanctity of the nature of rights precludes that sort of logic. By actively refusing to engage his intellect, as you say, a legislator is protecting and nurturing his own bigotry. Indeed, it has a rather “soft” bigotry aspect to it that, while not as offensive as “hard” bigotry in its presentation, is bigotry nonetheless.
<
p>
I believe people like Evangelidis cloaked their bigotry in the most readily accessible rag, the so-called purity of letting the voters vote. In fact, I find that even more egregious than an outright rejection of the rights of gay citizens. At least an articulation of these feelings is honest and forthright. The other is merely smarmy cowardice.
… I suspect it might be more common than you think. By clinging to thier ‘let the voters vote’ they reveal their cowardice to examine the prejudice in themselves… that is the whole point. Without seening the results of that examination we don’t see any evidence of the prerequisite stubborness necessary to classify someone as not merely prejudiced but biggoted. “By actively refusing to engage his intellect, as you say, a legislator is protecting and nurturing his own…” prejudice. We can’t call identify it as bigotry unless we see evidence of stubborness. Rationalization is evidence of evasion, but that by iself is not evidence of stubborness.
<
p>
I find ‘let the voters vote’ reprehensible because it fails to acknowledge that the legislator still needs to examine the issue in order to determin if it should even be up for vote. A rationalizing prejudiced person may overlook this. A biggoted person might vote ‘yes’ feeling it convenient that the voter issue clouds his/her modivation from outsiders.
rather tersely, I still think the behavior qualifies. At what point does “let the voters vote” reveal a stubborn unwillingness to self-examine? We can’t say. Or maybe we can given the amount of information and the length of time available for the self-reflection we seek.
<
p>
I think you are investing too much weight in the notion of stubborn as a requisite element of bigotry when, in fact, willfull and self-serving disregard will suffice.
<
p>
IOW, taking an active role in protecting and preserving your worldview when faced with challenges is, by its nature, a stubborn act.
<
p>
I so much enjoy your commentary, too. Thanks.
At least someone does. 😉
<
p>
Also note the stubborness prerequisite is in the definition (see above). The real question we seem to disagree on is the question of whether or not the evasion of ‘let the people vote’ is evidence, by itself, of stubborness. I don’t see it.
<
p>
You should really be careful of throwing around the term biggot in that it is a declaration that the person in question is immune to conversation. By declaring that, you give up hope their ever changing their minds. Before you do that, think of all the people who have changed their minds with regard to race. I doesn’t necessarily happen instantly (see above about emotional vs intellectual moral learning), but it does happen. It even happened to George Wallace.
how many reasonable, compelling, thoughtful, attractive, desperate, intelligent, earnest, funny, supportive, (fill in your prized adjective) people have visited my state rep. They. Tried. Everything. to get him to move.
<
p>
<
p>
Words are my stock and trade. I spend my professional life explaining the denotations and connotations of words, how words change contextually in a sentence and in text, how to read them, and when to write them. I, probably more than most, have a clearer understanding of the word “bigot.” That said, I don’t believe there is any hope for some people on this issue. Because Lew is a highly educated man, with all the requisite tools needed to make informed and thoughtful decisions, his immunity on this issue is prima facie evidence, in my view, of an underlying bigotry. It is what it is.
<
p>
He has work to do to repair the damage he has done in his own town. There will be letters in our local paper this week from several of the people who invested a tremendous amount of sincerity and time in trying to move him in the right direction. He had choices to make, there was room to move, and he chose, despite overwhelming evidence, not to move.
… in this one specific example I’d probably agree with you. The evidence you supplied support the term. I was speaking of use of the term in general in that one should be carefull. Some have applied the term to the group of yes voters or the majority of yes voters. I’d be willing to bet that very few people on this thread have the kind of evidence you present on all of these voters. I like to see that there is no use in coversing before I declare the conversation over.
In the case of Lew, though, I can’t tell you how disappointed I and many others are. He is immensely likeable, you want to support him because he is decent and good in so many respects. He really is. He is, however, knee-deep in towing the conservative party line. He admitted that he didn’t even read SB321, but, of course, when he did, it was indefensible–and he knew it. Consequently, his recalcitrance on SSM resonates.
<
p>
Again, though, we agree that not all people who would have voted YES on the amendment are bigots. Some are, indeed, merely ignorant and, as a result, prejudiced. The legislators, in general, though, don’t get that pass.
Panagiotakos, except the part about the conservative line. He is very good on many progressive issues. I think his catholicism got in the way.
I always assumed he was Greek Orthodox… but you know what they say about assuming things.
… lets just say ‘religion.
Via VoteSmart anyway.
you’re correct. the GO church isn’t too positive i take it on marriage equality, but i haven’t a clue how much of an adherent he is or isn’t to doctrine, etc.
Victory can be intoxicating, and in this thread I can see that’s it’s getting too much so. Sure, calling all opponents “prejudiced” makes for some tasty moral superiority, but it also makes for some effective repudiation of people who don’t agree with us RIGHT NOW!!!
<
p>
I’m talking about giving people a way out. People who weren’t on our side a year ago, and may not even be on it today — because as Ryan has pointed out, this was one battle in a longer campaign. People are drifting to our camp steadily, but saying that anyone in the process of changing their midn is a bigot for most of their lives certainly won’t help. People want to adopt more pro-equality stances, and we shouldn’t make it harder for them to do so.
<
p>
Any group that calls someone a “bigot”, is ceding all attempts to have their opinions be relevant to that person. “Bigotry” and “prejudice” are such powerful terms in our discourse, and using them can only lead in two directions. In one, Citizen X says “why yes, I have been a bigot most of my life. Thanks for helping me realize that — now what is your position again?” In the other, Citizen X says “How dare you question me with some loaded langauge! If this is your approach to debate, then your other positions are just as offensive!” Now, which one do you think is more likely to happen?
<
p>
I don’t care if it’s technically correct, as some of our etymologists have been debating. It’s exclusionary, and it’s a great way to burn bridges. There are other ways to get motivation against those who disagree with us. Declaring people to be bigots is not a first step toward the campaign of persuasion and humanity that won pro-equality forces a victory last Thursday. It’s the act of an overly proud movement that is already forgotting how it got there. Furthermore, considering the abhorrent history the gay rights movement has in terms of excluding and repudiating transgender folks, I don’t really think gay activists have carte blanche to be throwing such terms around in the first place.
I agree completely that people need to be left a way out of prejudice, or bigotry, or whatever name you want to give to it. However, some people will be compelled to seek a way out when they find they are acting in sink with people they recognize as bigots, and so are getting the label slapped on them. I see real value in calling a spade a spade, but ALSO making it clear that all leopards can change their spots (to mix metaphores). Our very legislators prove the wisdom in never slamming doors. Personally, I am happy to let bygones be bygones when people demonstrably change for the better.
of the teaching moment will find themselves hung with the “bigot” label come reelection time, and that won’t be pretty. I’m not interested in saving souls; I’m interested in electing progressives to the state legislature. Period. Those who revealed themselves to be bigots better find a way to rectify that perception, or they’ll be wearing it proudly in November.
i’m not infinitely patient, especially when the bigot is making sweeping legal or policy decisions. out of office they must go. but if they “see the light” and prove it beyond doubt, i’m willing to reconsider them for office again.
Wouldn’t I love to see Lew admit in public that he was on the wrong side of the issue and history? That doesn’t change the fact, though, that he’s a Republican, and on that basis alone he has to go.
<
p>
That’s a veritable train-wreck of metaphors!!
i’d say also that leopards can change their votes, but that would be mixing mammalphores 😉
… however I think ‘bigot’ is. Calling someone a ‘bigot’ is to pre-emptively accuse them of being immune to conversation. It is a conversation stopper.
<
p>
‘Prejudice’ on the other hand is something we have all dealt with. We have first hand experience of overcoming prejudice. We can see first hand the progress toward overcomeing some of our society’s overall prejudices.
<
p>
Maybe some of this is navel-gazing, but I do think that the first step toward change is recognition of a problem. The problem of ‘prejudice’ is something we can make serious progress toward overcoming, but it should be called what it is.
<
p>
Similarly, throwing out terms like Biggot in the absence of any evidence of such (and perhaps even if there is evidence of such) is probably unproductive.
<
p>
I don’t do this out of pride. I do this because I want to understand the reality so I can navigate through it better.
…is another’s “traitor”. Here’s the latest from VOM. Do you think they are leaving the door open for those they dubbed “Benedict Arnolds” to change? (emphasis original)
for me, this VOM email epitomizes the difference between the two opposing campaigns. whenever we lost in the past, which was often, we proceeded to press ahead for positive change. i for one never bothered to send nastygrams to Dark Side legislators. the ones that could be replaced, i worked for their challengers. the ones that couldn’t be replaced, i worked to keep their constituents communicating with them. but the VOMers aren’t working for anything, they’re working against something. they have a negative, angry viewpoint. i will never forget camenker’s incredulity when we lost a key vote on the compromise amendment, and he observed us, dumfounded, cheering in Nurses Hall afterwards. we were crying over the setback, but cheering the very worthy allies we had gained by that time. i say, keep the spittle flying, VOM, and keep on alienating as many people as possible with your mean-spirited approach to life!
I’ll use the information provided therein to THANK those principled legislators for their vote–and when I’m done, I plan to shoot a final email to the VOM contact page and thank them for making the process easier!
I have to agree there’s a heck of lot of anger, bitterness, and yes, hatred in anti-gay marriage land. Some (NOT all) of the reaction from the various anti-equality camps has been downright bizarre.
<
p>
MassResistance’s reaction was actually the most predicable and “normal” — they blamed everybody else, starting with VOM for not being homophobic enough and the Catholic church for not threatening to punishing Catholic leges who voted no.
<
p>
It’s on RedMassGroup and HubPolitics that the real looniness and bile spilled forth. On RMG, you have Renee claiming marriage without conception isn’t marriage, GopNews proudly proclaiming himself a bigot, Patrick playing “gotcha” and accusing gay marriage supporters of being bigots for not supporting polygamy (a true “huh?” discussion), and Gary asking “If someone from the future came to you and said, “good news and bad news. The good news is that the US repealed DOMA and introduced a Federal right to SSM. The bad news is that children of same sex couples tend to broadly and measureably underperform their peers of hetero marriages in certain significant social measures”, would you still broadly advocate for the institution of SSM ?
<
p>
OK, fairly predictable, if a little out there. The real weirdness comea in the attacks on progressives and newcomers.
<
p>
Here’s EaBoClipper on the subject:
<
p>
I thought for progressives there was no morality. So no one has the moral high ground for anything right. It’s all about what makes you feel good, right. There is no right, there is no wrong.
<
p>
Right…
<
p>
HubPolitics, as always, is in a class by itself. Take this comment, for example:
<
p>
I will say it again, they move here because of the looney left and they take over our cities and towns. Come on, remember 20 years ago when Mass was a conservative Irish/Italian Catholic Town, what happened. Easy, all of the wealthy college kids and other trustfund babies started moving here during the dot.com era. They jacked up the cost of living so all of the old school Mass people were forced out. After the dot.com era mant stayed and you started seeing the social worker, policy nerds and urban planners come to take over. We are ran like a communist state for gods sake.
<
p>
I moved here from Texas 17 years ago and somehow don’t remember this pre-dot com conservative paradise. Heck, I somehow missed the post-dot com communist state. I mean, visitors from back home are still baffled by our lack of happy hours…
<
p>
Interestingly, HubPolitics has taken to cross-posting everything in the community section at BostonNow.com I wonder how effective that is. Headlines like “Next On The Gay Lobby’s Agenda: Dismantling Parent’s Rights” don’t really seem designed to appeal to people who aren’t already listening to Howie Carr.
What that person is talking about is actually 1975ish. Boston suburbia really felt that way then- lower middle class/working class Irish-Italian Catholic folks everywhere. And it was socially conservative- the big perceived threat was black people. Times were pretty rough economically, it was all stagflation fallout and loss of Vietnam equipment contracts for the companies. Blue collar jobs started going to the South and Midwest. All last political sense went lost in 1978 and ’79- Reagan Democrat meant Irish Democrat around here, the 1980 election was just insanity. But people snapped out of the full Reaganophilia when they realized he was going to let Paul Volcker carry on the credit crunch he started under Carter (for which Carter was punished), and that Reagan wouldn’t lift a finger for blue collar workers and their industries (Big Steel, shipyards, garment making).
<
p>
Things really changed around Boston with the Reagan defense buildup, 1982-1986ish. You suddenly had a lot of newly wealthy engineers and middle management and corporate executives, and they drove the real estate bubble of the Eighties here while all kinds of blue collar people lost work. They put their money into mutual funds and the new thang, the 401(k) accounts (a deal sweetener tax shelter for rich executives in 1978- it was definitely not considered an arrangement millions of middle class people would use) that put billions of dollars of capital in and created employment for thousands at Prudential, Putnam, and John Hancock. All the factories were just flying awaying to Right To Work states, retirees and kids who couldn’t hack high school or college were zipping away to New Hampshire and Florida as fast as they could.
<
p>
There was a massive economic contraction and a lot of pain when defense spending (created via federal debt) collapsed in 1991. But the blue collar economy didn’t reexpand and the computer companies filled the void in the middle Nineties. Then the Dot Com boom came and completed the transformation-biotech rose in its wake. Raytheon moved its missile division to Tucson, that was the big and most symbolic change, sign of the shrinking of the Cold War defense industry and its reconcentration in Red States.
<
p>
It’s all very generational as well. The blue/white collar defense and manual labor workforce of the Seventies and Eighties was pre-Boomers, for whom being socially liberal was agreeing with Polish and Italian Catholics marrying each other and lace Irish Catholic girls marrying WASP guys. The Eighties defense corporation engineering/management yuppiedom and cubicle serfdom was valhalla of the first half of the Boomers. The few megachurches around here have a slew of them; many are from RedStatia, they’re okay with women working and using contraception. Other things…not so much. The people who did the computers, Dot Coms, and biotech and all that are late end Boomers and Gen Xers. Mostly liberals and fairly intellectual, mostly from horror at the rampant national conservative idiocy since the early Nineties.
It didn’t even take a week. Let me take a step back and say that there is one positive thing VOM and MassResistance are working towards, and that’s a paycheck for their leaders. The anti-marriage effort is dead in MA, and what does Camenker do? As for money. To do what? No plans specified. But please, give. Perhaps his house needs a new coat of paint.
who contributes on a monthly basis to these nuts? Oh yeah, that’d be the fetishists. (My word of the night.) Thankyouthankyouverymuch.
For all their various forms of denial, they realize that when average people and legislators go over to the pro-marriage side they never return. It frustrates them endlessly. One of the many things they can’t admit is that they have no legitimate argument, just appeals to bigotry and collective denial.
<
p>
In the Kubler-Rossian process of dealing with catastrophic news, they’ve just gotten their last major Bargaining effort rejected. Now it’s all Anger/Bitterness and Depression. There’s no subtlety to Kris Mineau’s evidence-devoid claims of vote buying and vote coercion a minute or two after the vote result, or the hitlist he and his people drew up within hours. And no subtlety to the deafening silence on their plans and options since then.
…the sad fact that you have in your anti-gay diatribes is your lack of recognition that people stay together for decades for a number of reasons. Heteros and homos, gays and straights. Why did we stay together? I don’t know. But we did. Through good fortune and bad, through sickness and health. There have been lots of disagreements between us, in part financial (we’ve been through good times and bad), in part political. I started out being far more conservative than he, and now we’ve pretty much flipped. In part medical (he’s suffered through several thromboses in recent years, but seems to be stabilized).
<
p>
Why do we stay together? I guess you’ll just have to chalk it up to good old-fashioned loyalty. If you want to call that love, feel free.
<
p>
I’d rather call it the fact that I wouldn’t imagine not being without him.
…most of the time that we were here together in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we were not married, but we remained together regardless.
over the years as you and your spouse.