How we should have dealt with the gay marriage issue

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

If we had been on top of our game, we would have done the following:

In everystate where there was a amendment barring "gay marriage" we should have put on a ballot initiative barring "gay marriage" at the same time giving full partnership rights via civil unions to those who want them.

It would have given people a sensible middle ground, I think, and made it a less polarizing get out the vote issue.

What do others think?

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

1. bump

this disappeared for some reason

[LisaL]

2. And how would that have helped us?

People who came out in droves to vote against gay marriage-do you think those people would have voted to give gays partnership rights? Or that somehow would have helped the democrats?
:eyes:

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

3. I think it would have

there are a lot of voters who would have chosen the middle rather than the extreme on that issue. It would have made it easier for Kerry to lay out a positiion people understood as well.

[Skittles]

7. I don't know any of those middle-of-the-roaders

they're anti-gay, not just anti-gay marriage.

[TriMetFan]

14. No not all. Here in Oregon civil unions would have passed.

The only reason 36 passed is because the word "Marriage". Not because Gay or Lesbians here want to be together in some type of union.
Now on to if this would have helped the party. Will WE IN OREGON VOTED FOR KERRY EVEN WITH THE ANTI-MARRIAGE BAN.

[MrTriumph]

4. Probably would not have made a difference

Those for civil unions would not have turned out in the numbers of those supporting a ban. Fear drives the ban and fear is a greater motivator.

[geekgrrl]

5. let's face it- my 8 year relationship w/my partner is just too threatening

[Ms. Toad]

9. Twenty three here,

and a religious ceremony, plus a legal marriage, and a child who cannot be legally related to my spouse.

I sure hope that someone else comes along to challenge the Ohio amendment within the next two years (the approximate "drop dead" date for initiating a second attempt at adoption that could be completed before our daughter turns 18 - which adds another layer of difficulty). Being the first in our (straight) church to marry (and 8 year process), and the first appellate decision in the state is enough. I don't want to be the ones to fight this battle.

[Ms. Toad]

6. I don't agree with the civil unions,

They cannot be equal because they are not recognized (and thus grant no rights) outside the boundaries of the state in which they are created, or within the state with respect to the more than 1000 federal rights associated with marriage. Aside from disagreeing with the concept, a civil union amendment would not have gotten out the vote on our side, since most folks on our side would not have been motivated to go to the polls to vote for civil unions - so it would not have increased the Kerry turnout, and it would not have decreased the hate driven voters on the other side since the vast majority of those voters reject any recognition of same gender relationships.

The concept of putting something on the ballot to drive folks from our side to the ballot box is something that has some appeal.

(My evil idea and underhanded idea was to find the remnants of the KKK and encourage them to put an amendment on the ballot that defines marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race - we'd all flock to the polls to make sure it was voted down. On the other hand it would also be risky since the same idiots who voted for the one man-one woman definition would vote for the same race amendment.)

[socalover]

8. Democrats must drop this gay marriage issue

Democrats must drop this gay marriage agenda if we want to have any chance in the future, it is killing us. I agree with civil unions with equal tax benefits, etc. Christians, Jews, Muslims and many other deeply religious people will never accept gay marriage, we must respect their views.

[mitchtv]

10. I f you are right Gays should drop the Party

and drop yoass too

[Ms. Toad]

11. Sorry,

I'm not sitting quietly in the back of the bus any longer.

I put my marriage, and legal protection of our family, on hold for this race. I spent countless hours canvassing for Kerry rather than against Issue One, being careful not to publicly link my activities on Kerry's behalf with my quiet work in the dark of the night when I could not be canvassing to at least make information about Ohio Issue One available. For my efforts, and my willingness to sit quietly in the back of the bus I got spit on by 3 million voters and slapped in the face by Kerry when he couldn't even wait until all of the votes I turned out for him were counted, and blamed by folks here for the loss of the election.

Gay marriage was never was the agenda of the democratic party. We've received absolutely no support from the party. The only agenda was the republicans' to use it as a hateful tool to drive the fundie right to the polls. That deserved to be countered by the dems, but was not.

The legal state of marriage is a secular institution, which accommodates the desire of many religions to have their religious sacraments recognized at law. Some religions had to fight to have their marriages recognized by the state; such recognition was not automatic. It is not the property of the religious. Besides which, there are very religious people who support marriage both within their religious communities and at law.

[MrTriumph]

13. Thanks for helping Kerry

Sounds like you did a great deal of work for candidate Kerry. You are to be thanked.

Not to pick a fight, but I can't imagine what the party could have done to counter the gay marriage ban that was on the ballot. Do you have any suggestions?

Chances are we'll see more in '06, '08...

[Ms. Toad]

17. Not given the way it came up in Ohio

Too few people spread too thin. Issue One made it on the ballot too late to run an effective campaign against it. Had there been a little more time, and the presidential race not so crucial, Issue One in Ohio was defeatable.

It was opposed by virtually every major republican, democrat, newspaper, organizations such as AARP, ACLU, the Limited (clothing store), and the Ohio State University. The second sentence should have sunk it - but there was no time to effectively convey that message to the average resident. The second sentence bars state recognition of any unmarried relationship that attempts to confer the benefits or rights of or to approximate marriage. (paraphrased - if the server is back up you can visit NoOnOne.puppycharm.com and find the full text)

The second sentence, since it is not specific to same gender couples - or even limited to couples, is ambiguous and will create an enormous financial liability for the state - which will be obligated to defend it. Just one example: A common estate planning tool is the joint with rights of survivor manner of owning property. Parents routinely title bank accounts and real property this way with their children in order to keep the property out of probate when the parent dies. This form of ownership was, until fairly recently, limited exclusively to married couples. It is likely that this form of ownership will be subject to challenge after the death of one of the joint owners because it confers a benefit of marriage on unmarried property owners.

Cleveland Heights ran a very effective campaign to create a domestic partner registry using very similar issues - unfortunately it takes time to craft and to trot out the attractive heterosexual couples or parents and children who will be affected to put a face on the issue that people can accept.

The only effective counter I can come up with is what I do every day - but many gays and lesbians are not able to do. I am completely out. I am aware of only one person who knows me who voted for Issue One, and have never personally experienced discrimination except when I am in a situation where the only thing someone knows about me is that I am a lesbian. It is much harder to vote against the marriage of the couple you know and love and are aware will be affected by your vote, than it is to vote against people you imagine have horns and a pointed tail.

I don't think we need a direct counter, but we need to find some value/cause that we are passionate about that will drive us to the polls, and motivate us.

We also need to find a communication network that is as effective as the churches. The fundie churches had captive zealot audiences of a few to hundreds of people. Our church receive a packet of pro-Issue One flyers to distribute to members (which are now in my recycle bin). I'm sure every other church did as well. We spent our time going door to door reaching one or two people at at time. We got firm commitments, and delivered most of those votes - but it was a slow one on one process. Even if they only turn out 30%, they will beat us based just on sheer efficiency of their means of contact

Thank you for acknowledging my sacrifices. As you can probably tell from my recent posts, it is extremely frustrating to deliberately choose to place the immediate well being of my family second - and then to come here and be blamed for refusing to keep silent.

[mitchtv]

12. Gays should drop the party in that case

also drop yoass off the gg bridge while they're at it

[AP]

15. Prominent gay agnostic Democrats should have stepped forward and said...

"because I don't belong to the church, and because I don't believe the government should mediate people's spiritual relationships, 'gay marriage' would have done nothing for me.

"I wouldn't get married if I were straight, and I won't get married if there are gay marriage statutues.

"HOWEVER, a good liberal government should do everything it can to make people lives at home and in the office happier, less complicated, and more fruitful. In that respect, I'd love it if there were civil unions for everyone, where, if you chose to except the burdens of "marriage" (child support, spousal rights to inheritance, and paying the family rate for your employer's health insurance) then you get all the legal protections of "marriage." I would definitely register a civil union if that's what it was all about. And so would many of my straight friends."

[RPM]

16. By Ensuring Them It Won't Erode Their (Precious F***ing) Church

I have always felt that 2 points needed to be made:

1) The Government may not arbitrairly abridge the rights of certain sections of its constituency while not abridiging the rights of others - i.e. If Straights can get marraige rights, Gays should be able to also.

2) The Government may not force religious insitutions to enforce their definiton of marriage - i.e. If Baptists don't want to marry gays in their church, that's their business.

Keeps Legality with the government and "morality" with the church.

[Ms. Toad]

18. Your second point is exactly how the law treats marriage,

The right has twisted the issue, so that even people in this forum seem to think that the state sets the rules for religious marriages, rather than granting an exemption to religious entities that permit their sacramental marriages to be recognized by the law - even if they do not conform to the legal ceremonial standards.

I remember four years ago when I was yelled at by the anti-DOMA folks in Ohio because I have always referred to my religious marriage as a marriage - they insisted that I was not married because marriage was purely a legal status and that I was hurting the cause by using that word with respect to our relationship - which is a marriage in the eyes of my faith community even though it is not recognized by law. (We meet the ceremonial exception, but even sacramental marriages cannot be recognized at law unless we are a legally eligible couple.)

It has only been in the last year or a bit longer that the right reframed the issue (which too many of us on the left have swallowed) as marriage being a solely religious entity - and raising the fear that the state might force their churches to marry gay couples. As we have with far too many issues, we have tried to respond to the issue as they have framed it rather than challenging the false framing of the issue.