StarWright, Star Bright

Thoughts, cosmic and mundane
Editor’s Pick
MAY 9, 2012 12:31PM

Conservatives Win Gay Battle, Lose Gay War

Rate: 13 Flag

 

images 

Yesterday, North Carolina voted to enshrine discrimination against gays and lesbians in its state constitution. Amendment One, banning gay marriage, passed with the approval of 59% of voters.

Even so, anti-gay conservatives are losing. They are losing badly. They are losing so badly that they have to resort to state constitutional amendments in order to stem their losing tide of losing loss.

Consider demographics. Young people are in favor of gay marriage by a margin of two-to-one. Young people are the future. Conservatives have lost the future.

Consider culture. I can remember a time when there were no gay characters on TV. Then there was Will and Grace. And now, from Modern Family to Glee, positive gay characters are no cause for comment. (Well, in the case of Glee, gay characters which are no more screwed up than the straight characters.) 

Conservatives have lost the culture. And they know it.

Consider the country as a whole. According to nationwide polls, the majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. Here is one by Gallup , which shows not only present day attitudes, but a quite obvious long range trend, one which tracks closely with the aforementioned cultural shifts.

These state constitutional amendments are a rear guard effort to fend off impending defeat. Fingers in the dike.

Dear conservative reader, do you think that this is a way for a liberal socialist to comfort himself? It is. It also happens to be true. And based on long range trends, one day, you may well find yourself on my side.

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
When will people get that it's about equality and not about imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of us? How can we call ourselves a democracy when bigoted mobs are allowed to rule?
Ms. Wilson, it's never been about equality. It's about them imposing beliefs - not even specifically religious, but harsh beliefs - on people they hate. That hatred has been fanned continually and diligently by Republicans and the right wing since the early 1970's, and it's hatred against many sexual, racial and religious groups.

President Obama has thrown a bouquet to gays and lesbians who want marriage, as perhaps the last remembered act of his Presidency. I believe he did this, not out of "political advantage" (there is none for him) or out of the goodness of his heart (I leave it up to others to decide how good his heart is) but because he wants to make a clear distinction between his Presidency, and the one of the robotic rich bastard who will win the next election.
Yes, the culture wars. I've been battling them for over 20 years now. The sedentary, largely ignorant, often lazy, simpleton, easily controlled, bigoted, masses of Americans that make up large swaths of population demographics. Defeating them...gradually overtaking their reign of terror and hold over the American psyche' and government. It's largely a battle of the mind, and will...but often it becomes a battle of staring down and facing off with the bully. I've been making my own strides against bullies in my own community and even family. What a colossal endeavor this has been. Keep fighting!
Nawth Cya-lahhna goin' down fahht'n', dumb ol' fahhts.
I don't understand the hatred and bigotry. It is a basic human right to provide for your family. I have plenty of happily together gay friends with children yet they lack the basic benefits that same-sex couples (hmmm...50% divorce rate) have. What is the problem here? Why do we care so much about other people's sexuality? Since when have we the straights became the moral compass? When there is tons of cheating, beating and what have you. I believe it is a basic human right. yes perhaps Obama had to take sides. But the big issue is can we continue to allow bigotry and discrimination against people just due to their sexual orientation? No.
Were it up to the Conservatives, one would not be able to vote if not a white male of property. Now, we are still fighting this ugly paradigm:
the companies are dump trucking cash into the CPAC coffers has taken this full circle.
We can not let them win: please DO NOT stay home this November...
Were it up to the Conservatives, one would not be able to vote if not a white male of property. Now, we are still fighting this ugly paradigm:
the companies are dump trucking cash into the CPAC coffers has taken this full circle.
We can not let them win: please DO NOT stay home this November...
The state went to Obama in 2008 so obviously it's not all Republicans driving this. Even in California, which always goes Democratic, gay marriage was voted down. In fact, in every state where there has been a choice, gay marriage was voted down.

It might be easy to think its Republicans but it's not and until you understand that you'll never understand the "why."
Who's imposing their views on whom? What I see are bigoted mobs of radical gays forcing others to accept their way of life and point of view. And kids are just too stupid to know when they're cutting their own throats; i.e. ecstasy, meth & gay marriage. Conservatives haven't lost the culture, the culture is just lost.
Johnny Noir : That is like saying that legalizing interracial marriage was bigoted because you have a mob of bigoted mixed couples demanding that you accept their way of life and point of view.
Also, I must say : Finally! Someone to argue *against*!
Harrison writes: "It might be easy to think its Republicans but it's not and until you understand that you'll never understand the 'why.'"

The "why" is very simple. Many people, black or white, Democrat or Republican, understand that procreative relationships (or relationships that at least have a procreative orientation) are more important than other kinds of relationships. That fact that male-female sexual relationships can result in children is the reason why marriage has been a heterosexual institution since the beginning of the institution. Institutions shape human behavior, and the institution of marriage helps to shape heterosexual behavior for the sake of children. It has been that way across time, cultures, language groups, and races.

Since time immemorial marriage has been about the special relationship between men and women, a relationship that can only exist between men and women, and that cannot be approximated by two men or two women.

Of course, those on the political left do not agree with that. But rather than simply disagreeing, they have to create an alternative theory in which anyone who disagrees with them is morally defective. Thus the opponents of same-sex marriage are said to "hate" and to be "bigoted." And of course there are a few opponents of same-sex marriage who are bigoted. But in my observation, the great majority are not. They are simply people who fear what may happen when an institution that arose from the reality of human nature and procreation is significantly altered in order to distribute benefits to same-sex partners.

Last year one blogger wrote a piece about the possible legal consequences of same-sex marriage: "So habitual, so ingrained, so natural and intuitive is man-woman marriage that few can conceive what its legal replacement by degendered marriage will entail. In degendered marriage (the only legally recognized form of marriage if marriage is redefined), there is no husband and wife legally speaking, only partner A and partner B, and there is no mother and father legally speaking, only parent A and parent B. All rights, privileges, protections, and expectations that flow from being a wife and mother will be legally flattened and have no legal standing or basis. There will only be “partners” and “parents.”

"There can be no legal distinctions between genders under the new definition of marriage. This will be something new under the sun. Making same sex relationships legally indistinguishable from opposite sex relationships will require this. Society may drift along for a number of years with old habits, but over time plaintiffs, their attorneys, and jurists will be discover, implement, and impose this new reality. The culture will also be nudged along by the new legal reality. Can only one partner in the marriage conceive a child and bear the burdens of pregnancy? That will be legally irrelevant. Can only one partner lactate? That will be legally irrelevant. Different biological clocks? Irrelevant. Hormones that dispose one party to be nurturing towards her own child? Irrelevant. Different economic realities for men and women? Irrelevant.

"And the primary and prevailing definition of child custody will be de facto parenting, since biology will be largely legally irrelevant in marriage. Child C belongs equally to parent A and parent B solely by virtue of the fact that child C is in the household of A and B regardless of blood ties or legal adoption or the lack thereof. Legally, the biological fact that one of the progenitors of the child is not party to the marriage will be irrelevant. Any stigma or legal claims from having a third party involved in the generation of children will have to be eliminated. Motherhood (or fatherhood) will have no legal standing. Only “parenting” will have standing. I am convinced that this will, over time, work to the serious disadvantage of women, their children, and the natural biological family, which in turn will have devastating effects on society as a whole. This brave new world will work to the advantage of the rich, the powerful, and the well-lawyered, which will generally be men and those without the burdens of children (e.g. DINK’s, couples with double income and no kids). It will accelerate the feminization of poverty and the decline in fertility."
mishima666 :

"That fact that male-female sexual relationships can result in children is the reason why marriage has been a heterosexual institution since the beginning of the institution."

What about infertile heterosexual couples? Their union can*NOT* result in children. By your reasoning, those marriages are in fact not legitimate.


"And of course there are a few opponents of same-sex marriage who are bigoted. But in my observation, the great majority are not."

Are you kidding? I spent high school in Alabama, where homophobia is the norm. People there regularly say things like they want gays killed, or "I wouldn't kill one myself, but I wouldn't mind if someone else did."

This is not a minority view among those who oppose homosexuality. It is the norm. And it was not just talk. It was real hate which would have resulted in real violence had any gay person been dumb enough to come out.
Mishima, you are a bigot. I'm actually grateful to you because you show what some of us have to put up with on a daily basis. ie: "I don't hate you, but you are just less. You know your less don't you? Don't you agree you are less?"

No, I don't agree that I am less. No amount of words out of your mouth are going to make me think that I am less.
Straight people don't have a monopoly on hate.
Harrison : But we do have a monopoly on straight! Haha!
No, Harrison Price, you're right. I'm not straight and I'm feeling anything but love for those that are standing between me and the basic civil rights that most of Americans get by just being Americans. Not feeling the love at all.
This is nothing but wanting to redefine a term, marriage. It has nothing about being for or against anyone. Gay marriage is an oxymoron.

You can have any right you want. Pick another term and quit trying to put forth the argument that if you are not if you can't have exactly what you want you are hated. You are not.

I'm fat. I can't change the definition of skinny to include me at 400 pounds. It is what it is. It doesn't mean you hate me because I'm fat.

Quit turning disagreement into hate.
Of course it doesn't bother Gays that the Government is either denying or granting it's approval for your basic human rights.

I support the better idea that Government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Who is the Government to say, "Well okay, you can have a 'Civil Union'..."?

Is that what the benevolent Democrats are doing for you?

Whoop-de-do.

Your reply should be, "Screw you, whatever you say, this is our lives and our business -- butt-out!"

With Government out of the picture, you can marry whoever you want. As for the legalities, people can draw up a legal marriage contract that reflects their individual values.

(We have divorce lawyers -- why not marriage lawyers?)

.
With all the real issues in the world, notably the gay and straight young people being sent to Afghanistan to get shot, why are we wasting time on what gay people do at home. People should do whatever they want so long as they don't scare the horses.
As a lesbian in a long-term relationship (29 years) who has managed to raise three kids who have all turned out straight, I am sick to death of those who think that the only purpose of marriage is procreation and that it was somehow ordained by God. Church marriages ordained by God? Of course? Civil marriages? You've got to be kidding. Those are a creation of the government.

As long as the majority (who according to most recent polls are okay with gay marriage/civil union/etc.) are silent, the bigots will be able to run this country the way they want to. I personally am tired of being silent.

And I'm tired of hearing about how wonderful heterosexual marriage is for kids. At one time, I worked as a children's protective services worker. Families are most dangerous for children's physical and mental health. Families do horrible things to children.

In over 40 years, I have found exactly ONE mother who did not choose her husband/boyfriend/father/grandfather over her children who were being molested by the husband/boyfriend/father/grandfather.
Star writes: "What about infertile heterosexual couples? Their union can*NOT* result in children. By your reasoning, those marriages are in fact not legitimate."

Institutions are defined by the rule, not the exception. While it is true that not all heterosexual marriages end up with children, most do. It would be a terrible invasion of privacy to pry into the lives of individuals in order to ascertain their fertility.

There are are many examples of including or excluding people based on imperfect criteria. For example, many jobs require a college degree, even though it is true that some dopes have degrees and some geniuses don't. Nonetheless, many companies find that it is reasonable to require a degree, and it doesn't mean that they "hate" or are "bigoted" against people who don't have degrees. Likewise, throughout history marriage only included opposite-sex couples, even though not all of those couples would have children.

Julie writes: "Mishima, you are a bigot."

A couple of problems with that. First, I don't care what you call me. I know that for many liberals being called a bigot is the worst possible thing, and calling someone a bigot is the ultimate ad hominem attack. As a social conservative I often have discussions with liberals. So I am quite used to being called a bigot; in fact, I expect it.

Second, it doesn't matter. Whether or not I'm a bigot is irrelevant to the issue. Rather than using personal attacks, you might want to try to address the points I made in my comment, and see how that works for you. I understand that this is an emotional issue for you, and that it must be painful when someone opposes something that is so important to you.

Julie: "No amount of words out of your mouth are going to make me think that I am less."

Of course you're not less. But same-sex relationships are less important than opposite-sex relationships. For example, if all same-sex couples stopped having sex, it wouldn't matter. If all opposite-sex couples stopped having sex, it would mean the end of the human species.

That said, I understand that same-sex relationships are very important to the individuals involved in them. If we want to provide various benefits to people in such relationships, that's fine. But we don't need to redefined marriage in order to do that, nor do we need to maintain the fiction that all sexual relationships are "equal."

Gramma writes: " . . . I am sick to death of those who think that the only purpose of marriage is procreation . . . "

Let me put it this way: if children were not brought into being through sexual intercourse -- if we plucked them off of trees, or whatever -- then there would be no purpose for the social institution of marriage. Aldous Huxley understood this. In his "Brave New World," children are created in test tubes, and only "savages" on the reservation procreate and form permanent pair-bonds. It is human procreation that makes marriage a necessary social institution, even as marriage also serves other purposes.

Gramma: "And I'm tired of hearing about how wonderful heterosexual marriage is for kids."

Marriage is an imperfect institution because people are imperfect. More precisely, when people ignore the values and ideals of marriage, that can do tremendous damage to children.
mishima666 :

"Institutions are defined by the rule, not the exception. While it is true that not all heterosexual marriages end up with children, most do."

Funny how you didn't say that first sentence to begin with. You simply stated that male-female relations are special because they can result in children. No qualifier. You are simply reverse engineering a definition of marriage as carefully as you can in order to exclude gays. The most important thing to you, I can see, if that gays are not included, not children or anything. You are simply using children to exclude gays.

Quite simply, the core of marriage is the relationship between the two people involved. Two people who have decided that their destiny is together, regardless of whether they want children or not. That definition applies to *all* married heterosexual couples. No exceptions. It is one they can *all* apply to their lives. It is therefore the better definition. And if you take the better definition and see if it applies to gay relationships, it in fact does.



" It would be a terrible invasion of privacy to pry into the lives of individuals in order to ascertain their fertility."

Yes, and telling people you can't marry who you love is not an invasion at all.


"There are are many examples of including or excluding people based on imperfect criteria. For example, many jobs require a college degree….t doesn't mean that they "hate" or are "bigoted" against people who don't have degrees."

First, no-one advocates violence against people who don't have college degrees. I venture that most people who do oppose gay marriage do in fact hate gays. From personal experience I know this, a point from my last response that you didn't address.

Second, apples and oranges. A college degree is an imperfect indicator of qualifications. Falling in love is entirely different from applying from a job. Do I really even need to go further and explain this to you?


"Of course you're not less. But same-sex relationships are less important than opposite-sex relationships."

Of course you're not less, Mr. Asian person. But Asian-white relationships are less important than white-white relationships, because those perpetuate the race, while your relationship doesn't perpetuate either race, and in fact creates children whose lives will be more difficult because they won't be accepted by society. Do you really want to harm children?
@hyblaean- Julie

You as an individual aren't less, but a same sex union is less than a heterosexual union in its ability the continue the existence of the species. A homosexual couple and a heterosexual aren't "less" when it comes to screwing in a light bulb, fixing dinner, parallel parking a car. But they don't succeed so well at creating offspring. That is a fact, no? Are they "less" able at creating offspring or not? How's your understanding of biology? How about logic?
Legalizing gay marriage has the same consequence as legalizing rape, which produces society's such as Afghanistan and and Pakistan. If perverts dictates the rules of society, society itself becomes perverted. Why not call for a gay homeland, Garlandia? That's about as practical and productive as a society where homosexuality is considered normal. Many gays have risen to power without gay marriage, in government and religion, and many gay writers such as William S. Burroughs, Tennessee Williams, Jean Genet, Truman capote and Yukio Mishima are cultural icons, without gay marriage being anywhere on the horizon. It's not about whom you love, as heterosexual gold diggers and run-of-the-mill abusers plainly demonstrate. So so whom you love, gay or straight, is completely irrelevant and if that's the foundation of your argument, you have no actual argument. Let the gay marriage issue die like the will-othe-whisp fad that it is. It just shows how sick a society we've become to even think seriously about such a travesty and mockery of all that is healthy, sane and normal. Homosexuality is gut-wrenchingly obscene and nauseating. That's not hate, that's my stomach turning at the mere thought. Some people get violently angry when you viscerally offend their senses. They may not be the brightest but they are simply reacting to their guts churning. Keep homosexuality in the closet and the only people who will care about it are closet-cases. Stop trying to intimidate healthy minded heterosexual or even homosexual people with your harassment, phony charges of harassment, bullying by deviant mobs (gay pride?) or coerced celebrities. No one wants to support something so nasty that groups like NAMBLA get arrested for it and religious clergy practices it in shame and secrecy. Stop trying to impose an agenda of funhouse perversion on the rest of us. You may as well be promoting scatology and necrophilia. Just stop.
And evolve he did. I’m sure it was only coincidence he did it the day after I published my own analysis but it seems to enforce my argument that Biden was just sending up a weather balloon with the bosses consent.

But the ‘evolution is still not complete.  Obama did not endorse marriage equality as a federal matter and never came out and said same-sex marriage is ‘fundamental’ right guaranteed by the Constitution. Arguably he just adopted the same position as Vice President Dick Cheney in 2004 when said he believed marriage equality was a 'states rights' matter (this is the classic segregationist argument btw).

Yes, it’s marriage equality when both Cheney and Obama agree that same-sex couples should be able to legally marry even if they feel the issue is one the states decide democratically. However that does not mean Obama believes there is no Constitutional right to do so. While it’s fair to infer he thinks so Obama is still tap-dancing a bit and continues to speak Ketman.
I’m all for equal rights on MARRIAGE! The idea that there is some religious aspect to marriage is not only totally ignorant of the concept, but offensive on purely reasonable grounds. SEX FOR PROCREATION does not require MARRIAGE. It just requires fucking between a male and female, although, today, not even THAT. And with all the orphans in the world today, I would stand firmly behind a societal impetus towards adoption, GAY parents or not, and towards LESS procreation.

Okay, okay, I have to point this out; “These state constitutional amendments are a rear guard effort to fend off impending defeat. Fingers in the dike.”

Really? REALLY?! “REAR GUARD” and “FINGERS IN THE DIKE”?! C’mon, that’s just too good to miss.
Johnny Noir,

Are you REALLY this dysfunctional, or are you just fucking with people? You write:

“Who's imposing their views on whom? What I see are bigoted mobs of radical gays forcing others to accept their way of life and point of view. And kids are just too stupid to know when they're cutting their own throats; i.e. ecstasy, meth & gay marriage. Conservatives haven't lost the culture, the culture is just lost.”

Really? ,REALLY? DRUGS and MARRIAGE? Really? REALLY? Okay, let’s compare TV and BACTERIA. No, wait …. Let’s compare DOGS and CHEESE! No, wait, …. Let’s compare paramecia and TIME TRAVEL --- yeah, that works! That’s comparable to your comparison, you fucking IDIOT!!!

Saying people can choose is not comparable to saying it is not “equal” or, more importantly, NOT allowed.
Johnny Noir,

People who possess the lack of ability to logically and reasonably process information that YOU possess, which is clearly a large number of North Carolinians, and are allowed to vote, are a threat to democracy and civil society.
Rick Lucke: being gay is obviously a rational and logical choice. Kidding.
J. Noir,

Stupidity is obviously a rational and logical choice?
Being Gay is not a choice, but being a bigoted homophobe is. We have freedom of religion and people are entitled to their religious beliefs, whatever they may be. However, they are NOT entitled to impose their personal religious beliefs on others. The country was founded based on freedom of religion. While we may have a preponderance of Christians, in this country, the establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits the government establishing a religion.

I’ve never understood this concept of a “War on Marriage” pushed by Fox. What does it take away from heterosexuals if homosexuals are allowed to marry? I have a feeling the conservatives are afraid gay people will turn all the straight people (including them) gay. It’s been scientifically proven that homophobes are afraid of their OWN attraction to the same gender. The rights of minority groups should never be decided by public vote.