Gay Marriage On Trial In America -- Watch The Play

[Jingthing]

...Again, nobody here is saying what the U.K. did isn't great. Just that the situation is very different in the U.S. and in the U.S. it IS about same sex MARRIAGE. This won't change. Different paths, different countries.

Agreed - but the "situation" is different BY CHOICE, not because of legal or constitutional differences as you continue to insist. "it IS about same sex MARRIAGE" because that is what those involved have MADE it about, and if that means that American gays have to wait longer for the rights that others already have they only have themselves to blame.

I thought that's what you think. You're wrong. You still fail to grasp to legal aspects at the federal level in the American system.

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Read more: A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts — Infoplease.com http://www.infopleas...l#ixzz1oXsTju00

Edited March 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

...Strategy wise, the "retarded right", once seeing what happened in Massachusetts, rushed off to the electorate and changed every state constitution it could to make marriage only between and man and a woman. ...

Much the same thing happened in the UK, actually. Marriage between same-sex couples was only banned in England and Wales in 1971(and in 1973 any same-sex marriages already made were made void), Scotland in 1977 and Northern Ireland in 2003.

You mean that same-sex marriages were conducted before those dates?

I've never heard of any, although as far as I can see they weren't technically illegal. Maybe changing the law in 1973 means that there had been some ... interesting thought ...

[Ijustwannateach]

..There's no national definition of marriage, for example, so the federal government can't speak on behalf of all 50 states- the best they can do is say: 'This couple is legally married in the state of XX, so we have to call them married and therefore if our treaty with you (the foreign nation) requires YOU to respect our contracts, you have to say they're married, too!'

.... Things were simpler in the UK, Canada, etc., because the rules were national- so when one court found 'for' gay marriage at a high enough level, or when a law was enacted in parliament, it affected everyone.

Sorry, but that's not correct.

England and Wales are governed by the same legislation, but Scotland and Northern Ireland are not - the laws for Civil Partnerships have always been different (residence requirements, waiting and registration periods, etc) but recent legislation in England and Wales (the Equality Act of 2010) does not yet apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, and Scotland has already held its consultation on same-sex marriage, including in a religious context. The Isle of Man and Jersey only legislated for Civil Partnerships last year and this year, respectively, and Guernsey plans to review it in 2013; none of the seventeen British Overseas Territories (the Falklands, Gibraltar, etc) have approved it and the Cayman Islands have amended their marriage laws to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

... and there are no international treaties obliging any country to respect any "foreign nation"'s laws on gay marriages and to accept them as being "married, too!" - some countries do if they have similar legislation (gay marriage / civil partnership) themselves, under their own laws and terminology, others do even if they do not allow/recognize gay marriage for their own citizens, but no nation is obliged to do so.

With all due respect to tiny spots on the map like the Cayman Islands, I don't think your portrayal of the UK in respect to marriage/civil partnerships is significantly different from mine, from a layman's point of view looking roughly at 'the general position of the UK on the issue with some slight variations' (this is, legally speaking, a layman's forum). Of course, if I wanted to reach a similar level of pointlessness, I could have listed all 50 states and their entire recent history on the subject, along with their special historical contingencies, but it was a given that this was a relatively informal discussion (to everyone but you). To put the matter in perspective, no other person from that nation with whom I have had such a discussion in person or online has ever indicated their knowledge of the exceptions to me- hinting that, in *normal* discourse on 'the general position of the UK', it isn't an issue.

As for marriage as it crosses borders, I am willing to bet that there is some reason that people remain legally married from one country to another that is a bit stronger than 'the nice people told us they were married.' Whether it is called a treaty, an agreement, an armistice, gentlemen's word of honour, or whatever technical term, I don't give a flying patootie and neither does anyone else. I'm sure you know whatever the jargon is legally and we are all doomed to hear about it. Alas, Bartleby; oh, humanity.

In any case, this thread is mainly about the US and further discussion of the minutiae of my lack of intimate technical knowledge of the tiniest details of the British civil partnership rules by you is now deemed off-topic. If someone else has a specific question about the fine print in those regulations pertaining to this topic (which is mainly about the US) then feel free to indulge yourself.

[LeCharivari]

...Again, nobody here is saying what the U.K. did isn't great. Just that the situation is very different in the U.S. and in the U.S. it IS about same sex MARRIAGE. This won't change. Different paths, different countries.

Agreed - but the "situation" is different BY CHOICE, not because of legal or constitutional differences as you continue to insist. "it IS about same sex MARRIAGE" because that is what those involved have MADE it about, and if that means that American gays have to wait longer for the rights that others already have they only have themselves to blame.

]I thought that's what you think. You're wrong. You still fail to grasp to legal aspects at the federal level in the American system.

Please leave the U.S. situation to Americans. Thank you very much.

Well, a number of Americans would disagree with your view, including those leading the gay marriage movement in the US.

That includes Evan Wolfson, founder of the Freedom to Marry movement; Ian Ayres, Professor at Yale Law, who lists over 1,300 differences between proposed federal Civil Union Rights and marriage rights but never argues as you do that these differences cannot also be accorded to civil unions; and Theodore Olsen, former Solicitor General and attorney in the Perry vs Schwarzenegger case.

Maybe you should read (or listen to) Ted Olsen's opening statement in the Proposition 8 trial a little more closely:

.... the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union.

If you (and by that I mean gay Americans generally) want to make it an "all or nothing" argument, that's your privilege but please don't try to say that you had no option as its all about legalities and technicalities - its not. You (American gays generally, or at least those who claim to represent them) CHOSE to go down that path.

[Jingthing]

You choose not to understand.

[LeCharivari]

You choose not to understand.

That's always a possibility for any of us - but on the other hand, and because gays in the the UK chose a different path, I've already got what many gay Americans want to have and my Thai Civil Partner's also got a nice index-linked pension in the event of my demise (which some would probably hope he will collect sooner rater than later).

[Jingthing]

You choose not to understand.

That's always a possibility for any of us - but on the other hand, and because gays in the the UK chose a different path, I've already got what many gay Americans want to have and my Thai Civil Partner's also got a nice index-linked pension in the event of my demise (which some would probably hope he will collect sooner rater than later).

You're gloating now and it's tiresome. Isn't it clear this thread is about U.S. same sex marriage rights? Are you going to rub this in (your point which is based on stubborn denial of the reality of the U.S. legal system) every time the subject of U.S. marriage rights comes up? You've made your same specious point 100 times already. We got it (misguided as it is). Edited March 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

LeC: I thank you for the quote from Olson regarding the second class status of civil partnerships in the US as it makes those insisting on same sex marriage's position better understood. '.... the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union."

In trying to reach an accomodation with the majority of the RR who generally are backed by faith based institutions a few years ago, I advanced the notion that a political, rather than a legal solution, to the conflict between pro and anti same sex marriage would be to remove the word marriage from the thousands of laws using that word and replacing it with civil partnerships or unions.

Then, the government would be treating everyone equally when it came to recognizing the institution of what has been called marriage historically. Under such an approach, all persons desiring to bond, would go to the government to get a civil partnership or union license and then proceed to a church or judge or whomever the government decreed could solemnize a civil partnership union and have a ceremony which could be called a marriage by that church. I am not sure straights would welcome this approach as the discussion would then be "were you married in a church or unionized by a judge. Likewise, under this approach, straights would get to share the "feeling" now felt by gays, when the word marriage is denied them in referring to their union.

Since designated civil authorities are granted the power to "marry" people outside of a church's jurisdiction, are they not really just performing a "union" ceremony anyway. Even today, such a union by a secular government official is called a marriage ceremony.

Clearly, England is the mother country of the US and many of our common law legal issues came from England originally, so the systems are very similar. However, peerages are present today in England and abhorred in the US, who broke away from mother England due in part to the inequality in English society at that time and so it is not surprising that a gay citizen of the UK could abide by having his "union" relationship called something different, separate and apart, from the term granted to men and women, while most gay people from the US can't abide by such discrimination, even if it is discrimination by word and not deed.

The US courts do permit discrimination if there is a rational basis for such government action. Age based discrimination in operating motor vehicles is one example. However, as the Prop 8 trial and appellate court decision have resoundingly emphasized, there is no rational basis for requiring a same sex couple to be treated differently than men and women when it comes to their unions. by segregating them to a separate law, rule and regulation than straights.

Edited March 8, 2012 by ProThaiExpat

[LeCharivari]

PTE, what a breath of fresh air - an American who is genuinely informed not only about what the actual legal and political position is in the US, as well as the situation elsewhere, but who takes the time to read others' posts and to comment on them rationally rather than the more common argumentum ad hominem, ad populum or ad fabricatum, or the idea that they are the only one permitted to repeat the same ill-informed views time after time ad nauseam.

I agree with what you have said, but even though I accept that the discrimination between Civil Partnerships/Unions and Marriages may be abhorred more in the USA than in the UK and elsewhere, it remains that those pushing for Gay Marriage in the US have chosen that path and that they had the option of going for the far more generally acceptable Civil Unions first, with equal rights, and then progressing steadily to full Marriage rights later. As you suggest that one option would have been " to remove the word marriage from the thousands of laws using that word and replacing it with civil partnerships or unions" so an equally simple option affording equal rights would have been to retain the word marriage and add "or Civil Unions". That would have solved the problem of the 1,000 + legal differences between Civil Unions and Marriages, ensured equal rights in law, and been acceptable to far more of the "RR". Rather than one giant leap it would have been the first of a series of far more acceptable and gradual steps (much as is happening in the UK) and it would probably already have taken place.

I think you may be crediting the British with rather more tolerance of discrimination (and the Americans with rather less) than they deserve. Peerages are no longer taken particularly seriously in the UK (except by those who have them!) and in the House of Lords, which in many ways plays a similar role to your Supreme Court but with 800 members instead of 9, only a selected 90 are hereditary peers - and I mean a similar role in terms of the UK having Parliamentary Sovereignty rather than Judicial Review, as you do, over interpreting the Constitution rather than performing a specifically judicial role, as they did until 2009 when the Supreme Court of the UK took over that role.

I think that the biggest difference in the tolerance of discrimination between the UK and the USA is that in the UK attitudes to discrimination in the UK don't vary that much across social, ethnic and cultural groups, while in the USA discrimination is far more polarised and extreme in certain groups in a way that would never be accepted (at least openly) in the UK.

Thanks again for your posts, which I enjoy reading - I also have to admit to some bias about Civil Partnerships and Marriage, as I tend to be a bit of a traditionalist in some ways and I also like to keep things simple, so I find it far simpler to introduce my partner as "my Partner", when necessary, rather than search for some alternative to husband or wife.

[Jingthing]

He still doesn't get it how massively impractical his idea is for the U.S (considering not only the THOUSANDS of laws but also the prickly issue in the U.S. of states rights vs. federal laws) as has been explained ad nauseum. Believe it or not, as slow as it is going (things like this always go slow in the U.S.) the marriage thing will be quicker! But he will never believe it because he can't accept that different countries have very different situations. Believe what you want -- you're wrong. We didn't choose slow. We are doing it the way it needs to be done in the U.S.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

... As for marriage as it crosses borders, I am willing to bet that there is some reason that people remain legally married from one country to another that is a bit stronger than 'the nice people told us they were married.' Whether it is called a treaty, an agreement, an armistice, gentlemen's word of honour, or whatever technical term, I don't give a flying patootie and neither does anyone else. I'm sure you know whatever the jargon is legally and we are all doomed to hear about it. Alas, Bartleby; oh, humanity. ...

Although I am flattered that you would think I "know whatever the jargon is legally", IJWT,you appear to have missed my point, or I yours - two countries separated by a common language again, possibly.

I have no problem at all with your use of the term "treaty" or "contract" or even "an agreement, an armistice, gentlemen's word of honour, or whatever technical term" you choose.

My point was simply that there are no such agreements, etc.

Marital rights, immigration, settlement and visas, and all laws relating to marriage depend solely on the laws of the country you are in not the country you are from and that applies equally to “traditional” marriage, civil marriage, religious marriage, gay marriage, mixed marriage, arranged marriage, polygamy, polyandry, civil unions, civil partnerships, de-facto relationships, etc, etc.

A US state registered civil union is already recognised as a marriage or civil partnership/union in countries which recognise gay marriages or civil partnerships/unions and even in some countries which don’t, such as Australia where it is considered proof of a de-facto relationship at federal level (or gay marriage at state level where recognised), with immigration and visa rights, etc, while it is not recognised in the majority of countries any more than gay marriage is (at least for the time-being).

The idea that "'This couple is legally married in the state of XX, so we have to call them married and therefore if our treaty with you (the foreign nation) requires YOU to respect our contracts, you have to say they're married, too!'", so making marriage more binding on a "foreign nation" than Civil Partnerships/Unions, is not a valid one as it is incorrect.

Edited March 9, 2012 by LeCharivari

[ProThaiExpat]

LeC: The incremental approach to gay marriage in some US States, including California has been tried and yet, only after a couple of years, gay marriage is again an overriding consideration to those who accepted the second class status of civil partnerships.

I do think that a subtext of the incremental approach may have some merit in the political sense as the public may grow more accustomed to gay people coupling legally in their state, however, the gays who have accepted civil partnerships find they are not acceptable even when the law is written to guarantee all rights of marriage.

California has had civil partnerships with all equal rights of marriage for something like ten years and yet the legislature chose to enact marriage equality laws, as I have said previously, as the demand seems to be there. Had the current Governor been in place at that time, we would not have a Prop 8 trial, appeal and the play.

Your comment regarding Australia is interesting as I have been traveling yearly to Australia with my partner and visas have been forthcoming without difficulty even though he is of the age where Thai men are accused of trying to get into the US and Australia to overstay and work.

DIAC is governed by a law the last couple of years that requires them to treat same sex partners equally with opposite sex couples and they do seem to be able to distinguish between straight couples of short duration by limiting their visas to a few and then requiring fiance status and marriage thereafter, while as to this gay couple, since marriage is yet to be permitted, visas are not withheld. Of course we check the "de facto" box on the application.

[Jingthing]

The relevant pages: 3 through 6

This is about the U.S. It is NOT about the U.K. --

In short, civil unions or domestic partnerships are not separate but equal — they are separate and

unequal. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesn’t work.

http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC_Foundation_Answers_to_Questions_About_Marriage_Equality_2009.pdf

[Jingthing]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to watch a two-hour video. Can you summarize?

I have the feeling it's just another pro/contra debate.

You really should watch it!

It's a dramatization of the historic California case (mostly literally from the transcript) that will likely be the root of the eventual U.S. supreme court case. It uses a condensation of the key arguments in the case paralleled with a personal drama of some of the participants. The actors are mostly movie stars of well regard. The (heterosexual) attorneys representing the pro-gay equality side, Ted Olson (politically conservative) and David Boies are considered the leading American lawyers alive today. The great hope is that before long they can make their arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

We put fear and ignorance on trial and fear and ignorance ... LOST.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to watch a two-hour video. Can you summarize?

I have the feeling it's just another pro/contra debate.

You really should watch it!

It's a dramatization of the historic California case (mostly literally from the transcript) that will likely be the root of the eventual U.S. supreme court case. It uses a condensation of the key arguments in the case paralleled with a personal drama of some of the participants. The actors are mostly movie stars of well regard. The (heterosexual) attorneys representing the pro-gay equality side, Ted Olson (politically conservative) and David Boies are considered the leading American lawyers alive today. The great hope is that before long they can make their arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

We put fear and ignorance on trial and fear and ignorance ... LOST.

Interesting - thanks for the synopsis. I might watch it tomorrow.

[LeCharivari]

....the gays who have accepted civil partnerships find they are not acceptable even when the law is written to guarantee all rights of marriage....

"Not acceptable" to whom?

... and if the law is written to guarantee all rights of marriage but those rights are still refused then what's to stop those same rights being refused even when the law changes civil unions to (gay) marriages?

Your comment regarding Australia is interesting as I have been traveling yearly to Australia with my partner and visas have been forthcoming without difficulty even though he is of the age where Thai men are accused of trying to get into the US and Australia to overstay and work.

DIAC is governed by a law the last couple of years that requires them to treat same sex partners equally with opposite sex couples and they do seem to be able to distinguish between straight couples of short duration by limiting their visas to a few and then requiring fiance status and marriage thereafter, while as to this gay couple, since marriage is yet to be permitted, visas are not withheld. Of course we check the "de facto" box on the application.

Hence my point that "marriage as it crosses borders" depends solely on the laws of the country you are in, not from. If you have some sort of registered relationship with your partner, whether its a US state civil union or a British Civil Partnership, then DIAC recognise that even though they don't yet recognise gay marriage as such in any guise. In my case, as I have both British and Australian nationality, they accept our British Civil Partnership as proof that he has a de facto marriage with an Australian under Australian law, and when/if Australia recognises gay marriage as their final step on the way to gay marital rights, then our British Civil Partnership will be recognised as an Australian marriage. I can't help wondering, even when the USA finally approves "gay marriage", whether as a Thai national they will be as willing to recognise his marital "rights" as Australia is and whether he will be granted a visa as easily (although by that stage he may no longer be "of the age where Thai men are accused of trying to get into the US .... to overstay and work"!).

What I find quite interesting, accepting that constitutionally things are very different in the US and the UK, is that things are actually surprisingly similar between Australia and the US, with the Australian and US Federal systems and federal/state laws in the US and federal/state and territory laws in Australia. Australia also amended its Marriage Act, in 2004, to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman (and that any foreign registered same-sex marriage was not recognised as a marriage in Australia). Since then, though, although the progress to actual gay marriage has been as slow as it has in the States, the progress towards gay marriage rights has been considerably more in Australia, with de-facto gay couples already having very similar rights to married couples at both state and federal level.

Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey .....

[Jingthing]

Again, politically what you are suggesting that the U.S.A. could have done, similar to Australia, in actually, the U.S.A. most definitely COULD NOT have done. The votes in the federal bodies are simply not even close to being there for that. Going for real equality in the supreme court is the obvious path forward.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

You have misunderstood me again, JT.

I'm not saying whether the votes are there or not - I'm simply saying that legislation for civil unions was an option that could have been tried rather than apparently going for a loophole in a 200 year old constitution, written at a time when "gay marriage" was a term that would have been meaningless (or heresy). Just because it may not have succeeded does not rule it out as an option.

The referenda actually indicate that the votes may well be there IF it was civil unions on the table, not gay marriage.

[Jingthing]

You have misunderstood me again, JT.

I'm not saying whether the votes are there or not - I'm simply saying that legislation for civil unions was an option that could have been tried rather than apparently going for a loophole in a 200 year old constitution, written at a time when "gay marriage" was a term that would have been meaningless (or heresy). Just because it may not have succeeded does not rule it out as an option.

The referenda actually indicate that the votes may well be there IF it was civil unions on the table, not gay marriage.

My feeling is that you are still gloating that you've got something Americans don't have, and you are blaming Americans for a stupid strategy. You are wrong. In reality, the strategy is working very well, and most informed analysts are convinced we will win, and when we win, we win complete equality at the federal level in one clean sweep. You cite one referendum in ONE liberal state. Hint: there are FIFTY American states, many of them are hopelessly redneck with no hope of ever changing. You simply do not have the first clue about the reality of American politics and yet you have the nerve to lecture strategists who are massively more informed than you are. It's offensive and disrespectful to an important civil rights struggle in America.

http://www.whymarria.../just-the-facts

So do you think factions like this which represent 30 to 40 percent of Americans and the majority in many states would support "civil unions" when they oppose "civil same sex marriage"? Totally hopeless. They never will. A waste of time and political capital to even try.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

......you have the nerve to lecture strategists who are massively more informed than you are. ...

I didn't realise any of those strategists were posting here or reading my remarks, JT.

My mistake ....

[Jingthing]

......you have the nerve to lecture strategists who are massively more informed than you are. ...

I didn't realise any of those strategists were posting here or reading my remarks, JT.

My mistake ....

I support those strategists. I support going for full equality, not only because it is the right thing to do and yes it is the AMERICAN thing to do. (No reason for you ever to UNDERSTAND that.) It also the most logical way given the structure of the U.S. government. My reaction to you is from your long pattern of yes, obviously gloating about what you've got, and insulting Americans for being too demanding.

[ProThaiExpat]

Perhaps there is hope for some Republican legislators, as this article demonstrates. Log Cabin Republicans is the gay group within the Republican Party that won a major federal court decision against DADT at the trial level. Perhaps gays should consider supporting moderate Republicans who show, by their voting record that they are not RR's. From the Advocate News Site:

Marriage Equality

By Lucas Grindley and Andrew Harmon

John Lynch, David Bates

A Republican-led effort to repeal marriage equality in New Hampshire decisively failed today. Lawmakers voted against the repeal, against replacing marriage with civil unions, and against putting marriage rights up to a voter referendum.

Just to ensure the message was clear, Republican representative Seth Cohn, who supports marriage equality, proposed banning marriage between left-handed people. That didn't pass either.

The final vote was 211-116 to kill a bill that would have rescinded marriage equality in the state, and the votes against the repeal included several Republicans, such as Cohn, who broke with their party.

Gov. John Lynch signed marriage equality legislation in 2009 after it narrowly passed through the legislature, and he has promised to veto any effort to repeal the law. It would have needed to pass through both Republican-led chambers before reaching his desk.

But the bill, introduced by state representative David Bates, couldn't muster the votes to pass the House, let alone come anywhere near the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

Bates had also sought a referendum but lost that vote 162-188. Polling on the issue showed that a solid majority of New Hampshire residents opposed rolling back marriage rights for gay residents. And marriage supporters argued that it was their role, not voters', to make a decision on repeal.

It wasn't the first time marriage opponents had tried to put the question on a ballot. House members voted against a similar initiative in 2010, failing to reach the 60% of members' votes to add the initiative to the ballot.

"Our opponents tried to abuse the 2010 Republican legislative sweep in New Hampshire to repeal the popular law," said Marc Solomon, Freedom to Marry’s national campaign director. "What they didn’t count on was the fact that the freedom to marry is becoming a bipartisan value, as resoundingly reflected in today’s vote."

[Jingthing]

There are hardly any "moderate" republicans running for offices anymore. Really, they represent a tiny percentage of the hate party. Yes there are some exceptions. One of the lawyers in the case in the O.P. represented Bush in the supreme court Bush vs. Gore case.

[ProThaiExpat]

JT: The Supreme Court just issued two opinions regarding the right of an accused to COMPETENT counsel even during plea bargaining. Justice Kennedy crossed over to the progressive side and the decisions were 5-4 as it was in the prior gay cases I referred in an earlier post.

This is the guy we are counting on to do the same thing when gay marriage comes to them.

What shocks me and gives credence to your post that there are few moderate Republicans out there, is the fact that four Supreme Court Justices could reason that a plea bargain is not a trial on the merits of the case and thus no constitutional rights are involved. Since more than 90 percent of all criminal cases in the US are plea bargained, accused citizens rights are more affected by plea bargains than trials and the need for legal advice before agreeing or refusing to a plea bargain presented by a lawyer/prosecutor in what is clearly a adversarial proceeding seems a slam dunk to me but not to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and the other one.

[LeCharivari]

......you have the nerve to lecture strategists who are massively more informed than you are. ...

I didn't realise any of those strategists were posting here or reading my remarks, JT.

My mistake ....

I support those strategists. I support going for full equality, not only because it is the right thing to do and yes it is the AMERICAN thing to do. (No reason for you ever to UNDERSTAND that.) It also the most logical way given the structure of the U.S. government. My reaction to you is from your long pattern of yes, obviously gloating about what you've got, and insulting Americans for being too demanding.

What I find a little amusing here is how your view as to why gay marriage is the "ONLY" option available has changed from first being because it is the ONLY option due to the constraints of the American federal legislative system, which you claimed did not allow legislating for civil unions on an equal footing to marriage, to now being the ONLY option because too many Americans "hate" gays and any such legislation would never be supported by your elected representatives, making the constitutional argument the only potentially successful option. Quite a weather change there ....

" .... insulting Americans for being too demanding"? No, that's not even remotely my point. I have never singled out "Americans" for criticism "for being too demanding" and I have leveled exactly the same sort of criticism for "being too demanding" at the likes of Peter Tatchell (British, I'm sorry to say) for also rejecting Civil Partnerships as unacceptable and the Anjaree Foundation / Sexual Diversity Network (both Thai) for making gay rights legislation which otherwise would almost certainly have been past, amending the Thai Constitution in 2007/8, too "demanding" and far reaching.

"the AMERICAN thing to do" - not sure about that one. "the AMERICAN thing to do" because according to you most Americans disagree with it? "the AMERICAN thing to do" because its the way most likely to upset most people? I don't want to get into any sort of jingoistic argument about it here, as I don't see it as being relevant, so I think its best to just ignore that one.

[Jingthing]

Simply take the time to actually WATCH the video in the O.P. and it will be crystal clear why I called going for full equality as the "American" thing to do. But you won't, will you? Instead just a bunch of noise motivated by I can't really imagine.

Again, your attitude that American gays are to blame for not getting our civil rights as yes is bloody offensive.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

JT & LeC: This article from the NY Times this morning surprised me as to the breadth and seriousness of those helping to finance the fundamental change in civil rights for gays in the US. The prominent Republicans helping make the change suggests that there are moderate Republicans around, who perhaps have the bigger burden of moderating their RRs.

The last paragraph mentions the OP Prop 8 production.

Gay Marriage Effort Attracts a Novel Group of Donors

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and BROOKS BARNES

LOS ANGELES — On a warm Friday afternoon three years ago, Rob Reiner, the director, arrived for lunch at the Beverly Hills estate of David Geffen, the entertainment mogul. Mr. Reiner and his political adviser, Chad H. Griffin, had spent six months drafting an ambitious legal campaign aimed at persuading the United States Supreme Court to establish a constitutional right of same-sex marriage.

Enlarge This Image

Chad Batka for The New York Times

David Geffen, the entertainment mogul, wrote a check for $1.5 million to help challenge Proposition 8, a California voter initiative approved in 2008 banning same-sex marriage.

Mr. Reiner, joined by Mr. Griffin and Mr. Reiner’s wife, Michele, told Mr. Geffen they would need $3 million to challenge Proposition 8, a California voter initiative approved the previous November banning same-sex marriage. He informed Mr. Geffen that they had recruited two renowned lawyers, David Boies, a Democrat, and Theodore B. Olson, a Republican, to argue the case.

“Our feeling is not to go state by state,” Mr. Reiner said. “Our strategy is to make this wind up in the United States Supreme Court and have this a settled issue for all time.”

Mr. Geffen asked few questions as they sat in the dining room off his screening room, with a sweeping view down his sculptured estate. He agreed before the dessert arrived to raise the money. “I said I’d give them half the money and raise the other half,” Mr. Geffen recounted. Mr. Geffen wrote a check for $1.5 million and asked Steve Bing, a friend and producer, to make up the rest.

That lunch was a milestone in the dramatic evolution of a behind-the-scenes fund-raising network whose goal is to legalize same-sex marriage from coast to coast. This emerging group of donors is not quite like any other fund-raising network that has supported gay-related issues over the past 40 years. They come from Hollywood, yes, but also from Wall Street and Washington and the corporate world; there are Republicans as well as Democrats; and perhaps most strikingly, long-time gay organizers said, there has been an influx of contributions from straight donors unlike anything they have seen before.

Mr. Griffin, who this month was named president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay advocacy group, recounted being at a September 2010 fund-raiser for the Proposition 8 legal fund at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in New York, organized by, among others, Wall Street financiers and the former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

“I knew literally no one in the room,” said Mr. Griffin, whose fund-raising activities on behalf of the Obama campaign helped earn him a seat at President Obama’s table at the state dinner at the White House last week. “It was a very bizarre moment for me. It was really a turning point.”

Money does not always translate into political success, of course. While the network has bankrolled the legal case that led two courts to throw out Proposition 8 and also helped power a same-sex marriage bill to law in New York State, tough battles may lie ahead with marriage initiatives on five state ballots this year: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina and Washington State.

And opponents say that while they might be outmatched financially — the National Organization for Marriage said it had an annual budget of about $20 million, and estimates that the combined money being spent in support of same-sex marriage is many times that — they have a more saleable message. Brian S. Brown, the president of the organization, said voters had opposed same-sex marriage in the 30 times the question has been on a ballot since 2000.

“We know what we have to do to win,” he said. “We have shown we did not need to match them dollar for dollar. I would love to. But we’ve won without doing that.”

The seed money collected at the Geffen home — part of millions of dollars that have flown into campaigns to finance court battles, initiative efforts and the campaigns of sympathetic state lawmakers — was an early indicator of the changing donor network. Mr. Geffen is gay; Mr. Bing is straight. Mr. Bing is known as a big contributor to political causes, but associates said this was only the second time he had ever made a major contribution to a gay-related cause.

The Republican support for the effort largely began after Mr. Olson, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush, lent it his name. It accelerated with the fund-raising role of Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee and of Mr. Bush’s re-election campaign, who announced he is gay 18 months ago and has since helped raise close to $3 million by fishing in waters where gay organizers had rarely gone before.

(Page 2 of 2)

As surprising — and encouraging — to organizers of the movement is the Wall Street names added to their roster. Prominent among them is Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager who is straight and chairman of the conservative Manhattan Institute. He has donated more than $8 million to various same-sex marriage efforts, in states including California, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Oregon, much of it since 2007.

“It’s become something that gradually people like myself weren’t afraid to fund, weren’t afraid to speak out on,” Mr. Singer said in an interview. “I’m somebody who is philosophically very conservative, and on this issue I thought that this really was important on the basis of liberty and actual family stability.”

The New York fund-raiser was sponsored by Mr. Singer and Mr. Mehlman, among others, and drew a crowd that included Henry R. Kravis, a private equity investor; Daniel S. Loeb, a hedge fund manager; Lewis M. Eisenberg, a former finance chairman for the Republican National Committee; and Steve Schmidt, who managed the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain.

“I try to look for places where there is both a financial and political angle,” Mr. Mehlman said. “So the fact that we were able to get prominent Republicans and businesspeople, some of whom were involved before but others who are new, helped in the effort both financially and politically.”

This is on top of a network of wealthy gay men and women who have a history of giving money to philanthropic causes and in recent years have shifted much of their effort to same-sex marriage.

Tim Gill, a billionaire software developer from Colorado, who is gay, has assembled a network that has been likened to a gay version of Emily’s List, which supports female candidates. Mr. Gill’s foundations have distributed over $235 million to gay-related causes, with much going to promote same-sex marriage, his advisers said.

“My husband and I are legally married in some states but obviously not married in others, so that’s a pretty big focus,” Mr. Gill said.

David Bohnett, a co-founder of GeoCities and a gay philanthropist here, has donated more than $4 million over the past 10 years to candidates and organizations support same-sex marriage, his advisers said.

And this week, Freedom to Marry, a group that advocates same-sex marriage, announced on Thursday a $3 million fund-raising campaign aimed at winning the five ballot initiatives and pushing the New Jersey Legislature to override the veto by Gov. Chris Christie of a same-sex bill, said Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom to Marry.

The first $250,0o0 is coming from Chris Hughes, a founder of Facebook, and his fiancé, Sean Eldridge. “Chris and I certainly prioritize in our contributing,” Mr. Eldridge said. “Marriage is a top priority.”

Mr. Brown said the same-sex-marriage cause had been greatly helped by people like Mr. Hughes. “A couple of billionaires go a long way,” he said. But Mr. Wolfson said the “vast majority” of donations came from small donors.

The broadening of the coalition also reflects a concerted effort by backers of same-sex marriage to put straight and Republican supporters out front. “Prominent straight people from entertainment were crucial,” said Dustin Lance Black, an Oscar-winning screenwriter who wrote “8,” a play re-enacting the courtroom challenge to Proposition 8. “We wanted people who were not the usual suspects.”

A reading of Mr. Black’s play here, which raised more than $2 million, was notable for the participation of screen idol-type American actors like George Clooney and Brad Pitt, who historically would have steered clear this kind of production. Norman Lear, the television producer, wrote a $100,000 check even before Mr. Geffen had made his commitment. “It was the right moment and the right way to go,” he said.