Gay Rights Advocates (& Women'S Suffrage)

[LeCharivari]

Social change of this kind is SLOW in the USA. But fantastic progress has been made. In the last decade or so, polling has shown overall approval of legal same sex MARRIAGE go from about 20 percent to about 50 percent. Among the younger demographic, the support is much higher. Do the math, darling. Change IS on the horizon.

I know you can't help being sarcastic and dismissive of the American gay civil rights struggle. I find it bizarre and hostile, and only you know what's in your heart. But if you want to worry about a country that is never going to see gay civil rights, worry about countries like Iran, not the good old USA. We're on path as we have always been towards more justice based on our CONSTITUTIONAL principles.

If you're actually interested in how the USA is different (which I doubt) then perhaps you should read up on the history of how American women won the right to vote. And how LONG it took. Would they have won quicker if they had demanded 2/3 the vote?

I also realize you can't help but try to sell the simplistic myth (that interestingly you never hear from Americans) that right now we would have legal same sex civil unions nationwide with all the federal implications as actual marriage if the word marriage had never been brought up. Enjoy the fantasy. It's not real. (JT)

I am not being dismissive of the move for gay rights anywhere, but sometimes I can't help thinking that some of its proponents in a number of countries are so fixated with the "all or nothing" approach that they end up alienating or confusing so many people who might otherwise support them that, despite the best motivation in the world, they end up being their own movements' worst enemies.

In the UK I would put Peter Tatchell firmly in that category: he was strongly against Civil Partnerships on the basis that gays should have not only the same rights as straights but identical rights, including marriage. Fortunately he was sidelined and the rest is history.

In Thailand I would rather more reluctantly put the Anjaree Foundation and the Sexual Diversity Network in that category (reluctantly as I consider that they hardly deserve to be tarred with the same brush as Peter Tatchell). When the Thai constitution was reviewed in 2006/7 the opportunity to include "sexual diversity" as a right under the constitution, including gay marriage, was unfortunately lost because Anjana Suvarnananda and the AF and SDN influenced the amendment so that it included reference to an unspecified "third sex". The amendment was, very unusually, allowed to be debated and voted on twice but it failed both times because the reference was considered both unclear and confusing.

In the USA I seriously doubt if Americans " would have legal same sex civil unions nationwide with all the federal implications as actual marriage if the word marriage had never been brought up" ... "right now", and that is something I have never suggested, but I do think that there is at least a good possibility that they would be considerably further along that road and that they would have considerably more de facto rights than they do now.

As far as women's suffrage is concerned, in the USA it not only took well over 100 years from the time women were first allowed to vote in one state (1790, in New Jersey, until 1807) until they were allowed to vote at federal level (1920, with the 19th amendment) but in complete contrast to the current "gay civil rights struggle" the issue was debated and voted on by elected representatives in the senate, in a democratic manner - not decided on by a handful of hand-picked justices.

Edited May 16, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

We are not willing to wait THAT long, dude! Not 100 years. That's why the model for gay marriage equality is directly modeled on how INTERRACIAL couples won the right to marry NATIONALLY. At the SUPREME COURT level, based on fundamental rights guaranteed by the American constitution. There is absolutely no way to make this argument for equal rights based on civil unions. Because civil unions are something OTHER.

What's so annoying about your line of arguments is how painfully LITERALLY you take every point. The point about women's rights was how SLOW major social change is. Not that the women's vote thing represented the same TACTIC for gay equality.

So where are we now. We agree the US would not have universal civil unions with equality at the federal level. Both us have no idea how long marriage equality will take, but there is a clear path towards the goal. Your idea -- a total mess with ZERO coherence on how that is won at the supreme court level. (It can't actually in my view.) If you think winning that legislatively (universal civil unions) would likely happen any sooner than a BETTER GOAL, 100 percent equality, again you show no understanding of American political realities.

Each country has its own logical path. The US is not the UK. It is not Thailand. It is not Australia. Where you are at is completely out of touch to where the struggle is in America, and we have a clear path towards winning it all. It will be won and it won't be 100 years. So most probably the goal is met sooner, and yet you diss Americans as if they could have something right now, which all evidence suggests we could not.

I also have heard a subtext from you over the months that gays really ARE so different and we are being "uppity" for insisting on 100 percent equality. That is rubbish, sir, total rubbish. 100 percent equality of course always means inclusion in the same institutions as everyone else. Separate but equal does not meet that test.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

For someone who criticises others for it, JT, you seem peculiarly unaware of your own country's history:

"That's why the model for gay marriage equality is directly modeled on how INTERRACIAL couples won the right to marry NATIONALLY. At the SUPREME COURT level, based on fundamental rights guaranteed by the American constitution."

A direct model? Some states never had any laws against interracial marriage, and the majority had legalized inter-racial marriage well before the 1967 Supreme Court Decision. No model at all.

"The point about women's rights was how SLOW major social change is. Not that the women's vote thing represented the same TACTIC for gay equality."

My mistake. I thought your point was "how the USA is different". In terms of "how SLOW major social change is" it was slower than some and quicker than others - not much difference there.

"Your idea -- a total mess with ZERO coherence on how that is won at the supreme court level. "

You are totally obsessed with the Supreme Court - I'm not. My point is that gay "marriage" is the final step in an evolution of gay rights, not the only step. I really don't know how to explain this any more simply.

"Where you are at is completely out of touch to where the struggle is in America, and we have a clear path towards winning it all. It will be won and it won't be 100 years. So most probably the goal is met sooner, and yet you diss Americans as if they could have something right now, which all evidence suggests we could not."

That's the problem - your insistence on "it all" in one go.

The "evidence" actually suggests that you could "have something right now" (but not "it all"): the only referendum (a full vote at state level, not an opinion poll) on Civil Unions vs gay marriage came out clearly in favour of Civil Unions but against gay marriage.

"I also have heard a subtext from you over the months that gays really ARE so different and we are being "uppity" for insisting on 100 percent equality. That is rubbish, sir, total rubbish. 100 percent equality of course always means inclusion in the same institutions as everyone else. Separate but equal does not meet that test."

That is rubbish, sir, total rubbish!! My position has consistently been that gays really ARE NOT so different. If you can produce any "evidence" at all to support your assertion then do so.

"100% equality" frequently means "separate but equal", with the right to similar institutions (physically and figuratively) but NOT the same ones. The list of such is as endless as it is obvious.

Edited May 16, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

You know its really galling, nauseating actually, to hear a non-American preach to Americans about how to win civil rights in America. You don't have a clue!

The supreme court strategy, along with incremental steps of going for legal civil unions and same sex marriages at the state level are an organized strategy that has evolved over time. Two lawyers (the Bush vs. Gore lawyers) who are considered among the most talented lawyers alive today, straight men both, are actively working on SUPREME COURT strategies to win full equality.

You falsely (and obnoxiously) project your knowledge of OTHER COUNTRIES onto the American experience. You falsely assert there was some kind of decision to go for all or nothing. Again, total rubbish! What do you think the attempts for state civil unions and state same sex marriages (we have 50 of them, that's a lot) represent. They represent baby steps, moving the ball forward incrementally, trying to change public opinion (which we have) slowly over time. These state things are 100 percent worthless for the most important things, at the federal level.

So let's break down some of the mechanics of things brought up here.

Women's suffrage was by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! Very difficult and very slow. Yes that can START in the legislature (2/3 vote) but I can assure you there is NO CHANCE in any forseeable future of such a pro gay amendment being started (much less succeeding which is a great reason NOT to start it) at either the state or federal legislative levels. For this I mean for BOTH same sex marriage or same sex civil unions having the same FEDERAL rights as marriage. If you don't get that, you know little about American politics. Sure, maybe in 50 or 100 years, but the chances of winning at the supreme court level sooner are much higher!

Explains why it is so difficult and slow to do a constitutional amendment:

http://wiki.answers....tion_be_amended

Here's where it gets even messier. ALL states have marriages. But only a few states have civil unions. Can all states be mandated to create civil unions if they don't already have them by constitutional amendment? I guess probably so.

However, lets say something was attempted legislatively (unlike women's suffrage). Lets say the house, senate, and president voted to grant all federal rights of marriage to STATE same sex marriages and STATE civil unions. I think they COULD do that. But again, politically not something remotely imaginable in the near future. And it still leaves MOST states with no same sex marriage and no same sex civil unions. I don't think legislative action of this kind can FORCE states to create civil unions. Keep in mind also also that these days, you need 60 votes in the 100 member senate to pass anything. Not a simple majority.

Possibly your most off the wall assertion is that there isn't a direct connection between the supreme court action on state anti-interracial marriages and same sex marriages. Talk to anyone knowledgeable about this issue, such as the Bush vs. Gore lawyers (really dude it's 100 percent certain they know much better than you) and they will confirm the direct connection. Your citing that most states did not ban interractial marriages is completely irrelevant and yet you absurdly assert that is definitive proof they are not connected!

The point is there are 50 states. They ALL have marriage of some kind. When the supreme court rules it is unconstitutional for ANY state to discriminate against a class of persons, then it applies INSTANTLY to ALL 50 states. If that provides relief and change to ONE state or FIFTY states has NOTHING to do with the constitutionality issue. Surely, you are capable of finally getting this situation?

BTW, for Americans, separate but equal is never fully equal. Ask any American. I can't speak for non-Americans on this and there is no point of arguing further something so BASIC.

Look, dude, I guarantee you if you polled gay Americans if we could snap our fingers and get same sex civil unions in all states and all recognized the same as gay marriage at federal level, there would be overwhelming support. Me too. Do you finally get that? But its not going to work that way. Have I succeeded in explaining that to you or for the rest of your life are you going to believe some gay activists in dresses decided to be selfish and go for "all or nothing" depriving the majority of their brothers something decent enough? If so, my sympathies, because in the USA that is NOTHING like what happened.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I think I've finally had enough of the Fox News wannabee: make your point based on a grain of truth, ignoring the rest of the story. If that doesn't work, change the goalposts. If that still doesn't work, claim that only an American can understand the situation, claim to speak for Americans, then start on abuse and innuendo. It works for them!

FYI: a "direct connection" is far from being a "direct model"; please do not, as usual, credit me with saying something I did not.

FYI: the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was debated on for 4 hours before it was passed, within two years of the White House first being picketed. That may be a long time in American history, but not for the rest of us.

FYI: separate but equal is accepted across the States, by gender, race and religion as it is elsewhere in a vast number of areas: sports, schools, the military, public services, public utilities, etc. To say it does not exist in the USA is simply being blind to the obvious.

FYI: no country has a monopoly on civil rights, least of all under present circumstances the USA.

Enjoy talking to yourself, JT - you've finally bored me into joining those who have the intelligence not to waste their time with your posts.

[Jingthing]

I am happy to hear that you are withdrawing from this conversation because in my view what you are promoting are blatant falsehoods about the American situation. Most shockingly, your denial of the importance of the interracial marriage historical example, which in fact is the key to success on this issue. If nobody else wishes to comment on the topic itself, which is interesting, so be it.

Brief comment on your points:

A constitutional amendment pro gay marriage OR pro gay civil unions is a complete 100 percent non-starter.

You know, I know, everyone knows it. Hardly worth anyone's energy to discuss.

You completely ignore my points about how a simple (and totally unlikely) legislative federal victory giving federal recognition to gay unions/marriages at the state level would be WORTHLESS in most U.S. states.

You fail to grasp the obvious. This is headed to the supreme court. There is no case to be made about equality of civil unions in the supreme court. Only a few states have them. Fair treatment about MARRIAGES is the ONLY path because all states have marriage laws.

I never said separate but equal doesn't exist. I am saying it is not actually full equality and it is recognized as not fully equal by Americans because of the experience of ... BLACK people.

I agree no country has a monopoly on civil rights. Never said that. But you don't respect that Americans do feel differently about separate but equal and they have good reason to. Not imposing that on other countries.

Again, we'd take full power civil unions if we could get them. How do we get them? Going for same sex marriage equality turns out to be the most logical path, at the supreme court level, in due time. There is no supreme court case to be made for an OTHER thing.

I do hope you keep your word and stop discussing this with me. That would be great. My response here was only a fair reaction to your last points. No need to take it further.

Cheers.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

Wow, it's the ultimate cage fight between JT and LCV.... popcorn!

[Jingthing]

Wow, it's the ultimate cage fight between JT and LCV.... popcorn!

It's over. (Well, perhaps.)

Actually, what I would like to here from anyone who actually believes LCV's running thesis, that American gay activists (as he sometimes refers to as "men in dresses") did this damage to themselves by "insisting" on gay marriage instead of gay civil unions, explain to me the actual politically viable STRATEGY under U.S. law that brings us there. The tactic for same sex marriage is already well in place and very coherent.

The methods possible in the US are:

Supreme court decision (if broad enough to impact all states, but wait a second, most states have NO civil union structure to even change!)

National Constitutional Amendment (requiring super majorities all around) (yeah right a pro gay constitutional amendment, that'll happen)

Legislative action, required a super majority in the senate, majority in congress, and the president's signature as well. Can impact federal recognition of same sex civil unions. But wait a second, MOST of the 50 states don't have them to even change. (But ALL 50 states have marriage laws that COULD be changed via the supreme court.)

Seriously, what's the same sex civil union plan that is so much better, so much faster, so much more politically plausible than the U.S. civil rights struggle for same sex marriage? The goal of course would be federal recognition, and same sex civil unions in all 50 states. Let's hear it because I have NEVER heard it!

P.S.: With due respect, not asking for Australia's plan.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Wow, it's the ultimate cage fight between JT and LCV.... popcorn!

LCV's running thesis, that American gay activists (as he sometimes refers to as "men in dresses")

The "cage fight" is over, but please WOULD YOU STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I HAVE OR HAVE NOT SAID. I have NEVER referred to American gay activists as "men in dresses"). As I have already explained TWICE:

My comment on "the GLF and large men in skirts" had nothing to do with current gay activists. Things get even more boring when you quote me out of context. My point was that "If you looked outside the US of A you might realise that the rest of the western world has moved on since the days of the GLF and large men in skirts". I could have added that that was how many at that time saw "gay rights" just as they saw women in trousers burning their bras as typifying "women's rights", but I didn't think it was necessary. As I've said elsewhere, if you're still stuck in that era that's your problem, not mine.

I realise you have a problem with comprehension, but if you have to resort to repeatedly lying about what the other person has said rather than discuss the issue at hand you really are not worth communicating with.

Edited May 19, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

The implication of your men in skirts rather homophobic diss is that American gay activists are NOT beyond ... men in skirts. You're not fooling anyone. For months now, you've been pushing this myth meme that radical uppity American gay activists (including me?) who you have implied are stuck in the "men in skirts" era are selfishly and stupidly INSISTING on scaring the horses and offending the straights by INSISTING on have gay marriage instead of gay civil unions. Any suggestion that this is a sober tactic that makes perfect sense in the AMERICAN context and that there really is no reasonable path towards separate but equal civil unions but there IS a clear on for same sex marriage overruling STATE laws is met by you with insults, derision, and diversions. Yes, that is my perception of your line of "reasoning" and if you don't like being analyzed, don't post.

"Men in skirts" (Yes, they're straight and one is even a republican!)

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Gays should have the right to marry because it's unfair to make only hetrosexual people suffer divorce

[LeCharivari]

The implication of your men in skirts rather homophobic diss is that American gay activists are NOT beyond ... men in skirts.

No ... I was referring specifically to you.

radical uppity American gay activists (including me?)

Don't flatter yourself, JT.