Shift In Political Rhetoric From "sexual Orientation" To "who You Love" In U. S. A.

[Jingthing]

http://www.slate.com...erent_way_.html

Well the link pretty much says it all and I'd have to agree.

On the first night of the democratic party convention gay equality issues were mentioned a surprising number of times and in very prominent places in the speeches as well.

But the language was rather new and consistently so. Talking about "who you love" rather than the clinical sexual orientation linked to potentially controversial sexual orientation identity politics.

Bottom line: it does now look with President Obama's coming out pro gay marriage that the party now intends to use its support for gay civil rights as a positive WEDGE issue. This is because it is now clear the majority of the American public now (finally) agrees with this position. As American young people are overwhelmingly pro gay civil rights, the plan is clearly to try to energize this group to come out to vote, because that is going to be needed, and generally young people vote in low numbers.

What a contrast to what the republicans have been doing for decades, and still do in regions where it works, using demonization of gay people as a wedge issue to help defeat democrats.

Personally, I really don't care what the PR people in the democratic party have decided works. It doesn't surprise me that "who you love" so warm and fuzzy polls better than sexual orientation. Whatever works. Eyes on the prize.

“If a young preacher could lift us to the mountain top with his righteous dream, and if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love, then surely, surely, we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American dream.”

Michelle Obama Edited September 6, 2012 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

Spot on JT. Your analysis is well said and accurate.

What has surpprised me of late is the reports of prominent Republicans endordorsing same sex marriage while remaining dyed in the wool Republicans. We used to refer to Catholics who didn't endorse the policies of the Vatican as smorgesbord Catholics, so I suppose, we must allow for smorgebord Republicans.

Frankly, there are many of us who would not allow our membership in an organization that denies basic human rights as a mantra as the Republican Party Platform does. Cheny, Koch and the like have no problem with carving out their own exceptions to the party platform and must be content with that. Politicians do it all the time, but leaders of major corporations I would have thought would have more personal integrity.

Of course, these public pronouncements in support of same sex marriage by prominent Republicans comes only after the polls consistently report the majority of Americans are now in support of marriage equality and yet the Republican right come up with a platform that is argueably more discriminatory than ever before.

[LeCharivari]

.... it is now clear the majority of the American public now (finally) agrees with this position ... American young people are overwhelmingly pro gay civil rights ...

So you keep saying (and I hope you're right) but the polls don't support that view, although they all indicate that support is growing.

The most recent poll, in May by Gallup and USA Today, showed 50% in favour of gay marriage (actually down from the 2011 poll); the three recent Washington Post and ABC polls come up with between 51 and 53% in favour; the Pew Research Center puts it at 43%.

Making it a major issue could easily backfire on the Democrats, as it's probably of considerably more importance to those opposing gay marriage who see it as an erosion of key Christian values that are important to them than those supporting it who see it as a valid issue but not one with which they are unduly concerned or would base their vote. That was certainly the conclusion of the same recent Gallup/USA Today poll, where literally twice as many of those polled said that Obama's support of gay marriage would make them less likely to vote for him than those who said it would make them more likely to vote for him - if the polls are correct (which is always questionable) that could make it a dangerous vote loser rather than a vote winner and a sign of desperation.

[Jingthing]

Well this election like most is largely a turnout game.

The same people who will be motivated to vote against Obama because they are anti-gay are probably already motivated to vote against him because they think he is communist, etc.

Young people on the other hand are the main reason Obama won so big last time. They turned out in large numbers, quite unusual. There is no chance he will win big this time. But to win at all he needs the young people to turn out OK, and the young people poll much better pro gay rights than the population at large.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

More on this topic. This democratic national convention, just ended, has got to be BY FAR the most pro gay rights American political party convention ever in history.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/09/democratic_national_convention_gay_is_good_for_america_.html

There you have it: For the first time ever, Democrats at their most public, high-profile moment are treating gay rights as a political winner. They’re moving along with public opinion: In the latest Harris Interactive poll, 52 percent of likely voters favored same-sex marriage, including 70 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents.

[Jingthing]

I don't consider the democratic party position on gay civil rights to be pandering. I consider it totally sincere. It has been well known that Obama has been pro gay civil rights all along and indeed he has already accomplished more than any other U.S. president on these issues (marriage is but one part of it). The democrats will get 90 percent plus of the gay vote, and they bloody well deserve it. Especially considering the horror show history of the other party demonizing gay people.

[Scott]

An off-topic, baiting post has been deleted. This is the gay sub-forum.

[Jingthing]

A word from the challenger:

[tombkk]

A word from the challenger:

Wow, excellent video. Kudos to this veteran, and I consider him a gay activist. He might not want to be, he just voiced his personal opinion. But that's what we need: Many people voicing their personal opinions.

[Jingthing]

Wow! Gay activists are breaking out all over, even the National Football League.

I think this issue has reached a critical mass in the U.S. and soon the anti-gay crew will be widely (in my view correctly) labeled as bigots the same way racists are.

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it

[LeCharivari]

I think this issue has reached a critical mass in the U.S. and soon the anti-gay crew will be widely (in my view correctly) labeled as bigots the same way racists are.

Although I agree 100% with your sentiments, that would be an awful lot of bigots - according to your post in the "Outing" thread "about 30 to 40 percent" of Americans "think gay people are bad people". Add to that those who would not go so far but who simply disapprove of gay-rights, which would appear to be a growing number of the population if Romney's change in his stance on gay rights from a few years ago to now, in order to gain mainstream Republican support, is any indicator and you are looking at around 50% of the American population (give or take a couple of percent).

While some polls show that opinions over gay rights/gay marriage are fairly equally divided the actual votes in referenda paint a very different picture as in every vote on the issue (whether on gay marriage or gay unions) which has taken place in the US they have been rejected convincingly - and referenda have been held in a majority of US States in the last eight years. Even some of the polls now say that the polls do not genuinely reflect public opinion, as many of those polled are saying one thing in public (when polled individually) and clearly voting the opposite in private to avoid being "labeled as bigots" - its called the Bradley Effect.

Where I disagree with you is that going by the facts of the state referenda, Romney's nomination, etc, it seems clear that "the majority of the American public" DON'T agree with gay civil rights, etc.

While I agree with you that "soon the anti-gay crew will be widely (in my view correctly) labeled as bigots the same way racists are", I think that label will be widely applied outside the US, to Americans, while inside the US they will be widely labeled "prayerful".

[Jingthing]

The bigoted portion is concentrated in the older age brackets.

[LeCharivari]

Wow! Gay activists are breaking out all over, even the National Football League. ....

]http://deadspin.com/...r-supporting-it

I think he may have been rather more widely reported (and got rather more support) if he hadn't been so abusive and used such unnecessary bad language. Compare his response with that of David Pocock in Australia, a Rugby star whose reasoned, intelligent (and Christian) view has done a great deal to raise support for gay rights in Australia: Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich welcomed Pocock’s statement saying it shows support for the issue is increasingly widespread in all sections of Australian society. “David Pocock’s strong support for equality will have a dramatic impact in a sports-mad nation like Australia,” Greenwich said.“David’s stance also sends out the message that marriage equality is a reform Christians can and should support.”

http://www.starobserver.com.au/sport/news-sport/2011/10/12/rugby-star-supports-marriage-equality/63794

[Jingthing]

Different cultures.

This state of MARYLAND ballot initiative which is what the letter was about is rather a big deal. I think it is widely expected to be a win for gay marriage equality in Maryland. This will, assuming it happens, be the first time in U.S. history that a U.S. state has approved gay marriage by popular vote. As far as I understand, gay rights advocates have lost every single popular initiative vote so far, including the oppositions efforts to overthrow existing equality laws. I am very optimistic about this.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1732555.html

Edited September 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Different cultures.

Evidently.

David Pocock' s view raised public awareness of the issue and dramatically increased support for gay rights in Australia across the board - young, old, Christian, sports supporters, "bushies" (Australian "rednecks"), etc.

Chris Kluwe's abusive letter may be just as heartfelt, but it is simply abuse and would hardly win anybody over.

Different cultures indeed ....

[ProThaiExpat]

It is probably just an optimistic view, but when the Supreme Court ruled that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional, 87% of Americans felt that mixed marriage was bad. Back in those days, a vast majority of states had laws forbidding inter-racial marriage.

It almost goes without saying that the religious right goes the referendum route, these days, as it has been sucessful, ie. California. However, we shall soon see if it is constitutional.

When the Prime Minister of Canada in his address to his parliament said it was up to the legislators to enact same sex marriage, otherwise the "tyranny of the majority" would operate to ban something that was simply a civil right. He was of course refering to the electorate.

I think gays best hope for equality in marriage is the courts. My guess is that the Supremes will deny certiorari on the California Prop 8 case in that it is only a one state issue. They should be ruling on DOMA in the upcoming session and they have a huge hurdle to overcome in the equal protection clause of the US Constituton, especially when legally married same sex couples in the military are denied basic benefits that straight married service members receive.

Unfortunately for those of us who can see our expiration date in the forseeable future, waiting for the inevitable equality of marriage laws by either the courts or the electorate may well come too late.

The current composition of that court almost guarantees that marriage will be held to be a state's rights issue, as it has in the past, so there will always be states who deny such rights. It will be a number of years after that before they rule on whether a legally married couple from another state, can be denied equal marriage rights in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriage. It is a comity issue. It is doubtful this court will rule that same sex marriage is a US Constitutonal right.

Edited September 9, 2012 by ProThaiExpat

[Jingthing]

Different cultures.

Evidently.

David Pocock' s view raised public awareness of the issue and dramatically increased support for gay rights in Australia across the board - young, old, Christian, sports supporters, "bushies" (Australian "rednecks"), etc.

Chris Kluwe's abusive letter may be just as heartfelt, but it is simply abuse and would hardly win anybody over.

Different cultures indeed ....

Mainstream Americans highly value football players. They don't expect them to talk like church ladies.

[Jingthing]

It is probably just an optimistic view, but when the Supreme Court ruled that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional, 87% of Americans felt that mixed marriage was bad. Back in those days, a vast majority of states had laws forbidding inter-racial marriage.

It almost goes without saying that the religious right goes the referendum route, these days, as it has been sucessful, ie. California. However, we shall soon see if it is constitutional.

When the Prime Minister of Canada in his address to his parliament said it was up to the legislators to enact same sex marriage, otherwise the "tyranny of the majority" would operate to ban something that was simply a civil right. He was of course refering to the electorate.

I think gays best hope for equality in marriage is the courts. My guess is that the Supremes will deny certiorari on the California Prop 8 case in that it is only a one state issue. They should be ruling on DOMA in the upcoming session and they have a huge hurdle to overcome in the equal protection clause of the US Constituton, especially when legally married same sex couples in the military are denied basic benefits that straight married service members receive.

Unfortunately for those of us who can see our expiration date in the forseeable future, waiting for the inevitable equality of marriage laws by either the courts or the electorate may well come too late.

The current composition of that court almost guarantees that marriage will be held to be a state's rights issue, as it has in the past, so there will always be states who deny such rights. It will be a number of years after that before they rule on whether a legally married couple from another state, can be denied equal marriage rights in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriage. It is a comity issue. It is doubtful this court will rule that same sex marriage is a US Constitutonal right.

For me the issue is about the young now and/or future generations. Not a selfish issue at all. Instant results were never even a possibility in the American context.

Thanks for your analysis. I think the hope now is Obama winning and getting more supreme court picks. I agree the national issue won't ever be won on popular votes but it is a sign of progress nonetheless to see states like Maryland show the country that popular support is growing.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Another opinion piece on the most pro gay rights political convention in American history (by far):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/charlotte-catch-up-gay-is-good/2012/09/09/85a956ee-fa08-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html

As you might imagine, I am happy to see Frank Kameny remembered in this context.

Nearly 45 years after Frank Kameny gave us “Gay is good,” an act of rhetorical defiance akin to “Black is beautiful,” a major national political party agreed.

and

“I recognize the progress” that’s been made, Pizzitola told me in a subsequent e-mail, “but gays should remember that their pushiness as some describe [it] is in part responsible for the progress.” Can’t argue with that.

I so approve of that message!

In American politics anyway, you must push and push and push some more or you go nowhere.

[LeCharivari]

The bigoted portion is concentrated in the older age brackets.

I would like to agree with you, as that would be to have a glimmer of hope that the "bigots" in the US will die out, but the figures don't support that view.

The "older age brackets" are dying at the rate of around 1.5% per year - that alone should give a "swing" of support for gay rights of 15% over the last ten years; even the most optimistic of the polls barely have a swing of half that figure - and the idea that half the "older age brackets" may have already supported gay rights and there were no new supporters/converts to gay rights is equally depressing. The evidence seems to show, quite clearly, that Americans (or at least those who take an interest in the issue) are being polarised as never before and that the religious right-wing who see it as an issue may or may not be increasing their support but they are at least retaining it and they are becoming more extreme in their views.

[LeCharivari]

When the Prime Minister of Canada in his address to his parliament said it was up to the legislators to enact same sex marriage, otherwise the "tyranny of the majority" would operate to ban something that was simply a civil right. He was of course refering to the electorate.

Which Canadian Prime Minister said that?

It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in the Canadian context as by the time the legislation was debated (2005) and passed by a very clear majority (43 to 12 and 47 to 21) all polls indicated that due to a change in views over the preceding 10 years (not demographics) the majority of Canadians already supported gay marriage.

Edited September 12, 2012 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

It is probably just an optimistic view, but when the Supreme Court ruled that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional, 87% of Americans felt that mixed marriage was bad. Back in those days, a vast majority of states had laws forbidding inter-racial marriage.

87% ? That's a pretty specific figure - where exactly did it come from?

"Back in those days, a vast majority of states" had in fact ALREADY repealed their anti-miscegenation laws: 9 had never had any, 11 had repealed them in the 19th century, 14 repealed them after WWII and before the 1967 case, leaving 16 states whose laws were repealed as a result of the case (arguably 17, if you include Maryland who repealed their law as the case started). 16 out of 50 is NOT a "vast majority".

[LeCharivari]

... It is doubtful this court will rule that same sex marriage is a US Constitutonal right.

While any response to the above two posts would be appreciated, as I can find no evidence of any Canadian PM referring to "the tyranny of the majority" (a phrase coined by US President John Adams) or any "87%" of Americans opposing mixed-marriage around 1967, I do agree with you over the probable court ruling.

In Lawrence v Texas 3 of the 9 Justices (2 of whom are still in office) supported Justice Scalia's view that:

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct....The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means ...The invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right' is impatient of democratic change."

Add to those the justices who may support the moral right to gay marriage in principle but who either see it as an issue which the legislature should be responsible for deciding on, not them, and those who see it as a State issue, and it looks as if you are likely to be correct.

[LeCharivari]

In American politics anyway, you must push and push and push some more or you go nowhere.

.... the national issue won't ever be won on popular votes ...

"Never" is a long time, and not so long ago a clear majority in those countries which now have extensive anti-discrimination legislation and gay marriage/civil unions also opposed any form of "gay rights", but I can't think of any of those countries where the legislation did not have popular support when it was passed. Australia could be an exception as far as anti-discrimination legislation is concerned, but only because gender and sexual preference are not specified and discrimination is dealt with at federal level on a case-by-case basis.

The "issue" won popular support in those countries because legislation followed integration, education and general acceptance - the legislation was necessary for the minority who opposed it, not passed against the wishes of the majority. As Martin Luther King put it "legislation won't change the heart, but it will restrain the heartless".

As Booker T Washington, one of the first black American civil rights activists put it in 1895 " 'Cast down your bucket where you are' - cast it down by making friends in every manly way of the people of all races by whom you are surrounded. ... The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremist folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial forcing. "

The "gay rights" movement in America seem to be ignoring not only everything the civil rights movement did to achieve equal rights (despite trying to link the two issues) but ignoring how gay rights have been achieved in every other country - by "making friends in every manly way", by gaining the respect of and integrating with the general community and by educating them to win popular support.

[Jingthing]

In the U.S. political system, issues at the federal level are indeed never won or lost directly by popular votes and/or opinion polls. Some states do have provisions for ballot proposition issues that are decided by popular vote. Of course, it would be desirable to have majority popular support for a better chance to win any national issue through the normal channels, such as legislation and/or judicial rulings. But such victories can be had without majority popular support. For example, Obamacare hasn't enjoyed majority support, but it was made law through the legislative process and was held constitutional on challenge.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

News at the STATE level, where popular votes are sometimes conducted to decide specific issues. Up until now, same sex marriage rights have lost EVERY time under statewide popular votes, something opponents of gay civil rights often are harping about. Well, very soon, it really looks like this is really about to change. Before Maryland has been discussed and I think there will be a win in Maryland. But the state of Maine is now looking pretty definite.

http://www.slate.com...eferendum_.html

According to a new poll from Pine Tree State polling outfit Critical Insights, Maine's ballot initiative to overturn the state's current ban on same-sex marriage is currently poised to pass this November. The poll suggests support that is almost too good to be true for gay-rights advocates: 57 percent in favor, 36 percent against, and 7 percent undecided, good for a 21-point lead with a little more than a month to go. Support is particularly strong among Democrats (81 percent), college grads (69 percent), and 18-to-34-years-old (77 percent).

Edited October 1, 2012 by Jingthing