Calif. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree with you to an extent Colly. I don't think the US is ready for gay marriage to be legal. However, this whole process here is how that happens.

This governor didn't sign this bill. Maybe the next one will. Or the next.

It wasn't that long ago that if you said, "Gay marriage," people wouldn't even know what the hell you were talking about. If you came "out" IN my highschool, you would be out OF my highschool.

So, even if America isn't ready this moment, I think people should keep working at it because it's the right thing to do.

I'm absolutely in favor of continuing to work at it. I would just prefer to see a less confrontational and more reasoned approach. Historically, you build a base for seeking radical change in the law if you want to be successful. I just don't see that base being built.

People here seem to forget alcohol was outlawed when the majority of the country drank. With the people sitting on capital hill we have now, it's just not that unrealistic a jump to see them forcing through an amendment to the constitution baning gay marriage. If it gets to the states, it will be a major battle and a close run thing to stop it from becoming the law of the land. If it ever does, the odds of repealing it are tiny.

I just don't see the precentage in demanding full marriage rights when you haven't even laid the ground work in a state with spousal rights and civil unions.

I may be completely wrong. Perhaps the only way to do it is to provoke a war, but since I stand to be the big looser if that war fails, I just don't see the need to fight it until I have some ammunition and backing.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

If our words and our actions make the right-wing furious, then we know we're doing something right.

 

[PBI298]

It seems to me that the best avenue of attack might be the civil rights/human rights route; do the absolute best to get all mention of religion out of the discussion (especially when responding to religious arguments from opponents). It's tricky, though. Even without the tradition of "seperate, but equal", we had a hell of a time getting federal legislation passed here in Canada. And there's also a real fear that the legislation will only stand as long as the Conservative party doesn't form a majority government.

The difficulty getting legislation like this through in the more-liberal states in the US has always perplexed me; I just could not understand why. Is it because the proponents have put up divided front whereas the right has always been more disciplined and better at being "on message"? Maybe it's because religion is so much more integrated into the political system? I honestly don't know. I truly hope that getting the legislation passed somewhere is doable; IIRC, once that happens, the full faith and credit clause comes into effect. That does raise the question of Vermont (or is it NH?) and the Civil Unions they have; why aren't those recognized across the US? Or is full faith and credit not as all-encompassing as I think?

 

[cantdog]

It seems to me that the best avenue of attack might be the civil rights/human rights route; do the absolute best to get all mention of religion out of the discussion (especially when responding to religious arguments from opponents). It's tricky, though. Even without the tradition of "seperate, but equal", we had a hell of a time getting federal legislation passed here in Canada. And there's also a real fear that the legislation will only stand as long as the Conservative party doesn't form a majority government.

The difficulty getting legislation like this through in the more-liberal states in the US has always perplexed me; I just could not understand why. Is it because the proponents have put up divided front whereas the right has always been more disciplined and better at being "on message"? Maybe it's because religion is so much more integrated into the political system? I honestly don't know. I truly hope that getting the legislation passed somewhere is doable; IIRC, once that happens, the full faith and credit clause comes into effect. That does raise the question of Vermont (or is it NH?) and the Civil Unions they have; why aren't those recognized across the US? Or is full faith and credit not as all-encompassing as I think?

The gays are not really at the cusp. This is NOT the time to push for gay marriage. I think it may well be a good time to push for civil unions. The younger people are by and large okay with gays, and a little experience with real life issues like insurance and next-of-kin issues will show them the difficulties faced by the community.

But without a solid base of experience with civil-union status, I do not see gay marriage being a really popular cry. Timing is important when you are addressing fundamental changes.

 

[PBI298]

The gays are not really at the cusp. This is NOT the time to push for gay marriage. I think it may well be a good time to push for civil unions. The younger people are by and large okay with gays, and a little experience with real life issues like insurance and next-of-kin issues will show them the difficulties faced by the community.

But without a solid base of experience with civil-union status, I do not see gay marriage being a really popular cry. Timing is important when you are addressing fundamental changes.

As I said, that whole tradition of separate, but equal. I don't see how it could work, morally. But, with religion being so much more integrated into society in the US than in many other Western nations, maybe the incremental approach is the only one that will work. The down side is, though, that once civil unions have been attained, that might be where it'll stop.

 

[cantdog]

There are discussions to be had about tactics. Civil Unions may be something best avoided, entirely, in order to take on the real issue.

But these motherfuckers are riding high, right now. They don't consult with anyone, they bull right ahead. They feel this is their Moment. I don't get that feeling from the community, the feeling that now is the time, that we cannot be stopped.

They don't call it lynching and they don't call out the town for a picnic when they do it, but gays are still being maimed and killed. Laramie is not an isolate case. Beatin up queers is still a pastime. There's some serious work to be done. I like the moral high ground real well, but if you ain't talkin morals, the community ain't got a lot of high ground. It's more like free climbing. Going upward, but hanging by toes and fingers. I say, take any handhold you can. Up is up.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It seems to me that the best avenue of attack might be the civil rights/human rights route; do the absolute best to get all mention of religion out of the discussion (especially when responding to religious arguments from opponents). It's tricky, though. Even without the tradition of "seperate, but equal", we had a hell of a time getting federal legislation passed here in Canada. And there's also a real fear that the legislation will only stand as long as the Conservative party doesn't form a majority government.

The difficulty getting legislation like this through in the more-liberal states in the US has always perplexed me; I just could not understand why. Is it because the proponents have put up divided front whereas the right has always been more disciplined and better at being "on message"? Maybe it's because religion is so much more integrated into the political system? I honestly don't know. I truly hope that getting the legislation passed somewhere is doable; IIRC, once that happens, the full faith and credit clause comes into effect. That does raise the question of Vermont (or is it NH?) and the Civil Unions they have; why aren't those recognized across the US? Or is full faith and credit not as all-encompassing as I think?

That full faith and credit clause is not that all-encompassing. A marriage that is perfectly legal in one place might not be legal in others. For instance, if a man came from a place where polygamy is legal, and he had four wives, only one would be considered his legal wife, probably the first one married. If a brother and sister were legally married in one place, they would not be legally married in California. If a union is specifically illegal in a certain place, it is not recognized in that place. That is what the assholes had in mind when they got the initiative, Prop. 22, passed.

Actually, California has come quite a way. It wasn't very long ago that oral and anal sex and adultery were actually illegal. The laws were repealed early in the administration of Jerry Brown, who was governor from 1975 through 1983. This was a rare case of politicians doing a reasonable and sensible thing.