An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Obama, GM’s new Chairman (Guest Voice)

Empathy, Conservatives and Health Care Reform »

GAY PR

Posted by DALITSO NJOLINJO in At TMV.
Jun 20th, 2009 | Comments

This past week has been a very eventful week for US politics that I have found myself in the delightful position of having a number of choices to base my first official TMV post on.

So, gay rights. Such a divisive subject matter, not only in the United States, but also here in the United Kingdom. The new CBS/New York Times poll shows that 33% support same-sex marriage (down from 42%), 30% favour civil unions and 32% favour no legal recognition what so ever. To say that this matter is a political nightmare for President Obama would be an understatement. This is why I find his static pro-gay agenda unsurprising.

With that said I would like to see the polls for civil rights legislation in the 60s when racial equality was a hot button issue. How many Americans thought that black people should have the same legal rights they enjoyed, how many Americans thought that black people should have the right to vote, how many Americans thought that black children should be taught in the same schools as their children? While I do not begrudge Obama for not moving on gay-Issues, I would say that he is lacking some moral leadership on this matter. Let’s not forget, the civil rights movement experienced the same stagnation with Kennedy, whose campaign rhetoric was not reflected within his presidential agenda.

While Obama is lacking moral leadership (or has too much political sense), why is nobody asking where the leadership for the gay community is? While a lot of politicos have been scrambling to find the leader of the Republican Party (‘is it Rush, Newt, Palin?’), why is it that the lack of leadership for one of the most important Civil Rights issue of our time not being questioned? Who is front and centre on your television screens championing this cause, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan?

I submit to you that, it is not up to Obama to build the foundations for gay civil rights, it is up to the community itself. It is not up to Obama to give a resounding ‘I have dream’ like speech, but it is up to the gay community to find their own Martin or Malcolm or Rosa and communicate their message of a better, fairer union for the hundreds of couples that don’t have the same contractual rights as other ‘normal’ couples in a clear and concise manner.

A lot of liberals disregarded and mocked the now infamous ‘There’s a Storm Coming’ anti-gay ad, but I believe that very advertisement is an important indicator to where the message war is for gay-civil rights in America by the absence of a rebuttal ad. The anti-gay campaigners knew that Obama had a full plate with two wars, a financial disaster and health-care reform and this was a clear move to make this issue even more divisive and politically toxic. This was a clear forward thinking strategy which went unchallenged, why? If you can’t defend and communicate something as important and as fundamental as equal rights for all, then why should anyone take your cause seriously?

The DOJ’s DOMA defence brief rightly provoked anger from the gay community and those like myself who support their cause, but should it also have provoked inward reflection?

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

EEllis

I've never been much on marriage in general. I have always considered it a religious institution and as such felt that it was up to the religious to define, which I am not. Though it didn't bother me personally, the Gay marriage issue seemed to be aimed at forcing churches, and people in general, to approve or mainstream homosexuality. If you truly were religious and felt that your religion was incompatible with homosexuality then that seemed wrong. As debates ensued and issues have come forth it has become a much more complicated issue for me. Let's face it if the term civil union was used there would of been no issue in Cali and it would of been a shoe in. The word marriage is more of a block than any concrete action, benefit, or right desired by the pro gay marriage lobby.

It also brings up other issues like SSI (social security) benefits. When SSI started and spousal benefits were granted it was because of children. When you have a union that can't produce children inside that union, that has no social or physical reason for one partner to be dependant on the other for financial support, why should survivor benefits be paid. Hell there would seem to be an argument to look at the whole issue with fresh eyes considering the proliferation of two income families, childless couples, ect.

We've complicated our world so much that it make what should be an easy question anything but.

Gegenschattenbild

Well, EEllis' statements are interesting because they probably reflect the general lack of knowledge of marriage in this US. As such, they are also useful because they tell us what many people probably think...

Many people consider marriage a religious institution, because most people experience weddings in religious settings, at least in the US. It is noteworthy that at weddings in churches, synagogues, etc., the minister is licensed by the state to conduct a wedding that is recognized by the state. S/he essentially makes a marriage happen. S/he is doing the work for the state, kind of like a sub-contractor. But the couple getting married would have a marriage that is just as legally effective by going to a justice of the peace or other civil servant who can pronounce people married. The religious part is just an add-on. If there were no civil side to a marriage, then nonreligious people could not be married. That is fortunately not the case.

The position on SSI is also interesting, because many gay and lesbian people have dependents. Some gay and lesbian people adopt children; others may figure out and accept that they are gay/lesbian after having produced children with a person of the opposite sex. In both of these conditions, SSI seems an important benefit for those dependents, especially if they are minors. Then there are situations where a partner of a gay/lesbian person is impoverished -- for whatever reason. This person will remain impoverished without SSI benefits if one partner dies. Isn't the purpose of SSI to prevent poverty in old age?

There are probably cracks in these arguments, as in all arguments, but these are some thoughts that came to mind as I read EEllis' comments. I always find it good when I'm able to look at things from someone else's perspective.

Silhouette

Actually the gays want access to adoptable children. I think that's the main issue, not for all in the homosexual and transgender fetishes [aside from others] but for many. I'm pretty sure adoption agencies need to see a publicly recognized committment contract before they let a child go into a situation that might just be a sexual arrangement for a particular fetish. Hence the need for gays to have their fetish sanctioned, via marriage, as "OK with society". If you privately polled gays themselves you'd probably find a significant majority of them who think marriage is a farce anyway. It is a vehicle for them to get at what they're really after. It may also be social security bennies too, but adoption is a big part of it.

Currently lesbians can have turkey-baster parties or use artificial insemination to beget children but gay men of course cannot under any circumstances acquire a child without adoption. There may be some loopholes where lesbian couples farm out their children to gay men to raise as "family" foster parent(s) but I imagine these cases are pretty rare. So gay men are probably the most interested in utilizing marriage to gain access to children moreso than lesbians.

Which waters down marriage as a side issue, apart from trying to reword it. It's a double blow in that they're using something they don't really recognize as legitimate, to "legitimize" themselves into getting something else that they're after. Benefits and kids.

And yes, they do need a leader with a coherant message and yes, it cannot be a man [Obama] who is up to his eyebrows in undoing the Cheney mess that may still topple our country. What poor timing to demand he do something for them. More selfishness and manipulation.

Their leadership did do a rebuttal piece to the ad against gay-marriage. They named it "Do Ask Do Tell". You may have heard of it? I notice just recently the trailer for it has been removed from the Youtube link and it is no longer on Youtube. It was, in a nutshell, an attempt to blackmail elected officials in Washington and elsewhere, threatening to "out" their bi-curious behaviors should they not give the homosexual fetish-for-marriage promotion in DC.

If their leadership's main thrust is to use bisexuality as a both a lure and a whip, they've demonstrated that their "cause" is not a noble one after all. It was a poor move and may have stopped the gay movement dead in its tracks.

Gegenschattenbild

The above comment proves how unstable its writer is. The proposition that gay and lesbian people (gay men in specific) want access to children for sexual reasons is demonstrably falsifiable. Sil, please show your references that "prove" your claims. Or tell us what you really mean here.

EEllis

Geg, Sil is a frothing at the mouth nut on any subject dealing with Homosexuality. Don't bother with reason.

Of course marriage is not just religious. That is a major part but marriages have been about property and inheritance for longer than the US has been around. I was just describing a little of my thought processes not trying to define marriage. Surprisingly enough your comments add little to the discussion other than telling everyone about my ignorance of marriage.

Yes many gay couples have dependants but nowhere near as many as the average straight couple and even for that straight couple much has changed in the world since SSI was created. Really though a buddy of mine is a "house husband" because his partner makes so much that the extra amount he brings in just isn't worth it to them to bother with. Does he deserve to have the Govt pay him if he loses his partner? Mind you it's just a thought exercise in this case they are both insured up the wazoo but It is an interesting question. Would it even make a noticeable difference to the budget?

Personally I'm fine with gay marriage, anyone should be able to ruin their life however they want. I do think that the instant response of prejudice and homophobe to those that are not so inclined is over done and wonder why if the "benefits" are the main issue no one is pushing civil unions which would pass with hardly a bother?

blog comments powered by Disqus