Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Ideology is the first refuge of the reality impaired.

If the appellate court decides that the proposed initiative would not constitute a violation of the DC Human Rights Act, then there almost certainly would be a Prop 8-style vote, probably within a year. I think we will win the lawsuit, but if there is any chance of a disaster, it is at the Court of Appeals.

Have you every visited the GayPatriot blog?

Yes, the goal of gay marriage supporters was thwarting the political, religious, and social goals of the anti-gay-marriage folks.

You seem to be putting forth an argument that those against gay marriage ought to have had a chance to achieve those goals simply because the ways in which they were trying to achieve them were “peaceful and democratic,” and that it is somehow shameful or should be embarassing to thwart those goals.

It is impossible for the goals of both sides of the gay marriage question to be enshrined into law at the same time.
Should gay marriage supporters feel shame that they used peaceful and democratic actions to thwart the goals of another group whose efforts and goals were at direct cross-purposes to their own? I don’t understand why the pro-gay-marriage folks would need to feel shame at that.

Gay marriage supporters did have other options: had they decided not to fight, to let the question be put to a vote, the populace might have thwarted the anti-gay-marriage group’s goals for us. Some might argue for this as a better choice for these reasons:
- the anti-gay-marriage people would have a vote and been happier.
- gay-marriage supporters wouldn’t have come out looking like the ‘bad guy target’ to those already inclined to disagree with us.

But those reasons don’t hold water:
- No matter which outcome a vote had, the anti-gay-marriage camp would use the results to demonize their opponents.
If gay marriage supporters lost: ‘see? The people don’t want this!’ ‘they’re still trying to fight–don’t they know they lost?’ If gay-marriage supporters won: ‘The majority is still wrong! We’re going to keep fighting until we’ve won!’
- Every time gay marriage supporters decide that their cause is not yet worth fighting for, they look weak to their friends as well as their opponents. The act of voting on behalf of gay marriage forces those who do so to consciously realize that they have become gay marriage supporters (and hence, political and social targets). The moment they decide to pull the lever is the sacrifical moment: they’ve decided to put themselves under attack on behalf of someone else. It seems hypocritical for existing gay marriage supporters to ask or expect others to make a conscious decision to become a target if existing gay marriage supporters are not willing to do so themselves.
- If we don’t fight early and hard for what we want, other people–opponents and supporters–will conclude it must not be that important to us.

Laws enacted through a peaceful, democratic process will not always be peaceful, democratic laws. What message does it send when pro-gay-marriage forces wait until anti-gay-marriage laws are on the ballot (or on the books) to speak?

Let’s say you’re out camping with your friend in an area where there have been a lot of horse traders. You’re a horse trader too, but you have a beautiful horse, a special one you’re not interested in selling at any price. The other traders are interested in getting the horse for themselves, leaving you horseless. Your friend knows how important that horse is to you, but doesn’t like horses himself, and isn’t a horse trader–he doesn’t have a pony in the race, so to speak. While you’re both sitting around, a trader comes by and asks you if you want to gamble for the horse.

Scenario A: You say, “no way, that horse is mine and it’s too valuable to gamble away!” The traders come back for a week, and you keep telling them off. They start getting fed up and call you and your friend and your horse all sorts of things. Finally your friend speaks up: “I don’t care about the horse, but it doesn’t look like my friend’s willing to negotiate. You’re annoying him and me. Go away.”

Scenario B: You don’t say anything. On the first night your buddy doesn’t say anything, but a week later he shrugs, looks at you, says, “why not?” and takes out a pack of cards. You and your friend and the trader stay up all night gambling. At first the game is going well but then you lose, and you have to rely on your friend. Then he loses, and in the morning you watch your special horse being led away. You turn to your friend and say, “why’d you gamble my horse away?” He says, “Me? But you gambled, too!” “I only did that so I could have a shot at winning once the game was underway! I never wanted to gamble at all!” He: “Why didn’t you say so in the first place?” “I felt I owed him a chance to take away that horse–even though I knew going in I would have done anything to keep it!” “Anything except saying ‘no’ to him or me, apparently,” he says. “He has a right to ask me if I want to gamble!” “You have a right to say ‘not for this horse!’” “But I was expecting you to say ‘no’ for me. When you didn’t, I had to at least make it a fair game. He would have been sore if he hadn’t gotten to play!” “So he would have gotten mad at me instead of you? I’m not going to stick my neck out there for your horse if you won’t!” “If only you’d gambled better, I’d still have my horse!” you moan. “If only I hadn’t met you or your stupid nag!” he says.

What a strange kind of self-hating shame it would evidence to others if pro-gay-marriage forces showed that we were willing to chance that others might take our relationships from us–as long as they were doing so in a democratically peaceful way that everyone agreed we could have said ‘no’ to at any time!

Where anti-gay marriage forces *have* put the question of gay marriage to the ballot and won, I have never seen any of them write, “The truth is that we did shove heterosexual-only marriage down the throats of some people who don’t agree with it. They were trying to achieve their goal by peaceful, democratic means and we were trying to thwart them. Am I the only one who is embarassed by that?”

That is the only thing I really think might be shameful.

Many people seem to get confused about our government, thinking it’s a democracy, and fail to understand that it’s a constitutional democratic republic.

And, to nit-pick further, the ancient Greeks didn’t have jars, they had amphorea, which would be closer akin to a jug than a jar. I’ve read many different versions of the myth and some say box (which the Greeks had) and some say jar.

but your response was far more nuanced.

so here’s another thought for you, joey. Let’s do a thought experiment, and pass a law that says that marriages are no longer a publicly recorded contract. We’ll pass a second law that NO ONE may tell another person they are married.

In that situation, could your relative then explain how anything has been, ahgem, shoved down his throat, how he loses, or in any way has been affected by my mariage?

BTW, i suspect Joey is a troll. i find it hard to believe that any self-respecting gay person would buy any of that garbage.

We don’t live in a democracy. We are a democratic republic. Which means while people have a say in their government, we don’t vote en mass on every issue. Some issues are core fundamentals that aren’t up for debate. Civil rights are one of them.

skipping down…

I have co-workers and family members who disagree with me on this issue. One of them mentioned to me that the gay rights movement stripped him of his right to vote.

Really? Was he not allowed to vote for his senator? Representative? Mayor? Local Judges? President?

Your coworker was stripped of nothing except his overactive sense of entilement. He’s still allowed to vote. If he doesn’t like what his reps do, he can elect new ones. If he doesn’t like who they choose for the supreme court, he can elect new ones who will put people on the bench he supports.

That’s civics 101 in this country. Evidently you slept through class.

He told me that same-sex marriage was shoved down the throat of the people of Massachusetts. I had a hard time arguing with him because he was right. We did strip him of his right to vote…and last time I checked, voting is a right.

We don’t vote on every issue as a country. We vote for representatives, people who represent us and they vote on our behalf.

I sure as hell didn’t vote to invade Iraq.

I didn’t vote to invade Afghanistan.

But I, unlke your coworker, accept that I DID have a say, a VOTE, in who made those decisions for me. Again, this is how our country works.

I’m not so selfish as to care only about the rights of gays, but about the rights of everyone. Even I had to admit that his rights had been violated in an effort to advance my rights.

Ah yes, the old “selfishness” charge.

Does this mean your pal was going to vote for gay marriage, and gosh darn it, he just didn’t get a chance? I highly doubt that. How is he not selfish for wanting to deny you a right he enjoys?

What exactly is selfish about people wanting equality? What is so selfish about a couple wanting to make sure that if one of them ends up in the hospital, the doctors don’t get to pretend they’re legal strangers?

I know that most gays would object by saying something like “We don’t vote on civil rights issues.” But that doesn’t mean that we DIDN’T shove gay marriage down their throats, it just means that we were right in doing so.

Nothing was shoved down anyone’s throats. Except those who think their rights extend to telling me how to live and deciding how I do that.

The truth is that we did shove gay marriage down the throats of some people who don’t agree with it. They were trying to achieve their goal by peaceful, democratic means and we were trying to thwart them. Am I the only one who is embarrassed by that?

I’m embarassed that you bought all those lies and misinformation. I’m embarssed you think anything about our enemies is peaceful or democratic.

Here’s the kicker–from all the polls I saw, I think we could have WON that fight! Instead, we decided to simply not have the fight, and declare ourselves the winners. We could have won a purer and more decisive victory if we had taken it to the ballot box and come away victorious. Sadly, the gay community of Massachusetts (or most of it) didn’t want to do that, and so the victory we won will always be tainted.

Tainted, really? Is the freedom of African Americans tainted because we didn’t vote on freeing the slaves? What about when women got the right to vote? We didn’t vote directly on that one, either. When interracial marriage was made legal (also not through voting, FYI) does that mean it’s tainted, too?

Do you know ANYTHING about the judicial branch? About judicial review? About what the Supreme Court’s whole job?

Even I have to admit that gays appear almost cowardly in this situation. We fought tooth and nail to avoid voting because we were afraid we couldn’t win.

No, we fought tooth and nail because our constitution guarantees certain liberties are ABOVE voting. What you advocate is tossing out our founding principles in favor of mob rule.

Now I look at DC, and I say let’s not make the same mistake twice! I know that the whites in DC overwhelmingly support marriage equality. Blacks lean slightly against the idea. But I still think we can win! Why are we so afraid of voting?

Because civil rights aren’t and should NOT be decided by a majority. Has there ever been a minority right that’s been achieved by a vote? That isn’t how our government was founded, and that’s certainly not what it’s about.

I feel no sympathy for those who get mad because they weren’t able to prevent me from achieving equality, especially when they know almost nothing about how our government works, what rights we have, the very foundational principles of our government, and are completely unable to tell the truth.