Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Marriage Equality: Looking Grim in Massachusetts

1

Why are you surprised that Democrats are doing this? They've never hesitated to throw the gay community to the wolves in the past when they thought it could win them some political points.

It's interesting how many liberal/Democratic friends disbelieve me when I tell them that Clinton passed the first Defense of Marriage Act (the one that defined het marriage as marriage for federal purposes and allowed states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states). I've actually had people tell me that I'm confused or that Clinton vetoed the bill.

A lot of the gay community is in serious denial about the Democrats. Sure, they'll invite you to their house, treat you nicely and say all the right things (and take your money) but at the end of the day they're going to stab you in the back and say "Like you have a better option?"

Posted by Mrobvious | January 2, 2007 7:19 PM
2

I was verbally attacked by three gay guys at the Cuff when I told them that Bill Clinton SIGNED the defence of marriage act. They told me I was lying. I agree there is a great deal of denial in the gay community about how loyal the dems are to our concerns. But what other choice do we have? The GOP?? The Republicans will fuck us and so will the Democrats but at least we will get some dinner or a drink with the Democrats first.

Posted by Andrew | January 2, 2007 7:41 PM
3

Confusion is there are two similar acts. The first, DOMA, was signed by Clinton in 1996. The second, Marriage Protection Act (which hasn't passed), "sought to divest the power of the federal courts to hear cases related to the Marriage Protection Act itself, as well as certain cases relating to the Defense of Marriage Act." (Wikipedia) Confusion comes because some are calling the MPA "DOMA 2".

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: " I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

Does anyone believe that Bill Clinton honestly believes that? What's worse, a fundie who truly and honestly believes he's following the word of God or a politican who lies because he knows the truth will lose him points? Both of them are pretty disgusting, but on my moral compass the fundie edges out the liar.

Posted by Mrobvious | January 2, 2007 7:52 PM
4

I've been asking this question over and over again, and no judge or politician will answer:

How can it possibly be moral for the majority of people to vote on the human rights of a minority that they hate?

Posted by Original Andrew | January 2, 2007 8:25 PM
5

Don't be too glum, Dan. The polls actually show a majority of voters in MA support gay marriage. I have a feeling that when Fred Phelps and the rest show up, that support will double.

Posted by Gitai | January 2, 2007 8:31 PM
6

Good question Andrew.

Todays news is not the first attempt to overthrow the court decision in MA. They keep trying and trying and trying to find a way to discriminate.

And then Presidential candidates that are also attorneys, like John Edwards, pretend that they don't know that DOMA violates Article IV of the US Constitution or at least presents a strong challenge to it.

America - with the help of the Democratic Party - is most effective when it organizes against a minorty group that it loathes. The Democrats will not rock the boat unless they can find a way for the issue to benefit them first. Otherwise, they can blackmail same sex couples, and they have no qualms about it.

And there are too many homo's willing to suck up to THE PARTY for any pressure to build. The only thing worse than a Log Cabin Republican is a gay Democrat.

Posted by patrick C | January 2, 2007 8:39 PM
7

So Patrick C,

Most Dems support us and can be reasoned with, as seen in comments from other legislators who oppose the measure.

Who exactly do you vote for?

Posted by Original Andrew | January 2, 2007 8:46 PM
8

Take a look at all the Y votes by Democrats:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/02/roll_call_vote_to_recess_the_constitutional_convention/

I can just imagine what MA will be like in the Fall of 2008 with this on the ballot for the Presidential election. Nothing like being thrown to the lions. The DLC are sure to take a strong stand in support of equailty, especially in an election year, right?

Well, we better get this issue out of our system by May 1 because the next election cycle will start and we aren't allowed to discuss dicey issues around Democrats.

Integrity makes them nervous.

Posted by patrick C | January 2, 2007 8:48 PM
9

It depends on what you call support, Andrew.

It is easy to be supportive when there is no risk involved for them. I don't vote like I'm playing the ponies. I vote for and financially support candidates with a platform that doesn't make me want to vomit.

The Democrats haven't come up with a candidate that I can support. In fall of 2007, I might actually vote for the Democrat as mayor of San Francisco, but its a long way off.

I didn't vote for Feinstein or Pelosi.

Posted by patrick C | January 2, 2007 9:05 PM
10

Speaking as a Mass. resident, I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss the people in this state (last poll I saw had 57% pro-marriage).

Also, as to whether Democrats suck of not, 21 of 27 (78%)Republicans voted against marriage equality, while only 41 out of 172 (24%) Democrats voted against marriage equality.

Posted by 2.5 cats | January 2, 2007 9:52 PM
11

All the gays whining about the Democrats remind me of all the blacks who whine about the Democrats.

Here's a bit of undoubtedly unpopular advice: Get over it, and get active. Change the party from within (which can be done, and has been done several times) or quit bitching. Or go throw you vote away on some bullshit like Nader.

I'm gay, and I vote Democratic because the party appeals to me on many issues. I'm not stupid enough to be a single-issue voter. I'll leave that to the Republicans.

Posted by Nothing worse than a whiny fag.... | January 2, 2007 10:10 PM
12

2.5 -

The difference is the Repubs rarely pretend to be anything other than homophobic bigots (it's even in their platform), while the Democrats pretend to be supportive of gay rights. And they are, as long as there is absolutely *no* political cost to doing so.

For that matter, that's pretty much the general theme for the Democrats, they're in favor of whatever gets them elected. Supporting a war that 90% knew was wrong, no problem. Using homophobia to get elected, no problem.

So in the end we're stuck between bigots who are pretty honest about being bigots, or liars who will say whatever is necessary to get elected even if it goes against their personal beliefs.

Posted by charles | January 2, 2007 10:16 PM
13

Charles, dont forget the "non-whiny fag" types that know all about changing parties from within, even though they dont try the same tactic on the Republican party.

If it is such an effective strategy, why not try to change them? Apparently the Democrats are right on so many issues already. If we need to change a party it ought to be the Republicans.

Posted by patrick C | January 2, 2007 10:22 PM
14

Personally I don't find civil rights to be a "single issue," they're the basis of all other rights.

But keep voting uncritically Democratic, because, just like with black voters, they understand you don't have a better option and they will keep fucking you over.

If you really want to influence the Democrats you're going to have to sit out a few local elections or at the very least stop handing money to people like
Howard "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman" Dean.

You're just lucky the Iraq war came along and screwed the Repubs, otherwise the 2006 and 2008 elections would have turned into a contest to see which party could do the better job of fag-bashing their way into office.

Posted by aclue | January 2, 2007 10:28 PM
15

This kills me.

Posted by Back East | January 2, 2007 10:36 PM
16

Gay marriage can win in Mass.

The right wing doesn't know when to stop. The best place in the nation for an election show down is in Mass.

God, the tens of millions that will flow to our side from adjoining states ... New York, Penn...N J... and Canada.

Right wing - beware - you have awaken the bear, get ready to get kicked in the ass if this goes to the ballot in old Mass.

All this trash talk of Democrats .... I agree ... I am holding out for the Good and Wise Celestial Party ... all angels of pure energy full of kindness and godly belief ... sure, politics has always been messy and imperfect ... but in its imperfections I'll take the Democrats.... no contest.

Posted by sammy | January 3, 2007 12:34 AM
17

Is it any surprise that in a state where you pretty much have to be a Democrat to get elected to office you have a lot of conservative Democrats in office? It was like that in Rhode Island too.

Electoral domination tends to lead to surprises like a Republican becoming Governor. States like Massachusetts aren't as liberal as a lot of people think. That sort of dominance leads to a lot of otherwise conservative people voting for Democrats just because that's the only party that can get elected. Which leads to a lot of Democrats taking it easy because "Massachusetts is a hardcore Democratic state"

And then a moderate looking Republican that can sway independents runs for statewide office and boom -- everyone's surprised.

So, don't be so quick to bash Democrats just because an OVERWHELMING 30% of the legislature, including Republicans, is opposed to gay marriage.

Posted by Aexia | January 3, 2007 12:55 AM
18

What Aexia said. The problem here isn't Massachusetts Dems; it's the Massachusetts state constitution, which permits 1/4 of two legislatures to bring an amendment to the public. You can get 1/4 of the legislature to agree on a whole lot of nasty policies.

But I'm not as pessimistic as Dan about the amendment's passage. It will take work and smart politics, but I think gay-marriage supporters have the advantage in local public opinion.

Fucking Mitt Romney. My hatred for that two-faced, preening bastard knows no bounds.

Posted by Carlo | January 3, 2007 6:27 AM
19

It will require hard work and money starting now to get the next MA Legislature to stop this amendment before it gets any further.

Wouldn't it be wise for influential bloggers with large audiences that have done fund raising for Democratic Party candidates in 2006 to get involved?

How much money was raised/contributed to various Democrats by Dan Savage and AMERIICAblog John Aravosis last fall?

I know that Aravosis managed to distribute over $100,000 to a number of canddates. Wasn't Dan Savage paraded around Philadelphia for his effort to unseat Santorum?

Why can't someone in thier positions put as much time, money and engery into protecting the ONLY state that recognizes marriage equality?

Why give it all away to politicians that stab us in the back?

Posted by patrick C | January 3, 2007 7:26 AM
20

This is an opportunity. The R's have been complaining in part of how "activist judges" have imposed this upon the people of Massachusetts. How great it will be to show that they're wrong and that society is moving forward without them.

It's time that not only the Democrats have some balls, but some of the people posting here as well. This is a long term fight- something we're taking two steps forward, one step back. Liberty is not without cost, and this is something worth fighting for.

Like several people have posted- gay marriage has the support of the majority of people in Massachusetts. As their newly elected governor has said, the sky hasn't fallen in. Two years and 8000 marriages later, most reasonable people have seen that their "straight" marriages aren't effected, and that if anything this is something that strengthens society.

So I say it's time. Let's have this fight in Massachusetts. We're on favorable turf, we've had favorable results the past couple of years, and we can show the bigots that it's not just activist judges that want equality for all- it truly is a majority of the people.

If we win (which I think we will) we'll see a speed up of the change across America- blue states will move much more quickly to equality, and we might even see some cracks in the armor in red states. It's worth it and I'm looking forward to the fight.

Posted by Dave Coffman | January 3, 2007 9:18 AM
21

I wouldn't be so fast to assume Mass. will vote for gay marriage. Didn't we just shoot down a ballot initiative that would allow wine to be sold in grocery stores. Wine. In grocery stores.

Posted by Ryan | January 3, 2007 9:38 AM
22

That's why we have to be heard, seen and work hard Ryan. There ARE no assumptions to be made. We might believe we're entitled to gay marriage (which I think we are) but that doesn't mean there won't be a battle for it. Maybe a higher percentage that blog on here participate in the political process, but most fags I know are willing to sit back and just let things unfold without doing anything by whining. I think things in Mass. are favorable for outcomes we would like- but that means we have to fight for what we want. You can be sure the other side will- and now that Romney isn't in office anymore and running for Prez you can be sure he'll be pressing his side even harder.

It's time stand up for what we believe. We have a hard time ramming that down the straight Democrats throats when 80%+ of the gay community won't even stand up for itself.

Posted by Dave Coffman | January 3, 2007 10:16 AM
23

Well put. I guess I'm still in shock that I can't pick up a bottle of wine at my friendly neighborhood grocer. I think the real trick here is going to be not being afraid to letting our voices be heard. The winos and grocery stores were too afraid to stand up and take a stand in case they might look like drunks, and they lost. Deval Patrick stood up and took a stand when he was attacked by Kerry Healey, and he won. This cannot be a timid fight. And we must press our popular governor and the rest of the Dems to put some political capital behind it.

Maybe I should be spending more time reading Boston's alternative weekly, but my job ends in six months and I'm ready to move on.

Posted by Ryan | January 3, 2007 11:03 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).