1) I'm not sure if centrism is to blame in this election. I mean, Kerry may not be the "liberal senator from Massachusetts" that the Bush camp painted him out to be, but he is pretty liberal, clearly more so than Clinton. And, though Clinton's success can only partly be attributed to his moderate policy positions (another very important part goes to the strength of his personality), his success maybe points that centrism IS necessary, but that Kerry wasn't centrist.

2) I think you're right that the gay marriage concern was an important wedge issue, but I don't think that it was the only one. I think, on many social issues, the Democrats have deliberately alienated a large number of people that are their natural constituency. For instance, the Democrats allow for less internal dissent on social issues than Republicans do. I'm referring specifically to the Democrat's refusal to let Bob Casey speak at their 1992 Convention, despite the fact that he was a high-profile and popular governor of a key state. Compare that to the role of Ahnold in the president's campaign this year. I find this election to be a real popular mandate for President Bush and for the Republicans in general. They even knocked out Daschle. Holy crap. I think the Democrats may have to commit themselves to serious change in order to return to power, and I think the easiest way to appeal to groups they have not done well with are through social issues.

Yeah. Centrism isn't to blame. It's been employed by countless politicians very successfully in the past. The problem was Kerry himself. As Mark pointed out, Kerry IS damn liberal. And many people like myself are very liberal on social issues, but we can't agree with Kerry on how to pay for his social "programs."

On to gay marriage. It is ridiculous that it's even an issue. We need to let people do what they want. We need to leave people alone. If you're not hurting anyone or violating someone elses civil rights, I don't care what you do.

Basically, I think the Dems are in trouble. And their peril, for me, is both gratifying and horrifying.

I agree, it is ridiculous that gay marriage is a national political issue. However much the Republicans may have exploited it, the Democrats have no one to blame but liberals here, however. Specifically, the liberals who brought the lawsuit in Massachusetts in the first place and the liberals on the court who, by a bare majority, ruled in their favor. I think Barney Frank made a pretty prescient comment when these things first started happening, when he suggested that this might be going too fast too quickly, and could backfire. Looks like it did. A bunch of constitutional amendments passed, Dems lose seats in Congress, and most importantly Bush has four more years.

I agree with most of what's been said. I don't mean centrism itself is without merit -- I mean seeking out a candidate that's thought to appeal to centrist interests may not be a good idea. To use the obvious example, Dean was the darling of some pretty liberal folks. Health care, civil unions and staying out of Iraq are not wildly radical positions, though -- in fact, it's where Kerry, the nominally centrist offering, ended up.

Well, we know how Kerry did. But I think there is a lot to be said for nominating someone who comes by such positions naturally.

Dean was unelectable. Sorry, but it's true. As much as Kerry didn't win, Dean would have gotten blown out.

I know we're trying to talk in terms of outcomes and trying not to buy into our own righteousness. And practically, you're probably right, Tom, and it's a difficult and unfortunate question.

But it is absolutely ridiculous to say that liberals only have themselves to blame for filing gay marriage lawsuits or "moving too fast."

That's the same bullshit blame-the-victim attitude that comes out in every civil rights struggle, whether a societal upheaval or a small sliver of the population asking for a few small rights granted to every citizen but denied to them.

James Baldwin wrote an essay demolishing Faulkner for promoting the idea that "desegregation's great, but we can't do it too fast." The same applies here, albeit to a much, much lesser scale. Regardless, it's pathetic to sit here and, in a backhanded way, excuse the bigotry of others by saying people shouldn't have pursued what is rightfully theirs.

Plus, it totally ignores the context of when this issue rose into the public dialogue. As I remember it, after anti-sodomy laws were struck down, gays weren't bum-rushing the altars. The religious right started shrieking about gay marriage before the homosexual community had even made it a priortiy -- again, as I remember it.

Then, in that twisting and turning way that things have of developing, each side began feeding off the other's fears until Bush was endorsing the FMA -- and of-fucking-course gays aren't going to stand by and let that pass quietly.

But, yes, let's blame them, by all means, because thank God it's not something we have to face every day of our lives.

In response to Matty's post:

I really think you're off-base when you say this is a blame-the-victim response. I don't think I'm blaming these groups for attempting to change society for, as they see it, the better. But what I was trying to say was that there are consequences to these things, especially to the way that they are done. Gay rights groups in Massachusetts had zero success getting the democratically elected legislative body to act on their agenda. So they moved it to the courts, and won there. However, by doing that, this struck a lot of people as short-circuiting the political process. I don't know if you've read the decision in Goodridge, but there's not a whole lot of law in it. It's basically a policy decision, and those are supposed to come from the duly elected branches of government.

At any rate, what I'm trying to say is, this gay rights debate that we as a country are having (and trying not to have at the same time) is far from decided, and how it will end up is not clear. I have an opinion on it, and it seems clear that you do as well. As a society, we have opted to let democracy decide these things. Majority rule seems the only fair way to solve it. I'm not egotistical enough to think my morality is the one that should govern all of society. When a group dodges this apparatus, the group opposed to this is even more upset, because they played by the rules, won, and still ended up with the outcome they think is wrong.

To sum up: I don't want to say this is any group or individual's fault to the exclusion of others. A lot of things went into Kerry's defeat, not the least of which was Kerry himself. But I think it is undeniable that one of the factors involved was the gay marriage debate, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision was really the opening volley in that.

And of course, fuck you for calling a whole lot of very decent people bigots. It is just about as productive if I sit back and call all gay people pervs.

Well, what can I say Matt. It sucks, but I don't think all social injustices are equal. More to the point, there are varying amounts of things we can do about them. And, as I said, I think analogies to the civil rights movement are inappropriate.

There is a very narrow set of legal privileges that gay people cannot enjoy. But that is the extent of the debate, politically, and those narrow privileges just do not present an imperative to act, to my mind.

Gay folks want acceptance, and an end to the injustices and indignities they suffer on a daily basis. I understand that (or at least hope I do). But tolerance can't be legislated, and a backlash has occurred as a result of pursuing this end by legal means.

Obviously I'm not qualified to tell the gay community how to pursue their goals. But it seems obvious to me that gaining legal access to the term "marriage" is not going to do much to get rid of those awkward looks at PTA meetings; and that in fact their most recent efforts have been hugely counterproductive.

mark,

call it what you want, but banning gays from getting married is bigotry. there is absolutely no justification legally, in my mind, which is admittedly not honed on legal arguments, for restricting the rights of citizens for no other reason than some supposed "morality." and i don't think i'm being pompous or presumptive when i say that to call opposition to gay marriage anything more than soft bigotry. sorry if that pisses you off, but give me a good reason to restrict the rights of some arbitrary set of citizens -- whether it be because of skin color or sexual preference -- and i'll recant.

and as for democratic processes, as far as i know, the people in massachusetts are not exactly calling for the heads of those judges or the people being supported by the anti-gay-marriage governor. (see here.)

tom, i agree with you that i wish things had played out another way. and i agree that this is not directly parallel to the civil rights movement. for one thing, there's no organized movement, no leaders, none of that. and that is because, i think, the issue was forced into the public sphere by the people who wanted to use it for the exact purposes it was used for: demonizing gays. blaming a few people for responding to those attacks in the wrong ways, well, reminds me a lot of stuff like the suffragettes.

and over time, as hopefully we become a more tolerant society, these discussions will seem as silly as those rights issues of years past.

i don't know where you draw the balance between needing to win the vote and selling out your principles. i guess if were smart like rove, our candidates would stand up in front of crowds and denounce gay marriage and propose litigation called the "family protection act" that somehow managed to extend gay rights, a la clear skies and the logging legislation.

Matty:

You can call refusal to grant blanket acceptance to homosexuals bigoted all you want, but name-calling doesn't solve any problems and just simply alienates the opposite side, and often moderates in the middle (I include myself in that category). This is most easily seen when your initial sentence is flipped to the other side:

"Call it what you want, but advocating acceptance of people who define themselves by how much they like to stick their dicks in other mens' asses is perverted."

See how annoying that is?

Anyway, more substantively, you characterize this as an attempt to restrict the rights of homosexuals. That's just not the way it is. Homosexuals have more rights today than they have had in the past. You're attempting to EXPAND their rights, and I think it's your burden to justify why they need the government to sanction their relationships. Maybe the only way out of this is, as Tom and many many others have suggested, to get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Who the hell knows.

As for Massachusetts not electing more Republicans, I live in a suburb of Boston, and I can tell you why. Massachusetts doesn't elect a lot of Republicans, outside of (for some reason) the position of governor. It just doesn't happen. It's a Democratic stronghold, and not just in national politics. It's going to take a little more than one issue to switch a state so committed to one party. But what is notable is that there has been an attempt to change the Massachusetts Constitution to overturn the Goodridge decision. However, the procedure for amending the Massachusetts Constitution requires three steps: 1) initial passage by the legislature of the amendment, 2) subsequent passage by the next elected legislature of the same amendment, and finally 3) approval by a simple majority of the voting public. I believe steps 1 and 2 require supermajorities of some degree (60% maybe). At any rate, step 1 was done successfully in the Spring, based (as far as I could tell from the news) on a lot of people calling and writing their state legislators. Step 2 has not yet had an opportunity to be fulfilled or not. We'll see what happens. But a simple lack of voter rejection of Democratic politicians is not the only way to view the public reaction to this issue.

Show me where I said that everyone had to "accept" gay marriages. And show me where I said that the government will go tell churches that they have to marry homosexuals. It should be as simple as this: If a church marries a gay couple, the state will recognize that marriage. That's all I want. That's all any of us want. I honestly do not know what the hell you're reading into what I was saying earlier.

I think we're talking about two different things when we say marriage. And I really don't understand how your supposed reversal of my argument correlates to equating gay people with "people who define themselves by how much they like to stick their dicks in other people's asses," which just sounds like a disgusting stereotype of homosexuals. I was saying, as I see it, gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, and taking that away for no other reason than that they are gay is an arbitrary choice -- which is pretty much the definition of bigotry. I did not call you or people who hold this belief any number names vaguely synonymous with "ignorant redneck." My parents, as I see it, are basically bigoted on this issue, but I consider them still basically good people. For that matter, I see the presidential candidate I supported in this election as basically bigoted, even if he does support civil unions, sort of. Or whatever exactly he supported.

I have yet to resolve the following line-drawing problem. Why is limiting marriage to one man and one woman any less arbitrary than limiting marriage to two people regardless of their respective sexes? In other words, if you recognize same sex marriage, why shouldn't you permit polyandry and polygamy? Or between two people very close in bloodline (i.e., incest)? I'll even throw you guys a softball: Why should we even stop there and not bless marriage between a man and his llama?

About the only answer I can come up with is that society has even less of a history of valuing those relationships. All involve the grant of rights to a nontraditional relationship. I suppose there are also some higher likelihood marital strife, genetic problems, and inter-species arguments, but I don't see the former overtaking the arbitrariness of the "marriage" line.

Matty's right Mark, gay people aren't just "people who define themselves by how much they like to stick their dicks in other people's asses," but also "people who define themselves by how much they like to stick their dicks in other people's MOUTHS or HANDS,"
seriously though, if thats the definition then I'm gay too (you didn't say "other MEN's"). I think the point Mark was trying to make there was that you can offend each other equally and it still hasn't solved the problem.
Another thing I want to comment on is, Matty, its a pretty unfair tactic to compare this to the Civil Rights or Suffrage Movement. Then, if you're opposed to gay marriage, you are implicitly opposed to women voting and black people as well? being Mark's brother, I can say with reasonable confidence that he is not.
Finally, I want to say, sorry for spilling wine on your floor at the bitching keg party you had a few weeks ago, I tried to get most of it on myself but I'm sure some hit the ground and for that I apologize

Don't forget ears, eyes, noses, and throats. If there is a hole, someone will [try to] fill it -- equal opportunity sodomy.

By having the government sanction gay marriages, the government is therefore accepting gay marriages. Thus, we as a society have accepted it. That's where the acceptance comes into play, more at a broad social level than at an individual one. And nowhere did I say anything about churches being forced to marry gay people. When I go to church, I go to a Catholic one, and I'm well aware that it's going to be a long-ass time (if ever it will happen) before there will be a gay wedding performed in one of those.

What you call a disgusting stereotype of homosexuals really isn't so much. I mean, it's only as debasing as saying heterosexual guys define themselves as those who like to stick cock in hot vag. Not always the case, but true pretty regularly.

Also, you used a word in quotes, "ignorant redkneck", that I didn't use, so I don't know who you're trying to quote from. I didn't say I was offended because you were calling people ignorant redknecks, I said you were calling them bigots. And by the way, I can very easily call you a bigot because of your lack of acceptance of people whose views differ from yours. But I'm not going to do that because I'm a little too mature.

You cunt.

Also, I don't think you grasp the difference between taking away rights and granting rights. In our society, gay people have never had the right to marry. Thus, states aren't taking them away now, they're just doing the same thing they've been doing forever. I think the burden is on the person who wants to change the nature of rights given to justify that.

I don't really view this is as a quest for the few rights (visitation, tax breaks, etc.) gay people lack. I think that if they just pursued those things, without demanding the equivalency of marriage, they could probably get them (not everywhere, cough, Utah). But by demanding marriage, the gay rights movement is not only asking for these things but also saying, in a way, "hey, breeders, society has to say our relationships are as good as yours." And a lot of people aren't ready to admit that now, or perhaps ever. And it's this goal for societal recognition that people find more distasteful, as opposed to the much more sympathetic individual rights issues. It's basically asking a large portion of the people to overthrow part of their morality. It's like me asking you to become "bigoted" too, and abandon your goal of marriage equality for all, regardless of perversion.

Also, just because you call your parents bigots doesn't mean it's ok to call the rest of America bigots. All that proves is that you like to throw that word around.

I think the burden is on the person who wants to change the nature of rights given to justify that.

mark's right (much as it pains me to say it). i've been thinking a lot about this since the election (okay, for like, five minutes). the burden is on gay rights supporters to convince the rest of the country why it's a good idea to let gays marry. i'm not sure exactly how this could be done. appeal to the fact that it would be better for gays to be monogamous instead of promiscuous (which is the impression many people have)? argue that gay marriage would only reinforce traditional values instead of allowing the country's morals to "decline"? say it'd be good for aids? i really dunno. it's a problem.

"The gay rights movement has made incredible strides in the past four years -- I'm amazed that a national conversation on gay marriage is taking place."

Given the language in some of the amendments that passed, referring to partner benefits, visitation, etc.. gay people have less rights, less mind you, than they had two days ago. I could try to attribute cause to judges, activists, a certain heterosexual mayor, or even Republican biggots...I'll let smarter folks decide that.

The fact is gays have less rights, not more, not the same, but less. The backlash I warned about has come to pass. And I hope everyone who pushed the issue in Mass and Cali are proud of their accomplishments.

--scott

Wait a sec, Jon—you weren't at Matty's keg party a couple a weekends ago, unless you were in Austin, Texas. Wrong Matt. But you were at my keg party . . . and maybe spilled wine on my floor . . . fuck! But it's cool. I'm pretty sure you weren't the guy who had sex in my bathroom, and that I appreciate.

I CERTAINLY did not have sex with another person in your bathroom, im not at this time making any direct avowel or disavowal of whether I had sex in your bathroom. and to both matts and kriston, sorry again.