When the Mass. supreme court ruled gay marriage legal, I said it was an early Christmas gift for Bush & Rove who would drive a Mack truck through this issue in the 2004 election, which they did!

Also, The Mass.Ct ruling changed the debate in America (thanks to Bush propagandists re-framing the issue to their advantage) from civil unions to gay marriage.

To beat Bush on the issue of equal rights for gays, we need to re-frame the issue to equal rights for gay partnerships under the law.

Since a majority of Americans are for civil union rights under the law, we should press this issue and not use the word "marriage" which is very emotional, filled w/ religious ritual, and plays into Bush's hand. Let's be politically sophistcated.

I believe we should do the folowing:

1. continue to challenge in state courts those state amendments that prohibited gay marriage AND civil unions in one vote since a voter could have been against the first and for the second, but had only one vote.

2.support US Senator Mark Dayton's proposal that all loving and committed partnerships(straight and gay) should be equally protected under the Constitution with the same legal rights(civil unions), and marriage is a religious ceremony reserved for religious institutions who may or may not elect to perform this religious ceremony for couples of the same gender.

3. Through donations, expand public awareness of the inequality under law in regard to gay couples and the need to extend EQUAL RIGHTS to them in TV and newspaper ads. We should also march and otherwise demonstrate for equal rights w/ leaders of the Black civil rights movement,leaders of worker's rights, leaders of Women rights movement etc. We have to make the Bush position look like intolerant, prejudiced, closed minded bigotry in the minds of Americans (which it is).

4. To win, we have to compare the gay equal rights movement to the struggles for equal rights for women, Blacks, the disabled,workers and seniors, and form and maintain a strong alliance w/ them.

5. We should get supportive elected officials to sponsor Equal Rights legislation on the state and federal level.

The first thing we must do is STOP using the phrase "gay marriage". That's yielding the argument to the Bush bigots. We must immediately describe our goal as equal rights under the law for gay partners.

If we keep using the phrase "gay marriage" we not only lose this argument w/ the American people, but we also lose the equal rights argument(as we did in the last election). We have to elect equal rights friendly legislators, which won't happen if we allow Bush and his bigots to beat the sh1t out of us at the polls w/ "gay marriage".

I don't think society as a whole is ready for this. We should try for the 'civil union' approach but first we'll have to take on the MSM to make our effort worthwhile. I think that the public in general could accept the term 'civil union' to describe a gay union. I'm just not so sure that they will accept the equivalent non-religious designation for themselves.

Well, the problem with the "civil unions" debate is that just talking about it doesn't make it so. I don't see a bunch of states out there rushing to make civil unions available. In fact, if anything, more states are barring them than implementing them.

So far, we have marriage in one state (MA); civil unions in one state (VT); and some type of domestic partnership benefits in a handful of others (CA, NJ, HA).

We're only in the start of a new legislative session, so, we'll see. But with the way things are now, I doubt we'll see much, if any, movement in this direction. Given that we are in a defensive mode right now, I'd say that the No. 1 priority of the gay rights community is to protect marriages in MA.

You're right, though, on the mainstream media. Somehow during the past election season, the issue got reframed. Instead of being an equal rights issue, which it was last spring, it is now that we are trying to ram something through that the public doesn't want.

We don't have to sell gays to the right. Gays will always be an investment for the left.

Your comment is confusing, please explain.

Gays are the most creative among us because they are the most open-minded. Creativity is our biggest export. Red States want to chase gays out. Blue States want to allow gays in. The Blue State economies will thrive. The Red State economies will fail. The Red States will have no choice but to embrace gays if they want to be part of the new economy.

We don't need to sell gays to right wingers. It's just a matter of time before they figure out who is most productive in society.

we don't hear a lot in the media from gays themselves only politicians talking about THEM!

Our society is not mature enough to accept the unavoidable.

This is absolutely true, and why is this? We gay people have to share part of the blame, I think, for not having developed high-profile spokespeople.

But for the most part, it's just an indication of media laziness. They don't bother to get our comments because it's easier just to go with the talking head or politician. (BTW, this is less of a problem with the print media than TV. Usually, print media stories do seek out a gay source.)

I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think that it's quite that black and white.

Sexuality-like mental ability and disposition-is in the genes. Of course, the environment has to interact with everything to produce a final result. It can be said that some people with mental illness are extroardinarily creative and/or brilliant. The same could be true with gays. However, there are plenty of mentally ill and gay people who have normal/below-normal abilities. That's why I think it is dangerous to generalize. I also think that the proper self-sufficiency of the creative lies in their own hands--not other companies. If they truly want to earn their due based upon how society rewards creativity (which it deifies) they should start their own companies. And I'm all for that. I would like an all gay major media source. I think they would be A LOT less biased than the MSM.

Just a thought,

Chris

I know this is gonna sound real stupid but what the hell is the "MSM" that everyone keeps talking about?

Mainstream media.

Pretty sure MSM is mainstream media. Took me awhile to figure it out. If that ain't right, somebody will correct me.

Are gay people, on average, more creative than straight people???? Hmmmm. That's not as easy as it would seem on the surface. Sure, the percentage of gay people is much higher in some creative fields, such as theater, dance, fashion and hairstyling (if you consider that creative). However, these creative types are a minority within a minority. The vast majority of the gay people I know are no more creative than your average straight guy (or gal). So, I don't know that there's a definitive answer to that. If gay people are more creative on average than straight people, I'd say it's just by a bit.

Gays are more creative? I don't know and I don't care, but it sounds like stereotyping to me.

What I know is a MAJORITY of Americans are in favor of equal rights(civil unions) for gays.

What I care about is how do we transform this majority position into equal rights for gay partners under the law.?

My politcal experience has shown me that the greatest motivation for a public official is personal survival. So, we have to do two things:

1. Increase the American majority who are in favor of civil unions(equal legal rights) for gay partners.

2. Make the issue of equal rights for gays an issue that enough voters will cast their vote on which will determine who is elected.

Once these two objectives are achieved, scores of politicians will "see the light" on this constitutional issue of equal rights. While we all know that what most of them will actually see, is how to get the butts re-elected, we'll allow them the hypocritical cover, since they're giving us what we want.

US Senator's Mark Dayton's solution to give equal civil rights to straight and gay couples w/ religious institutions performed the ceremony and religious sacrement of marriage is the only approach that will de-rail the Bush bigots effort to ban gay marriage. Bush doesn't give a fuk if the ban of gay marriage passes or not, but only if it helps elect right-wingers who are also corporate puppets like himself.

To re-frame the debate to equal rights under law, and drop the the "gay marriage" phrase puts on back on the offensive and in agreement w/ a majority of Americans.

However, my sense of political reality is that for the fight for equality to be won, we have to do it in stages. First civil unions rights through many state laws, and ultimately a federal law. If the Supreme court rules in the future that gay couples must have equal rights under law(civil unions), the Bush bigots won't be able to exploit this for their partizan ends b/c America will be overwhelmingly in favor of civil unions.

If state laws eventually drop the word "marriage" from their civil ceremonies to show equality, most people won't be effected since they get married in religious ceremonies where they are free to use the word "marriage" and also free to decide if gay partners should or should not participate in the religious ceremony of marriage. Then, eventually, as we progress as a society, civil unions and the word "marriage" will be re-joined by the courts(ala MA), but,until then, gay couples will enjoy equal civil rights under law according to the US Constitution.

Gays being creative is, of course, a stereotype. But like all stereotypes, there is *some* truth to it.

Now, I don't think straight Americans will *ever* make voting decisions based primarily on support for gay rights. It just isn't an issue that has much of a priority. However the marriage amendments did show that at least a fair-sized subset of people can be motivated to vote *against* gay rights issues.

What we have to do is reach the point that enough Americans support gay rights that politicians feel they won't be punished for also supporting gay rights issues.

While that is already true in some parts of the country, it definitely isn't in others. Unfortunately, this is an issue on which politicians, for the most part, will follow public opinion rather than leading it.

We should generalize when we are not speaking of any individual in particular. Generalization is how we stay ahead of the social dynamics of our society. Pattern recognition is the best way to study chaos.

Also "normal" and "sane" are floating reference points relative to particular societies at any particular time. What is not normal in Chicago may be normal in Bombay. What was normal in 1904 is not in 2004.

It's not a stereotype. It's a socioeconomic study that we need to use to our advantage.

This whole marriage thing has implications I never thought about until I had a nice conversation with a friend.

While most people were hyperventilating on this subject and it’s implications for gays. No one and I repeat No one was thinking about the implications for heterosexual couples who just want to live together.

My friend was talking to a co-worker who upset over the new law. The co-worker stated she was not gay but she was living with her boy friend and they just thought the rules of common law marriage would protect them.

What are the implications for non-gays?

How many states still recognize common law marriages, or couples that co-habitat?

What are the implications for children born out of wed lock as far as inheritance if there is no will that acknowledges an entitlement?

What are the potential implications for Domestic Laws?

The bigots of the world will have a different opinion if the implications for domestic law are changed or rolled back as part of the unintended consequences of passing these laws, only time.

I'm not in the law field I'm just asking if there are any potential implications people have not looked at.

Of course, a literal interpretation of any law can have substantial unintended consequences.

Review of the laws from this side maybe weak but it may provide a foundation for a stronger strategy down the road.

PA has discontinued recognition of common law marriage and I'm willing to bet other states have as well. As a straight woman, I am not concerned in the least about straight couples who have the option to get married and obtain the same protections/rights as married couples. If these couples want that protection, they should just go to court and get married.

The target='_blank'>Amend the Amendment idea could take the focus off of gay people.

I read in the U.S.A. today that some big town is trying to block a gay district from going up in their community. I think that crazy. While visiting Toronto with my family we booked a bed and breakfast not knowing it had gay owners. It really didn't make a bit of difference to us. Then we walked a few blocks away and sat down to a really nice outdoor cafe. We soon figured out we were in the gay district of town. All of us being straight Christians it was quite an adventure. They were very nice people and we loved the cafe. It just goes to show you that peoples is peoples. Who cares? I would have only cared if they were showing affection in public. But that goes for straight people too. I have no objections to a gay community. It's very artsy and friendly.

I agree with the marriage part for non-gays. That's not the point any law created specifically to disenfranchise one group will and can be used at some point against another group. Domestic law is strange.

Who would think that a movie star (Lee Marvin) sued by his girl friend of many years would change the rules for community property that would ultimately impact the entire country 30-40 years after the fact.

How ironic that for many straight people in this country who are on disability and want to get married will have to sacrifice all their benefits because of the husbands income. These couples are so poor that their total income combined is below poverty level and they still lose their benefits. One partner is working two jobs and still not making ends meet. So there is stupid laws even for the straight people. They are not able to get married thanks to the law.

dggtx writes "I don't think straight Americans will ever make a voting decsion primarily of gay rights".

"ever" is a long time! If Americans see this issue as equal rights under law as required by the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, they will certainly vote for equality. How many white male segregationists or male candidates against women having the right to vote could get elected today?

Equal rights for gay couples has gotton lost in the Bush bigotry of being against gay marriage for his own political expediency.

Unless and until we re-frame this issue as equal rights for all Americans under law and the Constitution, the Bush bigots will continue to use gay marriage to elect homophobic right-wing corporate puppets.

What I mean is that a pro-gay rights stand might be part of the fabric of what straight people consider when they select a candidate, but it won't be a decisive issue. For example, abortion might be a similar case now. Except for activists on the issue, most people might look at a candidate's position and consider it, but when it comes right down to it, they will vote for a candidate on the basis of personality and perceived trustworthiness, and on issues like the economy, health care, education, Social Security, etc., not their stand on abortion.

If most Americans *really* cared about gay or abortion rights, Bush would not be president.

I've read the various reviews on this study and it appears that the author's definition of creativity is flawed thus making the results unreliable.

It is ashame but issues like gay rights are not going to be considered important UNTIL they effect a larger portion of society. That is, if more people were connected with gays and aware of the problems that they face on a daily basis then something would be a lot more likely to happen. Right now, we have the neocons trying to convince us of how "immoral" homosexuality is. It's a gene just like for any other kind of "aberrent" behavior in our society, it's just that our so-called leaders "selectively" persecute it.

The author's definition of creativity is ahead of it's time. When the rest of the country figures it out, our economy will do what it does best.

Creativity = unconventional problem-solving.

The definition you just gave would explain why 33% of the population fits the description. I'd say that lawyers are not so creative as they are slippery and technocratic. And there sure isn't a lot of room for creativity for surgeons (and other doctors); yet they are listed as belonging to the "creative" group. Shall I perform a 'creative' surgery on you? I don't think so.

It takes creativity to be slippery, and the creativity of most jobs come in less obvious functions.

A lawyer has to get creative when the laws are not clear. They also have to connect evidence that most people wouldn't connect to build a case. Trial lawyers don't just play the law, they play emotions. Trial lawyers have to use creative analogies and presentations to make their case. They have to entertain to some extent to make the parts of the presentation memorable.

Surgeons may not be creative on the operating table, but rather in the diagnosis. Surgeons have to be detectives when considering symptoms. The medical profession requires some creativity when the proceedure is not cut and dry. That's why they call it a practice.

This is the problem with our economy now. Most people assume jobs are cut and dry proceedures. Were the proceedure is not strait forward, creativity gets us by. Most of us are more creative than we know, and use creativity more often than we know.

The book proves the point about Gays being creative not by speculation, but by economic trends. Citys with the three "T"s, technology, talent , and tolerance are growing. The ones that lack any of the three "T"s are declining.

The gays are alternative thinkers because they live alternative life-styles. Citys that tolerate more, welcome gays. The benefit is more creative energy not just from gays, but from anyone who is alternative thinking with alternative life-styles. This is why blue states rule the economy.

We don't need to sell gays to the right. It's a matter of time before they will demand them.

my stance on gay marriage and gay rights is whatever Cheney says.

after all, cheney is gonna have to give a good answer because we want to see what will happen once Bush gets impeached.

Cheney must speak for the families of gays, because they go through the struggle of the social stigma as well. Let him speak for them, I want to see their voices heard too...

I can agree that taking all 3 T's away would have a negative impact, but I don't think that permutations of 1-3 T's when selected randomly *will necessarily* have a *significant* difference in every case. Again, unless you reconduct studies from Florida's book with the word "creativity" defined in no uncertain terms then you cannot reach a useful conclusion concerning the 3 Ts and creativity. There must be a way to measure what is creative and to quantify the components of that creativity. Again, we can have more specific success for what you are after if we don't generalize about it as much. I think that is the key that is missing.

Public: We want to hear Cheney's proposal on Gay rights to special unions with the same political, monetary, tax benefits as traditional marriages?

Cheney: I can't speak on that. I am not the President.

Public: We can change that effective immediately.

Cheney: Well... *rubs hands like Monty Burns* I'll do it if Bill Clinton becomes my VP. And then I want him to do everything, but give me credit.

Public. Ok sure thing.

I think a "gay district" belongs in America about as much as a "white district" Neither one is a good idea. To form a close community is fine, but If theres any discrimination on the renting of buildings, the types of businesses allowed, its a bad idea.Where they trying to block certain businesses in this gay district? There are some people that block "straight businesses" too. I'm not sure what this gay district was proposed to made of, do you have more info? Where there theaters that put on shows? Maybe some of the shows were going to be borderline art/porn. Alot of towns block any type of that stuff.

After reading all the posts, I not only think that the phrase "gay marriage" plays into the hands of the Bush bigots who use this issue to get right-wing, homophobic corporate puppets elected to office, but I've concluded the term "gay rights" may do us more harm than good.

S. I. Hayakawa in his book, Language in Thought and Action, eloquently describes how specific words can shape people's throughts and feeling on an issue. The Bush bigots are experts at using the right words to get others to agree w/ their position(ie, estate tax becomes the death tax; against a woman's right to choose , and stem cell research becomes "a culture of life".etc).

I prefer the phrase "equal rights under law for gay Americans. ". Dr. King did'nt talk about "black rights", but equal rights for blacks.

Individuals who are gay and gay partners should lead a new equal rights movement which is guaranteed under the U. S. Constitutioin. It seems to me that many more straight Americans would be in favor of "equal rights" than "gay rights". That's why a majority of Americans support civil unions since most Americans believe in equality, fairness and tolerance.

YEP, takes the religious rhetoric out of it. Civil unions first, Then worry about other stuff. Write laws that legalize marriage as well as legalize refusing to marry homosexuals(if its against church beliefs). This way rights are equal, Churches and private organizations have right to make up their own rules, but I do want them out of making the countries laws. Its pretty simple.

I would be interested in knowing if there is a city that is missing a one of the three T's that is not on the decline.

I think creativity is what I define it as, unconventional problem-solving. There is nothing else about creativity that is unique.

It's a matter of measuring what is not creativity.

You can't quantify or measure creativity directly. Creativity is only needed where strait-forward procedures are missing. Since we know that jobs are increasingly becoming "make-it-up-as-you-go" type jobs, there is an obvious rising need for creativity. In a nutshell, creativity can be quantified by the lack of conventional procedures in a job.

The late Paul Wellstone once said,"Sometimes to win a fight, you have to start one".

We need to start the legislative fight for equal rights for same gender partners(civil unions),completely unrelated to marriage which plays into the hands of the Bush bigots who use it to elect right-wing homophobic corporate puppets.

Re-framing the issue will put Bush and the Republicans on the defense.

Intoducing this bill called,The Equal Rights for Same Gender Partners Act would not require political courage as a majority of Americans are for civil unions.

While this equal rights bill exists as a concept on this website only(as far as I know), all ideas have to start someplace, and why not here?

You say, "a majority of Americans are for civil unions".

Yes, I think this is true in that a majority has "signed off" on the idea emotionally. But, you may be missing an opportunity if you think this is because they are "for" civil unions.

I believe the real political force behind your cause is to be found in the common revulsion we share toward invasion of privacy. We don't want a federal/state bedroom police.

Consider that a majority also claims to be "for" a woman's right to choose, but that does not translate to being "for" abortion....

A women's right to choose is both a privacy issue and an issue of personal individual choice over matters about her own body. Everyone can identify with that. Even while being troubled by the thought of abortion.

So, if you would frame your cause in a way that everyone can identify with... for example, the civil rights movement was about human freedom, not freedom for blacks. The bigotry was in the belief that blacks were "less than" whites, less than human.

In the case of your cause, we all share an interest in human sexuality (our own) and the sanctity of deep intimate human relationships.

Less than 90% of the general public (so they say) cannot personally identify with being "gay", but (hopefully) greater than 90% can identify with being sexual. And that 90% does not like the idea of the government telling them how to go about being sexual.

Marriage is a word - A word that is "owned" by heterosexuals. And some heterosexuals are very possessive of that word. Why spend your political capital trying to take it away from them?

Your previous posts show that you have asked the same question.

Yet, you continue to advocate a course of political action on behalf of "Gay civil rights".

I think there is a role for government in child protection and development, but I think the government’s relationship with adults should be as individuals. I don't think the government should have the right to define adult relationships. I think the government should get out of the "marriage" business entirely.

However, there is obviously a need for "legal" relationships that define rights such as visiting rights in hospitals, etc.

Such rights should be accomplished via contract law (which "marriage" currently is), and the government should have no right to ask if the partners to the contract have intention of being sexual.

The contract would designate who your "primary" family member is!

Then let the Churches or Las Vegas or wherever continue to sell marriage rituals.

And let the songwriters, poets and authors create the language that will give cultural identity to this new "contract".

What about health benefits?

I favor national healthcare for all citizens. If all individual citizens were given "Medicare" then this would not be an issue.

So, here is my suggestion: Nix "The Equal Rights for Same Gender Partners Act" and go for "The American Family Rights Act" where the individual, not the government, has the right to choose who his/her family members are.

Kind of like "adoption" for adults

Dear Freedom4all,

Your post is very well thought out and informative. However, I'm not advocating "gay rights" as you state, just as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't advocate "black rights". King advocate equal rights for blacks, and my posts are advocating equal rights for same gender partners.

You stated my position as "your cause" which suggests to me that you're not part of the cause. I hope I'm incorrect. I'm not black, but equal rights for blacks was and is my cause because Americans must be treated equally according to the Constitution, and I'm an American. One does not need to be gay to be part of the fight for equality for gay Americans individually or as same gender partners.

Hello franklinwolf -

I want to say thank you for starting this thread and providing an opportunity to express my thoughts regarding the issue of "equal rights for same gender partners". The issue has become polarized, and I do not identify with either of the dominate political views.

Perhaps I am too empathetic. I see both sides of the issue. I do not think Marriage should be redefined. Yet, on the other hand, I don't like the government defining relationships.

I am not trying to start an argument. Writing down my thoughts helps me to sort through this difficult issue. I am not "against" your cause.

That said "Gay rights" is not my cause. But, I do care deeply about people. And if "your cause" is about human rights, then we share a common concern.

As I said in my previous post, I support equal rights for all people, as individuals. I support equal rights for individuals, rather than equal rights for blacks, or any other "group".

I believe our recognition of, and respect for each other as individuals is America's greatest gift to its citizens. The USA is a nation of immigrants, even the "native" peoples "immigrated" here centuries ago. We do not share a common race, culture or ethnic history. The thing that stands out is our individuality - that is what we share in common.

I see Racism as an expression of groupism. I believe by honoring the individual we end divisive “groupism”.

I believe human sexuality is a privacy issue. And I think “gay rights”, in any context other than “Privacy rights”, only creates another divisive group that takes away from our value as individuals.

I believe the "gay rights" movement lost creditability when it stopped being a privacy issue and started being a civil rights issue.

Being "gay" and being "black" are not similar.

I support protection of human privacy, especially sexual privacy. Privacy is "my cause".

I wandered into this forum, my real passion is American Energy Independence

Dear freedom4all,

A very informative post. I respect your views and priorities.

Let's make a deal: I'll support your priority of American energy independence if you support my priority of equal rights under law for same gender partners.

I believe building coalitions gives us victories, and shouting alone gives us sore throats.

Ok, it’s a deal.

I think I get what you are trying to accomplish, and I agree with your strategy:

In essence, I have been proposing a similar strategy to my anti-war friends (which does not imply that I am pro-war). I believe that a national pro-energy independence initiative will have a much greater chance of producing the desired goal. Oil is metaphorically “fueling” the war in Iraq and financing the world-wide spread of Islamic fundamentalism.

I have found that many people who are offended by the anti-war protests are in favor of energy independence and admit that they see oil as the root cause of the war.

Because worldwide oil demand is increasing and oil production/discovery has leveled and may already be in decline, it is a sure bet that the future will bring more international conflicts related to oil dependence, unless we develop alternatives to oil.

You are saying the idea of “Gay Marriage” has a similar effect in that it “fuels” the right-wing opposition. A lot of people who oppose same-gender marriage do so because they do not want the word “Marriage” redefined, yet they admit that they are not opposed to same-gender partners, because they support freedom of choice.

You are asking people who support “equal rights for same gender partners” to allow the issue to be “re-framed” so that it does not “threaten” the definition of the “word” Marriage.


The Gay community’s nemesis, Dr. Dobson has been quoted as saying that he supports civil unions, and suggests that “civil unions” also be made available to celibate same gender partners. He gave the example of two “widows” living together but having no desire to sleep together. They love each other as sisters and depend on each other financially and emotionally, yet have no legal rights as "partners".

Dr. Dobson’s suggestion indicates that there are other people who would benefit from the “equal rights for same gender partners” legislation, increasing the reach of the growing “coalition”. Including celibate partners would help to “defuse” the homophobic resistance.

OK, I'm scratching me head on this one. Dobson would support civil unions for same sex partners that give them the same exact benefits as married couples? The example of allowing to widows to engage in this arrangement (which, I think would be detrimental in many cases as I think this sort of relationship might impact the benefits they have from their late husbands and would give more power over certain decisions, ect. than next of kin if they were granted the same level of rights/responsibilities of married partners) makes me think he would not support all the same rights/responsibilities as what we legally call marriage. I don't want some two-tier system with civil unions granted less rights (personally I think that if they want to claim marriage is something sanctified by G-d/religion, make all the legal arrangements civil unions and use the word marriage for the religious institutions) - if this is an avenue the gay community must take to appease those freaked over gay marriage, they must be guranteed the same rights including mutual state recognition.

This is why we need a new party. Everyone is sick and tired of people afraid to stand up for what they believe in. The Democratic party has a very lengthy history of taking a defensive position on its most important issues. That and its support of NWO can no longer be tolerated.

The big problem with another party is that if it is not centrist, it may ensure republican domination for some time to come. A vote for Nader in 2000 was most definitely a vote for Bush.