| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Culture War Disarmed | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 22 2008, 01:35 AM (280 Views) | |
| Daniel | Jul 22 2008, 01:35 AM Post #1 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
By Richard Kim This article appeared in the June 9, 2008 edition of The Nation. May 22, 2008 In mid-May Democrats were finally riding high again. Their contentious primary appeared to be drawing to a close, they had routed Republicans for a third time in a Congressional special election and Americans were looking to them to address a failed war and a failing economy. Then on May 15 the California Supreme Court voted four to three to legalize same-sex marriages. As if on cue, gays and lesbians took to the streets of The Castro, Mayor Gavin Newsom vowed to turn San Francisco's City Hall into a hot pink wedding chapel and right-wing demagogues announced that they would place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on California's fall ballot. Suddenly, conservatives like William Kristol were crowing about how resentment over "judicial activism" would help deliver John McCain the White House, and Democrats were seeing shades of 2004--when anti-gay marriage initiatives supposedly contributed to John Kerry's defeat. But in fact, California's marital fireworks represent a more comforting reality for Democrats--the beginning of the end of the culture war. Nowhere is this sea change more evident than in the Golden State, where gay marriage has become a thoroughly mainstream proposition. In 2005 and 2007 the California State Legislature passed bills granting gays and lesbians the right to marry; on both occasions, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills. But by directly expressing their support for gay marriage through the democratic process, the State Legislature undercut the right-wing claim that gay marriage is something "activist judges" foist onto an unwilling public. Indeed, the majority on the state's Supreme Court, comprising three Republicans and one Democrat, weren't "legislating from the bench"; they were reaffirming legislative will. And despite his vetoes, Schwarzenegger has said that he respects the court's opinion and opposes an amendment to the California Constitution, something he calls "a waste of time." None of this will deter conservatives from pouring money, ground troops and vitriol into their campaign to get a marriage amendment passed, and they may well succeed this fall. But even that short-term victory won't change two fundamentals: in the presidential race, California will go to the Democratic candidate, and the idea of gay marriage--endorsed by the State Legislature, accepted by the Republican governor and supported by growing numbers of gay-friendly voters--has become for Californians as banal as a Hollywood divorce. Indeed, for all the hoopla, the number of new rights California's gay couples picked up from the decision was this: zero. That's because California already had a same-sex domestic partnership statute on the books. Passed by the legislature in 1999 and expanded on several occasions to include more rights, California's domestic partnership laws are the most comprehensive in the nation, granting every right of coupledom a state can give absent federally recognized marriage. All the court did was give queers the m-word. This decision may have legal repercussions down the line, but in terms of actual economic and legal rights like access to spousal health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance, Californians had already arrived at the conclusion that these should be available to all regardless of sexual orientation. To be sure, the symbol of marriage may matter a lot to some, mainly marriage-minded gays and Christian conservatives, but few voters are willing to hang a national election on it. According to a May Gallup poll, just 16 percent of Americans think that a presidential candidate must share their view on gay marriage. The California gay marriage debate illustrates important national trends for Democrats. Growing numbers of Americans favor gay rights, including some form of partnership recognition for same-sex couples, especially when framed as economic and legal rights. This is particularly true of young voters; in California 55 percent of voters under 30 support gay marriage, and nationwide 63 percent of voters under 40 support civil unions or domestic partnerships. But this trend also holds true for voters of all ages; a 2007 Field poll reported that Californians young and old were four times more likely to say they are becoming more accepting of gay relationships than less accepting. Moreover, when the symbolic weight of marriage is removed from the equation, support for gay rights becomes overwhelming. Nationwide, a whopping 89 percent of voters favor protecting gays and lesbians from employment discrimination. Instead of fearing an anti-gay backlash, then, Democrats should take this moment to reconsider their longstanding assumption that cultural antagonisms can only hurt their national electoral prospects. Fearing the worst, for decades the Democrats caved to or triangulated around cultural conservatives, making ill-fated examples out of every Sister Souljah in the house and offering insulting sops to "family values," like video-game ratings. Indeed, the premise that Democrats are still on the losing side of the culture war defined the last weeks of Hillary Clinton's campaign, which, aided by the mainstream media, dredged up nearly every assumed liberal Achilles' heel of the past forty years--race, religion, guns, elitism, patriotism and '60s radicalism--in order to paint Barack Obama as a general election loser. But, like Christian conservative attempts to portray same-sex marriage as a "threat to civilization," the culture war against Obama--waged around flag pins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and bowling scores--was a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Thankfully, the majority of Democratic voters refused to be manipulated by these symbols sheared of substance, and now it is time to retire the paradigm altogether. An overdetermined catchphrase, "the culture war" was always an insult--most of all to the concept of culture itself, which the right wing reduced from a good or an aspiration to a series of cheap slurs aimed at liberals who drank too many lattes or hailed from the wrong places, like Massachusetts and San Francisco. But demography was always trending the other way, and now Starbucks lattes can be found in every small town, hip-hop is everywhere and homosexuals are here, queer and on the bridal registry--all of which elicits a collective yawn from the under-40 set. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 22 2008, 01:54 AM Post #2 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Daniel, you aren't listening. Let me try again. First, it isn't a law unless the executive signs it, or unless his veto is overridden by the legistature. That is the way the process of making law works, under the Constitution. The "intent of the legislature" is meaningless, unless it makes it into a law. Second, I never said that homosexual rights should be decided by majority vote. What I said was this ... if something is part of the state Constitution, that is the ultimate law in that state (putting aside federal law and the federal Constitution for the moment). Each state has a method for amending the Constitution. It may be a half-assed way of amending it, but it's still the specified way. And, if it's part of the Constitution, that's that .... game over. Nothing the state can do, no judge, no legislature, no executive, trumps the Constitution. I agree with you on the substance of what you want ... but, procedurally and factually, you really are full of crap. And I find it amusing how happy you are to alienate those who would naturally be on your side. Unless you revel in the relative alone-ness of your position, pissing off people who would otherwise be your natural allies seems like a poor strategy, but there are plenty of people in the world who behave counterproductively, so feel free to join that crowd. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 22 2008, 02:09 AM Post #3 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
First, I don't need the 8th grade civics lesson, but thanks. Second, I edited the part that had to do with my objection to people like Ax who quite clearly and explicitly said that his opinion is that it's fine if same-sex marriage is voted up or down in California. There are two points of mine you are not getting. 1. Certain members of the board said that gays (i.e. "the gay agenda" and all that other hate mongering crap) had no respect for "the democratic process" in California. Obviously, those people have no clue whether gays are "respecting the democratic process." The insinuation that same-sex marriage is something wholly sprung from the mind of an "activist" judge is horse crap. 2. I never said that the state constitution was not the law of the land. But this is where you and I might differ in our viewpoint. Just because something is the law according to a constitution or legal process doesn't make it "right". That's the only point I am making about this. I have much more respect for you than to think that you would change your mind about same-sex marriage because of me. So I'll let that pass. I edited my post before reading yours. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 22 2008, 02:20 AM Post #4 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
And just for **** and giggles, would you like if someone said we're going to decide whether your relationship has the legal rights of marriage by majority vote? You might find that quite bizarre and offensive. But it's alright if my rights are voted on this way. Putting aside the US Constitution for a minute, you know damn well that we're doing so for the sake of argument only. You don't like it that this initiative offends me and Kenny and others. Maybe you should listen to what I am saying to you. It's the part italicized above. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 22 2008, 02:30 AM Post #5 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
And I'm with you on that. The federal Constitution, as originally written, accepted slavery and even counted a black person as only a fraction of a human being. For all the talk about the brilliance and wonderfulness of our Founders, that was shameful.
No, you misunderstand. I think you should be offended by it. I just don't think you should try to stake your argument on procedural points, like whether the California legislators have expressed some not-part-of-law intent to protect homosexual marriage. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Orlando Gibbons | Jul 22 2008, 03:16 AM Post #6 |
|
Junior Carp
|
I love gay people. They're the best. Give 'em their freakin' rights already. Or, Daniel, move to Belgium. (I hear good things). |
| http://www.threerollsandapretzel.blogspot.com | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 22 2008, 04:39 AM Post #7 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ok, thank you for the clarification. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 22 2008, 04:40 AM Post #8 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
LOL! |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 22 2008, 04:56 AM Post #9 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I'm fine for gay marriage just so long as they don't spawn. They don't fool me, gays aren't nearly as happy as they appear to be, working in the labor camps and cotton fields. Mark my words, they'll revolt. We need to keep their population in check so that their revolution doesn't reach a critical mass. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jul 22 2008, 05:03 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
I'm all for gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 22 2008, 05:26 AM Post #11 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
ROTFL! :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 22 2008, 07:40 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Shut up about your johnny one note issue, Daniel. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jul 22 2008, 09:33 AM Post #13 |
|
Senior Carp
|
CA's court struct down Prop.22 because they are obliged to strike down 'statutes' that do not conform to the state and federal constitutions. They reasoned that the statute removed a 'fundamental right' from just one group of people and it violated the state's equal protection clause. Prop.8 is worded the same as Prop.22 was but it would write the language into the state's constitution. If Prop. 8 passes, lawsuits will follow to answer questions of 'constitutional revision' or 'constitutional amendment'. If Prop. 8 is found to be a constitutional revision it will be struck down because revision intiatives need 2/3 vote of the legislature or a constitutional convention. The CA court will have to decide whether it's a revision or an amendment, they're obliged to. |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Jul 22 2008, 09:44 AM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Kim's article seems to be a bit presumptuous. He notes the legislature is approving these measures and then assuming somehow the populace approves. Then he has to get to the under 40 crowd to find a 55% approval. The he talks about how nationwide "63 percent of voters under 40 support civil unions or domestic partnerships" as if civil unions and domestic partnerships are the same as gay marriage. Anyway, I don't disagree that as time goes on those under 40 will get older and the number of older people that are against gay marriage will shrink as they die off. So, unless there is a "back lash" against gay marriage (a very real possibility) it will probably spread across the land (or at least the coasts). |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










4:50 PM Jul 10