How about gay marriage in Dane County?

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Should we?

Yes
30
79%
No
8
21%
 
Total votes: 38

Daisy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:51 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Daisy » Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:06 pm

Steve Vokers wrote:I guess there is a difference between civil disobedience (actions by the people) and, uh, municipal disobedience. But I also think that Shane has a good point, that the City could pursue relief through the courts.
I agree with everything there. After the min. wage effort is behind us, I'll bug Dave about suing the state. It's always better to personalize these things than to speak in the abstract, so I already know how I'll pitch it:

"Look at everything the Junkers have done for you, and what you said about them at the Chrystal during their last show. How could you not use all the resources of the city attorney's office to ensure Kenneth Burns has the equal protections under the law that the Constitution is supposed to guarantee him?" :)

He'll have no problem understanding that this fight is for the soul of our city and that bigotry and descrimination cannot be allowed to stand here.

Steve Vokers
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:58 am

Postby Steve Vokers » Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:22 pm

Doh! I just realized it is the COUNTY that issues marriage licenses, not the city.

It's probably not a good time to get Dave and Kathleen to work together on something, eh?

Daisy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:51 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Daisy » Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:26 pm

Steve Vokers wrote:It's probably not a good time to get Dave and Kathleen to work together on something, eh?
To the contrary. I'm sure both are eager to work together on something they can both enthusiastically support.

FinsburyPark
Senior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:43 pm

Postby FinsburyPark » Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:50 pm

Doing this would only fuel the fire in terms of these constitutional amendments to marriage. Part of our claim (I say our because I support marriage equality) is the these amendments are redundant, hateful and just plain unnecessary - this underminds that entire debate.

Daisy makes very good points - yet there certainly are times for civil disobedience, this just isn't one of them, in my opinion.

sophia
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:47 pm

Postby sophia » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:05 pm

I am glad to see the attention that this is garnering for GLBT civil rights in general. I am excited to see this kind of mass support for the issue of gay marriage/civil unions so close on the heels of proposed amendments to protect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage.

The more this fuels the fire of the conservative right, the more mobilized civil rights activists will become. We may not think that the timing is ideal, but it's happening and it's having a positive effect.

ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash
Contact:

Postby ShaneDog » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:10 pm

FinsburyPark wrote:Doing this would only fuel the fire in terms of these constitutional amendments to marriage. Part of our claim (I say our because I support marriage equality) is the these amendments are redundant, hateful and just plain unnecessary - this underminds that entire debate.

The problem with that argument is that the reason people who oppose gay marriage and also oppose an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment is becuase gay marriage is not currently legal. Once it is, there is instant justification for such an amendment among those who oppose gay marriage.

FinsburyPark
Senior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:43 pm

Postby FinsburyPark » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:21 pm

The problem with that argument is that the reason people who oppose gay marriage and also oppose an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment is becuase gay marriage is not currently legal. Once it is, there is instant justification for such an amendment among those who oppose gay marriage.

My point exactly, that is why I am saying this is bad timing. Those who are on the fence on the issue can at least say, "I don't like gay marriage but we don't need a constitutional amendment - they already can't do it." Now, they are going to say, "well maybe we do need it, if they are trying this sort of stuff."

I couldn't tell what you meant by your statement, I think you reiterated my point. Do explain..

ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash
Contact:

Postby ShaneDog » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:28 pm

FinsburyPark wrote:The problem with that argument is that the reason people who oppose gay marriage and also oppose an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment is becuase gay marriage is not currently legal. Once it is, there is instant justification for such an amendment among those who oppose gay marriage.

My point exactly, that is why I am saying this is bad timing. Those who are on the fence on the issue can at least say, "I don't like gay marriage but we don't need a constitutional amendment - they already can't do it." Now, they are going to say, "well maybe we do need it, if they are trying this sort of stuff."

I couldn't tell what you meant by your statement, I think you reiterated my point. Do explain..

My point is, when is it ever going to be "good timing" to push forward for gay marriage? My personal view is that a (possibly slight) majority of people, when they really think about this issue, realize that even though it may bother them, legalizing gay marriage is the "right thing" to do. If my assumption is right, there are a lot of people out there who are potential gay-marriage supporters but they're not going to go out on a limb and do anything about it unless they are forced to. The sooner we have this dialogue and force people to decide how they feel about this issue, the sooner gay marriage will be legalized.

FinsburyPark
Senior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:43 pm

Postby FinsburyPark » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:34 pm

Well stated. I completely agree.

ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash
Contact:

Postby ShaneDog » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:49 pm

Some more thoughts on tactics and strategy:

If anyone thinks that this issue isn't going to hurt the Democrats in the short run, they are crazy. However, in the long run legalizing gay marriage is going to be a huge help to Democrats because it won't be able to be used as a wedge issue anymore. Once it's legal, people against it can whine all they want and try to make it a campaign issue but when gay couples get married and the sky doesn't fall and we don't descend into animal or cake-marrying anarchy (see the political cartoon about cake-marriage rights in the Daily Cardinal from earlier this week), most people (except for the fundamentalists) are going to forget about it. Also, any Democrat who is worried about it becoming an issue in their campaign can say something to the effect of "I may not support gay marriage but it's the law of the land and I have to respect that." Once it's legal, I don't really care what anyone says about it(even if it is something as lame and spineless as that) to get elected.

FinsburyPark
Senior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:43 pm

Postby FinsburyPark » Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:26 pm

ShaneDog wrote:Some more thoughts on tactics and strategy:

If anyone thinks that this issue isn't going to hurt the Democrats in the short run, they are crazy. However, in the long run legalizing gay marriage is going to be a huge help to Democrats because it won't be able to be used as a wedge issue anymore. Once it's legal, people against it can whine all they want and try to make it a campaign issue but when gay couples get married and the sky doesn't fall and we don't descend into animal or cake-marrying anarchy (see the political cartoon about cake-marriage rights in the Daily Cardinal from earlier this week), most people (except for the fundamentalists) are going to forget about it. Also, any Democrat who is worried about it becoming an issue in their campaign can say something to the effect of "I may not support gay marriage but it's the law of the land and I have to respect that." Once it's legal, I don't really care what anyone says about it(even if it is something as lame and spineless as that) to get elected.


I get your arguement, however, I disagree with the down-the-road implications.

Certainly this same gameplan has failed in the case of abortion rights, wouldn't you say? You are correct in the sense that some politicians do say, "I may not support abortion but it's the law of the land and I have to respect that," but his level of pragmatism is rare only rampent in the northeast and some places in the midwest and west.

If legalized, gay marriage would continue to be a highly contentious issue that could absolutely be deemed a wedge. While I don't believe it will be as polarizing as abortion, I don't think we should look at it in an overly optomistic light.

ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash
Contact:

Postby ShaneDog » Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:41 pm

FinsburyPark wrote:I get your arguement, however, I disagree with the down-the-road implications.

Certainly this same gameplan has failed in the case of abortion rights, wouldn't you say? You are correct in the sense that some politicians do say, "I may not support abortion but it's the law of the land and I have to respect that," but his level of pragmatism is rare only rampent in the northeast and some places in the midwest and west.

The difference between abortion and gay marriage is that abortion is more of a grey-area issue than gay civil rights are, and people feel strongly about abortion. Everyone (well almost everyone) considers homosexuals people. Most people feel that ideally, everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law. Once gay marriage is defined as a civil rights issue it is only a matter of time before it becomes uncontroversial. This is because there is very little middle ground. There's basically the people who think gay relationships should be treated equally under the law and those who don't.

Abortion is totally different because there is so much gray area.

There are:

People who are against all abortion and contraception.
People who are against all abortion but not against contraception.
People who are against all abortion except in cases to save the mother's life as long as the fetus is only x days/months old.
People who are against all abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother's life.
...
...
...
People who support a women's right to choose no matter what.

The existance of the middle ground and the fact that most people's beliefs lie somewhere in that middle ground ensure that this issue will always be hugely controversial and a wedge issue for the forseable future. Gray area means that people have to think about it more and having to think about it more often and more deeply makes it more controversial.

Contrast that with gay marriage where once someone is basically convinced that its a civil rights issue, their thinking is done and they don't have to worry about it anymore, they just "know" its right (or wrong).
Also, I have a feeling that even though a lot of anti gay marriage people may think they feel deeply about it but don't, it's more of a knee-jerk reaction to their idea of gender roles. Gay marriage will shock and annoy these people but once it's legalized I can't see people spending much time or money fighting it.

And if they do, well every minute they waste protesting and every dollar they spending fighting it is time and money taken away from (what I consider to be) more important causes that they could be fighting against like affirmative action, social justice movements, and universal health care.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12979
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Postby snoqueen » Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:20 pm

Marge wrote:Maybe a middle of the road option would be for people to continue to apply for, and be denied, same-sex marriage licenses, and for a person like Joe Parisi to publicize how much revenue in license fees this is costing the city?


Joe Parisi doesn't serve at the pleasure of the mayor, does he? He's an elected official in his own right. So if he decides to do "municipal disobedience" or to follow some other course of action with the intent of challenging two-sex marriage laws (or whatever you call them) then he's free to plan on his own or work with whomever he wants to set his course. He could work with the mayor or the mayor could decline. (Am I right here, at least technically?) I think Chicago is right -- stuff like this needs to be planned out to be effective in the long run. Thurgood Marshall spent years mapping out a legal course of action to overturn segregation and it didn't work on the first try, but finally he had success.

Madison could do very well as a gay marriage destination since everybody thinks we're outrageous anyway (though we aren't, we're just as often pathetically conformist). The Convention Center just begs to be decorated like a big wedding cake, and people could have a ceremony on top in good weather, inside overlooking the lake in bad weather. They need more caterers; the halls are suitable to rent to wedding parties. We have hotels nearby, clergy will show up if they aren't here already, and rural Wisconsin in the summertime isn't the worst place for a honeymoon at a quiet bed and breakfast. Build it and they'll come.

Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7017
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Just ask John Lewis...

Postby Marvell » Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:52 pm

ShaneDog wrote:My point is, when is it ever going to be "good timing" to push forward for gay marriage? If my assumption is right, there are a lot of people out there who are potential gay-marriage supporters but they're not going to go out on a limb and do anything about it unless they are forced to. The sooner we have this dialogue and force people to decide how they feel about this issue, the sooner gay marriage will be legalized.


That was exactly the SNCC's point in the early 60's. A lot of people in the black community counseled gradual, incremental change (Sue Baumann's famous 'baby steps'). The SNCC said, fuck that. We're going to make Bull Connor a household name; we're going to make it so that Middle America can no longer pretend that Jim Crow is anything but a moral abomination.

Yeti

Postby Yeti » Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:34 am

bingo


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests