Ahh.. fear of the unknown being trumped by garden chores :)

I'm glad MA is hanging in there. It's always heart-warming to see there are still lawmakers who believe marriage is based on love. In Washington state, those who want this basic human right have to deal with a court case that expressly said marriage is for procreation, so two people who can't have children have no business being married.

One triumph for common sense (and lawn care). Yes, it's amazing how you can find out that those demonised "others", whether gays or whatever other minority/"not one of us", actually are, well, people.

I was somewhat concerned about the quote in the linked New York Times article:

"Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, did not indicate whether opponents would start a new petition drive, but said, “We’re not going away.”

He added, “We want to find out why votes switched and see what avenues are available to challenge those votes, perhaps in court.”"

He wants to challenge the votes of the elected representatives in court??!!

L. Raymond at #2. If marriage is only for procreation, then does that mean straight couples are going to have to take a fertility test, plus a lie detector test regarding their intentions in this regard?

dcb, there are a series of proposed state constitutional amendments to do almost that: married couples would have to file proof of procreation within 3 years of getting married, or their marriages would be automatically dissolved, and marriages where the couples weren't capable of having children together wouldn't really be marriages. See the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance for more information.

#2-#4: so how about a proposal to make divorce mandatory and automatic upon reaching a suitable age -- say, 60? After all, if marriage is for procreation only, then folks like Billy Graham and his [late] wife have no right to pretend to be married ...

‘They help me with my lawn, and if there can’t be marriage in Massachusetts, they’ll leave and they can’t help me with my lawn.’

As my grandmother used to remark, "everybody puts their finger where it hurts."

She was a wise woman. And a wisewoman, but that's another pair of drawers entirely.

#4 Todd Larason: ...married couples would have to file proof of procreation within 3 years of getting married, or their marriages would be automatically dissolved...

At first I thought this was an astonishingly stupid idea of the opponents of gay marriage, but after checking your link I see that it is an astonishingly stupid idea of the supporters of it. The purpose is to carry to an absurd conclusion the ruling of the Washington State Supreme Court, "given in July 2006, declar[ing] that a 'legitimate state interest' allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together."

These initiatives are amusing in an Onion-like way, but the problem with trying to make the majesty of the law look absurd is that there are plenty of ways to slice and dice said majesty such that the majority won't find blatant absurdities absurd at all. I suspect these initiatives were put together either by non-lawyers, or by lawyers who never should've been awarded their doctorates of jurisprudence.

I've been saying for quite a while now that there is only one way to achieve equal treatment under the marriage laws and that's through the sort of hard work and persuasion of the electorate we see going on in dear old Massachusetts. In spite of some obvious realities, too many of us still see the courts as Philosopher King placeholders who will surely hand down decisions of such wisdom and humanity that we will all be struck dumb with awe.

Ha. There's a laugh.

Only when the majority is persuaded that equal treatment is the right thing to do, and is persuaded to vote that way, will equal treatment be permanent. I think these too-clever-by-half initiatives put that day off into an even deeper future.

From my own experience, I'd say fear of the unknown is a big factor. And it can get hyped up by some factions.

And I wonder, a little bit, just how much of a person's sexuality is biology, and how much cultural. How many of the loudest Kinsey-0 pundits and politicians would be a 1 0r even 2 if it wasn't for a screwed-up indoctination about morality?

Some of the scare stories I hear, they're about behaviour which would be wrong whether the relationship involved was homosexual or heterosexual.

Here in the UK, it looks as though being gay has stopped being a barrier to a political career, although being gay and stupid about it remains risky. In my lifetime, we've gone from illegality to "civil unions", and I've gone from a fear of "gay cooties" to "So what?"

Gee, under those stupid rules, that means Jim's godparents wouldn't really be married!

And what about couples who adopt? Does that mean they aren't married either?

Nuts-nuts-nuts!

I normally would rather see questions put to a ballot, but given the fear-mongering tactics the right uses around questions like this, I'm glad the legislature did what it did.

I saw that quote in the New York Times article last night -- it made me laugh and laugh.

Amazing, how when you actually meet and befriend people of whatever sort you dislike, you find it hard to hate them anymore....

(I was in Boston both for the original vote, and for the day they began performing same-sex marriages. I've always been so happy to have been present on those occasions. Now I just wish we could have the same in North Carolina.)

Speaking of the hard work of actually getting the votes, at Americablog.com there is a brief but incredibly moving (to me) moment-by-moment account of yesterday's Battle for Massachusetts as related by Marty Rouse, Human Rights Campaign National Field Director. You can read it here.

Let me unpack my little "Proud to Be a Baystater" flag and wave it in a polite Yankee manner.

On these occasions, I also get to mention that MA also has among the lowest state rates for divorce, teenage pregnancy, and abortion.

It's really hard to point to negative =quantifiable= effects that civil marriage has had on the state, aside from a certain amount of legislative attention taking away from the business of regular governing.

We may all be going to Hell, but that's pretty hard to prove. (And is a risk that I'm entirely willing to take, and let others take.)

Maybe in five years we'll have more data -- I'm betting we'll see the continuation of favorable social trends like low divorce rates, et cetera.

PS -- Ironically, we just passed the 40th anniversary of Loving Vs. Virginia, which put the nail in the coffin of miscegenation laws.

I caught up on this on Pandagon last night, and I must say I'm incredibly proud of my adopted home state. If you read the link, you'll see some of the reactionary bleating about how the standard of living will decline in Massachusetts, since "Where socialism/communism reigns, the economy/standard of living decline rapidly." Ridiculous.

I am so glad that the legislature stopped the amendment from reaching referendum. The track record of gay rights subject to referendum is not good. Those opposed to equality have evolved a formula that really works for them in getting people to vote their fears rather than any sort of common sense.

OTOH, I'd like to think that part of it is that it's been three years and, guess what? Civilization has not collapsed. So maybe the fear-mongering wouldn't work as well here. But I like that I don't have to find out. (I live in MA, so this isn't an abstract matter for me. My very rights are at stake.)

Michael, in reference to #7, this whole thing started because of favorable court decisions. If it weren't for the landmark decision by the MA SJC, we wouldn't have had three years of equality for people to realize that allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't cause the end of civilization as we know it. Courts are a necessary part of the process. Civil rights movements have always involved the courts. But the courts, by themselves, aren't sufficient.

Another Massachusetts resident sighing with relief here.

My wife was afraid that if the amendment did go to a referendum, then bigots would descend on Massachusetts from other states for just long enough to establish residency, register, and vote.

#4 Todd Larason: ...married couples would have to file proof of procreation within 3 years of getting married, or their marriages would be automatically dissolved...

*picks jaw up from floor*

Goes reads the link.

Okay, it's an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. Phew!

Michael Weholt @ #7 : Yes. One problem is that most people are not going to read far enough or closely enough to work out what's going on.

I am so glad that the legislature stopped the amendment from reaching referendum. The track record of gay rights subject to referendum is not good. Those opposed to equality have evolved a formula that really works for them in getting people to vote their fears rather than any sort of common sense.

Are you sure in this case? We're talking about Massachusetts here- how likely is it that this amendment would have passed a referendum?

"The governor and house speaker have been unrelenting in fighting the natural course of advancement on the marriage amendment and the people's right to vote," Mineau said in a statement. "We will look very closely at the circumstances by which legislators switched their vote for ethics violations or improprieties."

Ethics violations for not supporting bigotry?

Someone needs to explain to this guy what "ethics" means, oh, and what "bigot" means.

Connecticut is plodding along on this issue, basically ignored, as usual for the state located between the much more exciting states of NY and MA. We put in civil unions (via legislative action) awhile ago. Marriage equality is on the legislative agenda this term, but probably won't pass. I suspect it would if it came up again in another year or so, but in the meantime a court case may preempt the legislature.

I was amused in last year's gubernatorial election by the conflict on the issue in the Dem primary:

Candidate #1: "I support gay marriage!"
Candidate #2: "Well, I supported gay marriage six months before you did!"

(The Dem candidate lost to the Republican who signed the civil union law but is also holding firm against full equality. Dems have veto-proof majorities in the legislature if they can be convinced to use them.)

I'm still pleased overall with my (adopted) home state on this issue.

They help me with my lawn, and if there can’t be marriage in Massachusetts, they’ll leave and they can’t help me with my lawn.’

It's disturbingly close to the illegal-immigration business...

I now have this image of pro-gay-marriage activists dispatching teams of gay gardeners around target states to mow the lawns of undecided voters.

*joins Connie in waving the flag*

Also, I'd add that we had the morning after pill available over the counter before the FDA decision.

The vote was also the triumph of old school hardball politics. When the legislature voted for the amendment, the governor and President of the Senate were opponents of gay marriage (Romney and Travigliani). When they voted yesterday the governor and President of the Senate were supporters (Patrick and Murray). The Speaker of the House (DiMasi) is (and was) a supporter. So, all the state's power centers and dispensers of patronage were lined up on the same side this time.

#17 Raphael: Massachusetts is not liberal about everything. I'm not sure a ban on gay marriage wouldn't have passed in a referendum.

#17: Well, I did go on to say in my next paragraph that maybe the lack of civilization collapse might take some teeth out of the fearmongering. I'm still glad that I don't have to find out.
(I also hadn't thought of the "flood the state with bigots" scenario mentioned in #15.)

#18:Someone needs to explain to this guy what "ethics" means, oh, and what "bigot" means.

Yeah, that was my thought too. The amusing thing here is that Mineau, AFAIK, has absolutely no evidence. It looks like he just wants to get the innuendo out there. Whatever happened to not bearing false witness? If you're going to claim the Christian high ground, aren't you supposed to be consistent about it?

#20:I now have this image of pro-gay-marriage activists dispatching teams of gay gardeners around target states to mow the lawns of undecided voters.

You know, if that works...

Seriously, the general case is that people get over their homophobia by meeting Actual Gay People(tm) and realizing that we're just people.

I feel bad for the woman at the end of the Boston Globe article who clearly feels hurt that the amendment is now dead. But I don't feel so badly that I would give up my rights, just so she can have her moment of false security.

#22: Yup. WBUR was full of reports last night and this morning about how this shows what happens when the Governor and the legislature are on the same page about something. (This isn't always the case in MA even when they are all of the same party.)

Teresa, I promised to try commenting over a month ago, and just haven't had anything to say. OK, so here is my comment:

"I'm unclear on how preventing people from voting is a triumph of anything EXCEPT fear and prejudice -- of the people."

I now return to the Wordhoard for my regular medieval programming.

#24: Then why aren't you advocating for direct democracy? Isn't the whole notion of representative democracy an exercise in preventing people from voting?

We have voted for representatives. This is how they have voted. Why is it a triumph of fear and ignorance in this case, but not, say, in the state budget?

I would say it is entirely appropriate to fear the approximately 30% of the people who continue to support arbitrary detention, torture, and the authoritarian suppression of human rights generally, especially the reproductive rights of women and the civil rights of nonChristianists.

And that it is an appropriate function of a wise legislature to keep that 30% as far away from the levers of power as might lawfully be arranged.

Richard (#24): during the last session, immediately after the vote to progress this amendment, the Constitutional Convention let another amendment die via procedural maneuver.

A number of the legislators who had been justifying their votes to advance the marriage amendment on the grounds that they had to "let the people vote" hypocritically stopped the HCA from coming up for a full vote.

It's very hard to interpret that as anything more than their using the "democracy" figleaf to cover other motives, rather than their taking a principled stand to bring amendments to the ballot.

The Constitution of Massachusetts has a number of steps that are required to amend it. If the ConCon were supposed to be a simple rubber stamp for any petition that came through, there would be no requirement for any legislative votes—let alone two of them.

Michael @ #11: Thank you for that link. I, too, found that moving to read. If you excuse me, I'll be in the powder room repairing my mascara now.

Joyce Durst, an opponent of same-sex marriage from Mattapan, had come the State House today to pray that the measure passed. When the amendment failed, she pulled a crumpled tissue from her pocket and began to sob.

"I'm sick," said Durst, 60. "I'm sick."

Aww. So sad. Poor little Joyce-poo is sick. Call the Waaaaahmbulance

#14 JC: ...Michael, in reference to #7, this whole thing started because of favorable court decisions. If it weren't for the landmark decision by the MA SJC, we wouldn't have had three years of equality for people to realize that allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't cause the end of civilization as we know it. Courts are a necessary part of the process. Civil rights movements have always involved the courts. But the courts, by themselves, aren't sufficient.

Sure, I'm familiar with the course of events in Massachusetts and know that it started with a MA SJC decision essentially instructing the legislature to "fix the problem", IIRC.

And I'm glad for the (I think somebody said) 9,000 gay couples that have been allowed to marry in the time since then.

The point I was trying to make is that some of us still see the courts as the "three yards and a cloud of dust" ground game when what they really are, to continue my He-Stud analogy, are just the placekickers at the start of the game.

As we see from Massachusetts, it wasn't and won't be the courts who will get the job permanently done. It will be the hard work of changing the minds of the citizenry, however that has to be done.

Frankly, I'd feel safer if the referendum in MA had been held and gay marriage had survived. But I'll take a victory in the legislature. It's better, as in more secure, than a victory in the courts, which isn't to say that court victories are not important, especially to those immediately involved in the litigation at hand.

In the past, some of the legislative proponents of SSM bans were soundly defeated in elections, and the supporters of this measure calmly took those votes as the will of the people.

Or, you know, not so much. The incumbent, defeated in the primary, ran a write-in campaign (not having access to Connecticut for Lieberman) and was soundly thumped. (Of course, out of state money and support for Sciortino is a sign of a "professional, well-organized effort"; the pre-printed signs and busloads of out of staters showing up at the State House to support the amendment were just grassroots efforts.)

Boston today has a clear, almost cloudless blue sky and temperatures in the high sixties. The birds are singing and the trees are a blooming green.

Clearly, God is pissed.

Time to dust off the "Don't Blame Me, I'm from Massachusetts" buttons, clearly.

When did the Do-Over become a political strategy?

JC - # 25 We have voted for representatives. This is how they have voted. Why is it a triumph of fear and ignorance in this case, but not, say, in the state budget?

Because the anti-gay movement used The Big Lie to tell people that a move to keep the measure off the ballot was anti-democratic, despite the fact that, were there enough elected representatives who wanted it, it would be on the ballot. This is standard procedure in MA.

The anti-gay movement consistently uses The Big Lie. Just to know what they're doing, I subscribe to the AFA action alert newsletter. Just now, they claimed that hate crimes laws would prevent pastors from speaking out against homosexuality. Which is a provable because they have anti-gay hate crimes laws in plenty of states, and no one restricts that speech.

But no one they're preaching to cares if it's a provable lie. They all 'know' that the gay agenda is real, that gay people molest children, and that we're in a secret pact with Democrats to force gay indoctrination in the schools, and shut down churches.

This is The Big Lie. One for the readers here fell for it. It's unsurprising in a crowd this big that *someone* believes that nonsense.

Graydon@#24: The trick is keeping the undesirable 30% away from the levers of power without also keeping away the other 70%, and without providing a tool which the bad guys can pick up and turn to their own uses if the good guys drop it.

For that matter, if we aren't willing to allow the reasonable (or at least not outright unreasonable) 70% access to the levers of power, exactly who are we going to trust with that access?

Given a choice between believing in the ability of the populace to make, over the long run, good or at least adequate decisions, and believing in the continued and uninterrupted availability of virtuous and incorruptible philosopher-kings and philosopher-queens . . . well, as low as my opinion of the general run of humanity can get sometimes, I'm still going to have to opt for the former.

I just moved to Massachusetts from San Francisco, and I'm pleased to see that my newest home state voted this way. Go, new home state!

I just moved to Massachusetts from San Francisco, and I'm pleased to see that my newest home state voted this way. Go, new home state!

L. Raymond @2, the absurdity of that appellate decision still makes my head hurt. So far, nobody's been given standing to forbid the intentionally child free, or people too old to conceive, from marrying, but people will keep trying- I anticipate that the eventual case to get through will be one involving surviving children and intestacy, but I could be wrong.

And I would believe in the correctness of the original Thurston County Superior Court decission that it is wrong under the state's equal rights amendment to restrict marriage to hetrosexuals even if the judge wasn't related to me.

Dave Luckett #6: What are you doing with your grandmother's drawers?

I think that this is a small but important blow for basic decency. Just under a century ago an attempt to pass a federal constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage failed. Earlier, in the 1890s and the 19 aughties states banned interracial marriages in their own constitutions, nullifying existing marriages in the process. Only in 1967, forty years ago this week, did the Supremes finally suppress all anti-miscegenation laws, acknowledging, against the opposition of Southern Baptists, Mormons, Klansmen, White Citizens' Councils and other agents of evil that love knows no colour. It is high time to recognise that love knows know gender either.

I am particularly amused by the argument that marriage is for procreation. My wife and I have no children, nor will we have any (I do have children by an earlier marriage). Should we be compelled to divorce?

Josh Jasper #29: You have to understand that she's seeing a world and a set of values that she believed in crumble all around her, and that upsets her. If you go back to the 1950s and1960s you'll find the same kind of response from nice little-old racist ladies and gentlemen, except that their fear was that someone like my father might marry their daughters.

Another Boston.com link One lawmaker, in her own words, who changed her vote on same-sex marriage

Same gender couples have been adopting children and building families here in the Commonwealth for about twenty years. In many instances, same gendered couples have adopted children with severe challenges, children no one else wanted, and they have worked miracles with them. These children would have lived lives of despair without these families. This underscores how we cannot afford to marginalize any of our people; make anyone second-class citizens. We are all precious resources to each other, and to generations yet to come.

It *IS* about children. See?

Josh Jasper @41, it's been about children. Out of the seven same-sex couples that brought the Goodridge suit to court, four of the couples had children.

The whole marriage-is-for-having-children line that the anti-gay side has been spouting is yet another false argument.

#39 Fragano: I am particularly amused by the argument that marriage is for procreation. My wife and I have no children, nor will we have any (I do have children by an earlier marriage). Should we be compelled to divorce?

Sorry to pick on you, since other posters have brought this red herring up before, but it always annoys me when people use this argument, or counter-argument, if you will.

I think it actually unconsciously buys into anti-gay sentiment, in that in fact same-sex couples can and do have children, either the biological way or by adoption. So by saying "Ha-ha, not all heterosexual couples choose to or can have children, so there!" you by omission accept the second premise of this anti-gay syllogism:

1. Marriage is only for having children.
2. Gay people can't have children.
3. Therefore, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Both premises of the syllogism are false, not just the first.

Gay people do have children. A primary purpose of marriage is to facilitate raising children.

Anti-gay people are also against gays being allowed to adopt, so they see no issue with (2).

Dave @8: I've watched my mother (who is now in her mid-70s) progress similarly on the issue of gays/gay rights and am proud to report that as of several years ago, she officially is in the "of course there should be gay marriage" camp. She said, and I quote, "how on earth could someone else's marriage affect mine? What difference does it make if gay people get married?"

Regarding "gay cooties": It's been interesting to me to watch my daughter, now in 5th grade, perform a sort of mental juggling act around this topic. On the one hand, we have discussed homosexuality and she knows that we have friends who are gay (though she doesn't know who all of them are, since one of the points I have been trying to make is that she can't tell from looking and that many of the things she thinks are markers are media-presented stereotypes). She feels that being gay is no big deal.

On the other hand, on the playground, "you're/that's gay" and its cousin, "you're gay/queer for So-and-So" are prime epithets. While these phrases are mostly used by boys and are applied to both boys and girls, I have heard my child use them, and I've called her on it every single time. And she's always tried to explain that "it's not so bad," and I haven't let her get away with that.

Her usage of these terms was worse in 4th grade than this year, in 5th. Not that she ever used them much (she's not an insult-driven kid).

However, I think we now have seen the final nail in that coffin.

DD and her two best girlfriends spend a lot of time hanging out together on the playground at recess. One of the girls is in 6th grade and the other two are 5th graders; when they wrap their arms around each other to walk side-by-side, the older girl is usually in the middle because she's the tallest.

When the girls walk around like this, the boys routinely taunt them about being queer for each other. My daughter tells me that their responses of late have been variants on "So? What's it to ya?" and "What does it matter if we are?" Which I think is pretty good.

Dave @8: I've watched my mother (who is now in her mid-70s) progress similarly on the issue of gays/gay rights and am proud to report that as of several years ago, she officially is in the "of course there should be gay marriage" camp. She said, and I quote, "how on earth could someone else's marriage affect mine? What difference does it make if gay people get married?"

Regarding "gay cooties": It's been interesting to me to watch my daughter, now in 5th grade, perform a sort of mental juggling act around this topic. On the one hand, we have discussed homosexuality and she knows that we have friends who are gay (though she doesn't know who all of them are, since one of the points I have been trying to make is that she can't tell from looking and that many of the things she thinks are markers are media-presented stereotypes). She feels that being gay is no big deal.

On the other hand, on the playground, "you're/that's gay" and its cousin, "you're gay/queer for So-and-So" are prime epithets. While these phrases are mostly used by boys and are applied to both boys and girls, I have heard my child use them, and I've called her on it every single time. And she's always tried to explain that "it's not so bad," and I haven't let her get away with that.

Her usage of these terms was worse in 4th grade than this year, in 5th. Not that she ever used them much (she's not an insult-driven kid).

However, I think we now have seen the final nail in that coffin.

DD and her two best girlfriends spend a lot of time hanging out together on the playground at recess. One of the girls is in 6th grade and the other two are 5th graders; when they wrap their arms around each other to walk side-by-side, the older girl is usually in the middle because she's the tallest.

When the girls walk around like this, the boys routinely taunt them about being queer for each other. My daughter tells me that their responses of late have been variants on "So? What's it to ya?" and "What does it matter if we are?" Which I think is pretty good.

Sorry about the double post! It was unintentional.

DaveL #43: I see your point: I believe it to be mistaken. There is a difference between procreation and adoption. Single people, both hetero- and homosexual adopt children as well, so marriage is no more necessary for adoption than it is for procreation. The issue of children, as raised by heterosexist bigots is a red herring.

Marriage is a legally recognised relationship between consenting adults,* giving each partner rights in each other. It's origins have more to do with politics than with love.

* If the polyamorists can build enough support that 'between' could change to 'among'. I find the idea of a marriage than includes a complex of relationships and shared responsibilities fascinating, although I wouldn't be part of one myself.

Fragano Ledgister #39: So it was around 1910 that this proposed amendment failed? What was the proposal called, and what were the phrases the opponents and proponents used when talking about it? I'd like to find out more.

Sumana Harihareswara #48: You might take a look here or here or here.*

0b sf: The Georgia Roddenberries are apparently related to Gene Roddenberry (I ran into a gentleman at the High Museum some months back wearing a nametag indicating that his name was Roddenberry and asked). Given Gene Roddenberry's pretty clear anti-racism this is one of the more pleasant ironies of history.**

** Another is an old acquaintance of mine, a member of the Communist Party, who is J. Edgar Hoover's cousin.

#44 (and #45, jk) Melissa Singer: ...On the other hand, on the playground, "you're/that's gay" and its cousin, "you're gay/queer for So-and-So" are prime epithets. While these phrases are mostly used by boys and are applied to both boys and girls, I have heard my child use them, and I've called her on it every single time. And she's always tried to explain that "it's not so bad," and I haven't let her get away with that.

Good for you. I'm so sick of people, many of them parents of the offending children, remarkably enough, excusing this "that is so gay" thing as being more or less "benign". I always say, "Why don't you ask the 14-year old boy in the gym class there struggling with his sexual identity whether being told, 'Dude, you are so gay' is a more or less benign experience for him?"

I actually don't care about the fact of epithets so much so long as "odd-ball" kids don't get dragged into it. Naturally, "odd-ball" kids are the easiest and most common targets for them. Well, such is life, I guess. All the more reason for the *adults* to get over this "more or less benign" bullshit.

But in the end, the wisdom of the young once again trumps my irritability on this subject:

When the girls walk around like this, the boys routinely taunt them about being queer for each other. My daughter tells me that their responses of late have been variants on "So? What's it to ya?" and "What does it matter if we are?"

Good for her. It would be great if all odd-ball kids could summon the wherewithal. Not all can, of course. I guess the solution is for them to summon the manliness to no longer fear their inner girlie-boys.

(Whew, what a confusing conglomeration of gender stereotypes that was....)

Melissa @ 44/45 -- YG has gone through the same thing at her school. And oddly, it's not the boys but the girls who do the most epithet hurling. If she comforts a friend who's upset, the few Awful Fifth Grade Girls (tm) will start saying "that's so gay!" and "you're a lesbo." The teachers, if they hear this sort of nonsense, come down on it like a ton of bricks, but they don't always hear it. And YG, who knows just how many friends we have who are gay or bi, is upset by this. It's a small school in the Mission district with a whole lot of students who are from very religious families, and I'm not sure how flexible they are at this age; interestingly, a lot of kids from the same demographic are in SG's high school are far more accepting.

Of course, since my godparents were a gay couple who were together for over forty years, this has always been a non-issue in my family (you may remember that one of them, Ed, kept introducing himself to people as "Madeleine's fairy godfather).

We just celebrated the third anniversary of our marriage--which was, much to our surprise and delight, legal. (We'd been planning the date for two years.) I'm thrilled that my home state is being sensible, even though I don't live there any more.

You know when I stopped being in favor of direct democracy? It was when I found out the percentage of the public that wanted to forbid interracial marriage at the time of Loving vs. Virginia: something approaching 70%. Minority rights should not be subject to majority vote.

Greg 18: So? So the leader of the anti-equality brigade is an immature, selfish, irrational jackhole. So what? They all are.

Richard 24: If it were a referendum on amending YOUR human rights out of existence, you'd sing a different tune. One of the reasons our democracies are structured the way they are is to keep the majority from trampling the rights of the minority.

Melissa 44: Indeed, I'd call that "as good as it gets."

As an example of how times have changed:

Doctor Who will be shown as part of Gay Pride rally in London.

It's not just that they're worried that everyone will piss off early to catch DW on TV, it's described as the "most gay-friendly show on television".

Madeleine @51: The girls still primarily use "you're fat" and its variants as the wounding words of choice (this also does not work with dd). However, in 5th grade, they are too busy gossiping about who is "hot" (each other, boys, movie stars, etc.) and who has a boyfriend to insult each other nearly as much. It's downright creepy. DD isn't into that either, at least not that way (yet). This is of course part of why dd has been very Goth this year (as Goth as one can be at 10-11, anyway). It removes her entirely from the "hot" lists and makes her scary, which puts her in a position of power. The new image was very calculated on her part, and thoroughly abetted by me.

For all that we are in NYC, our neighborhood is fairly provincial and suburb-y. So we run into various prejudices from time to time, and I run around stamping them flat.

"most gay-friendly show on television".

What?

My childhood best friend moved to Massachusetts for grad school a few years ago. She and her longtime partner were just married last month. This news made me thrilled for her... and also heartsick to think of how differently it could have gone if same-sex marriage had been submitted for the voters to decide.

Michael, Madeleine, Melissa: a few months ago, my seven-year-old son used "I'm gay" as the caption of a drawing of a google-eyed, tongue-lolling fellow he'd done. I restrained myself from yelling and managed to discuss it fairly calmly with him instead (though he knew full well that anti-gay slurs were completely unwelcome in our family). Ten minutes later, he came in and asked for a permanent marker so he could black out his caption and replace it with something else. (His final choice: "I love George W. Bush.")

Emrys, #52: Congratulations!

One of my most pleasant memories from TorCon in 2003 was a room party which was being hosted by a couple who were celebrating their (IIRC) 20th anniversary of a Worldcon wedding. The signs said that "anyone who met or married their spouse at Worldcon" was invited, but they weren't being doctrinaire about it, and a lot of warm-fuzzy stories were being exchanged. Then one of the just-married gay couples walked in, and very nearly got a standing ovation. It was a moving moment.

You know when I stopped being in favor of direct democracy? It was when I found out the percentage of the public that wanted to forbid interracial marriage at the time of Loving vs. Virginia: something approaching 70%. Minority rights should not be subject to majority vote.

The spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville is no doubt nodding thoughtfully.

Sometimes it feels like a war of attrition, but it is winnable. Canada's gay marriage legislation came under threat when the Conservatives took power in the last election, but they failed in their attempt to overturn the law. The Conservatives have said the issue is closed, and I do not expect the law to be threatened in the future.

I think once people realised that this was not resulting in hedonistic gay orgies in the street, and we probably aren't facing destruction-cum-brimstone as some kind of modern Sodom, the energy has mostly gone out of the anti-gay marriage camp. I think even the most fervid anti-gay activists on this issue would be hard pressed to demonstrate how extending the right of marriage to gays has brought harm to Canada.

I am hopeful that the small gains made on this civil rights issue will not be lost in America, and that eventually further gains will come. It still continues to boggle that this is even subject to debate, but here we are.

Spain hasn't collapsed into anarchy, either.

There are costs to having the gay marriage ballot question other than the risk that the public will vote against it.

First, there is the literal cost - private and public money would be spend.

Second (and more importantly, IMO) is the cost of attention. There's a finite amount of news coverage on TV and in the newspaper. Gay marriage, like flag burning before it, is a noisy distraction from issues that impact people's lives.

Third, there's the impact that the anti-gay marriage propaganda is going to have on the community. Article 8 sent several ugly, ugly mailers around when Carl Sciortino was running against Vinnie Ciampa, and I have to say I'd prefer not to get them again. Article 8 seems to have mutated into Mass Resistance, and either dumped their old archives or just hidden them under bad site design.

RedMolly 57: Now THAT's what I call a caption!

P J 61: And it was VERY close to the brink already.

On the other hand, on the playground, "you're/that's gay" and its cousin, "you're gay/queer for So-and-So" are prime epithets.

About a decade ago, when I worked in a coffee shop alongside teenagers, there was one young man who referred to anything negative or annoying as “gay.” As in “Dude, the new work schedule is totally gay.”

He had no problems with actual gay people (like me or my boyfriend) – but it was so deeply ingrained that, even after I had explained the problems with this expression, he couldn’t stop saying it. He would just call something gay, then apologize to me every single time. “This espresso machine is so gay – sorry, Bill.” Apparently, this new formulation became habit enough that he would apologize to me even if I wasn’t there at the time.

I had a young Hispanic friend with the same habit, broundy. He argued that 'gay' in that context didn't really mean homosexual, that it just meant lame.

So I told him that I was going to use 'hispanic' to mean lame, and that he mustn't take offense. He got the point at once; unfortunately, he then began to use 'hispanic' to mean gay...in both senses. But he DID get my point.

#65 Xopher: ...unfortunately, he then began to use 'hispanic' to mean gay...in both senses.

That's pretty funny, actually. I admire his ability and willingness to adapt.

Hm.

Yet what about "c*cks*cking" used as an insult or other negative term?

There are other words whose original meanings were meant to insult minorities - consider "gyp" and "welsh", for example.

"most gay-friendly show on television".

What?

Really. It's not even the most gay-friendly show in its own fictional universe.

I once read a statement (which, to my amazement, has no hits whatsoever on Google) to wit: "All process arguments are bllsht". (I'm fuzzy on the language policy here...) And this really comes out here. It's amazing how many anti-SSMers claim in one breath to only be upset about the subtleties of parliamentary procedure that brought us to this point....just before they start in on "abominations" and the like. Yeah, it's just about the legalisms, that's it.

me @67:

Er, which is not to suggest that any such usage is OK or anything - I'm just noting the phenomenon of words that were originally insults entering the language and being used without necessarily being referents to the minorities the words were coined to insult.

I personally try to avoid any such terms, but I'm pretty sure that "gyp" as a synonym for "cheat" entered my vocabulary at a very young age - certainly before it ever occurred to me that Gypsies were real people, and that the word was derogatory towards them.

I suspect that the same may have happened/be happening with the word "gay" as used by such young persons as noted.

Thought: Does the use the word "lame" as a negative term bother those with a damaged limb?

With increasing frequency, I have started to see the use of "ghey" applied to the word's usage in describing lameness, separating it from any implied association to homosexuality. I think the usage has drifted so far laterally from any meaningful association with homosexuality that it might be better to work towards finalising the divorce rather than trying to suppress its usage.

I can appreciate why the latent bigotry at the root of this usage makes people tweak. However, I am finding it harder to discern any meaningful associations between a word used to describe a person with same-sex interests, and a word frequently used to describe the tedium of poor design, poor management, or general lameness. It just doesn't track for me. I see this as being distinct from the use of such terms as "jew" or "gyp" in a derogatory sense or say, "mighty white of you" in a positive sense, where the associations to the original bigoted meaning of the terms are quite crystal clear.

#70 Graham Blake: ...I think the usage has drifted so far laterally from any meaningful association with homosexuality that it might be better to work towards finalising the divorce rather than trying to suppress its usage.

I think trying to suppress usage is dumb. I'm speaking between adults here. Parents and teachers are free to make whatever point they want to make to children about a child's use of the word "gay" for "lame". And I am free to think whatever I care to think about parents and teachers who either ignore or chuckle at a child using the word in that way.

Recent efforts to ban use of the word "nigga" between consenting adults (so to speak) strike me as dumb. In the same way as above, I am free to think whatever I want to think about who people use it to mean "brother" or "homey" or whatever. I do draw conclusions about people who use certain words in certain contexts. We all do.

I think people who use the word "gay" to mean "lame" are dumb, but I wouldn't want to try to force anybody to stop using it that way.

I also think attempts to explain away this usage of the word are dumb, but it's a free country and people are free to be dumb if they want to be.

Owlmirror, #67: And then all those phrases that came out of the economic rivalries between the British Empire and the Dutch! Dutch treat, Dutch reckoning, Dutch courage, Dutch wife, double Dutch... not to mention things like the French disease and French letters, which came out of the Anglo-French enmity. (Insults based on old ethnic conflicts are an interest of mine, can you tell?)

Graham, #70: The problem with "ghey" is that it's like the fannish usage of "ghod" to differentiate the exclamatory from the nominative use -- it only works in writing. And I don't hear the disassociation you're describing at all in America; here, it still has very strong connotations of "and being gay is Bad".

OTOH, I can't remember the last time I heard "that's mighty white of you" used in anything but a heavily-sarcastic sense. At least where I am, it seems to have acquired a flavor of, "well, don't do ME any favors!"

People used to tell me that I was "really Christian" because I was a good, kind person—still am, I hasten to add, but no more Christian now than I was then. I think what they meant is what my Christian friends mean when they say that "the Spirit can move in anyone," which somehow doesn't bother me so much.

Anyway...an African American Christian never did say that to me, drat it, because I had my response all ready.

dbc, Greg, etc: Mineau's theory was that legislators (who are paid moderately -- ~$50K base? for longish hours) had been offered better-paying executive-branch posts in return for switching their votes. He has a reason to be bitter; the previous senate president supported him, but quit for a private job at ~2x the salary. Or the switchers could have been promised "leadership" posts, which come with bonuses averaging $10K/yr; those bonuses helped previous house speakers reward loyalty and punish disloyalty. (Curiously, there was no punishment for the previous speaker's disloyalty in refusing to endorse his own party's candidate for governor in 1998, and even describing him as one of the "loony left".)

JC@23 (wrt "Christian high ground"): I remember reading that the 9/11 teams had special dispensation to act in ]non-Islamic[ ways (shaving, drinking, ...) so they'd blend in. From what I've seen, some breeds of Xians (especially chinos) assume they've got much broader dispensation. It's not unlike the Bush administration's theory that rights are only for "good" people while any behavior to "bad" people is justifiable.

Madeleine@33: just so. I haven't had an argument on this with anybody (which may mean I don't get around enough), but the one I've got spring-loaded starts with "Remember what happened the last time Massachusetts went opposite the rest of the U.S.?"

FfY@62: General diversion of attention was part of the issue; a specific reason to stop the amendment was to take it out of the 2008 elections.

#7 Michael Weholt:
Only when the majority is persuaded that equal treatment is the right thing to do, and is persuaded to vote that way, will equal treatment be permanent. I think these too-clever-by-half initiatives put that day off into an even deeper future.

The problem is convincing people to look past stereotypes and see how their bigotry affects real people. A lot of people really do seem to think the main point of marriage is producing children. When they see things like WA-DOMA's initiative, they are forced to come face to face with the logical result of that opinion.

Bigots are incapable of applying their opinions beyond the particular group(s) they despise, so such people have to shown how their hatred affects their own self-interest. Sure, it may be OK to say Steve and Mark can't marry because they'll never have children, but it's so unfair to say that Margaret and John can't, just because he's sterile. If even one bigot changes his mind by seeing this connection, it's a victory.

He wants to challenge the votes of the elected representatives in court??!!

Please remember that these people are evil asshats. They don't care about principle or the rule of law; they just want to punish the queers. If a court rules against them, they whine about "activist courts" and insist on going to the lawmakers; if the lawmakers go against them, they whine about the "will of the people" and turn to the courts; if the people vote against them, they whine that homosekshul activists* have sold the people a pack of lies, and they turn to the courts and the legislature.

re #47, the origins of marriage have zip-o to do with "consenting adults" and "love". Please remember than until a few decades ago, traditional marriage was very much welded to the old idea of Husband as Lord and wife's legal identity subsumed into his; the idea of a married woman owning her own property without her husband's permission, having credit, or having the right to refuse sexual intercourse were utterly foreign, and against millenia of tradition.

You won't hear the paleo-activists mentioning that part much. Not out loud, at least.

*from CA if you're in MA, from MA if you're in CA

#71 Michael Weholt: I also think attempts to explain away this usage of the word are dumb, but it's a free country and people are free to be dumb if they want to be.

Easy now. I find the evolution of language to be an intellectual curiosity, and watching the meaning of words drift is interesting. Leaving aside for a moment the relative intellectual merits of deciding the word "gay" is a succinct term to describe lameness, I am merely raising the question of whether or not it is something that need be judged offensive, when used as an adjective describing *inanimate* objects or subjects. I don't even have a firm opinion on that. I am the first person to jump all over someone who talks about being "gypped" so I am certainly not insensitive to the undertones (or overtones) of language.

#72 Lee: The problem with "ghey" is that it's like the fannish usage of "ghod" to differentiate the exclamatory from the nominative use -- it only works in writing. And I don't hear the disassociation you're describing at all in America; here, it still has very strong connotations of "and being gay is Bad".

Those are both good points, and I guess I am proud to say I am pretty out of touch with the notion of being-gay-is-bad. Being gay is like having a longer second toe than first, and using the word gay as derogatory is starting to verge on meaningless. Perhaps my point is that meaninglessness might not be such a bad thing, if the association was so meaningless as to practically redefine the word as a homonym. That being said, I honestly haven't spent enough time on a school yard recently to know how widespread the derogatory usage of this word is used toward people instead of things these days in my neighbourhood. I may be suffering under an illusion by thinking that it is not so widespread anymore in my little corner of the world.

Owlmirror, 69: Does the use the word "lame" as a negative term bother those with a damaged limb?

Yes.

Re: #65 Xopher

That Hispanic kid was clever, and smart, and a smart-ass, and intelligent. This makes me feel less despondent, but America needs many more kids like that. And many more adults like that.

Don 79: Was and is. He's going to film school soon, too. Someday I'll be able to say I knew him when.

Re: #78 Dan Layman-Kennedy

And some people who are (deaf and) dumb -- i.e. unable to speak intelligibly -- are probably offended by the common usage of "dumb". Maybe people who are stupid aren't smart enough to be offended by the common usage of that word. Perhaps we should try to encourage the use of "broken" (even though that might imply (possibly correctly and possibly not) "capable of healing or being repaired"). Actually, I think, most of this is colloquial/slang usage, which tends to have a relatively short half-life (though it's likely to be longer if it meets strong opposition from The Establishment). Mostly, I just *shrug* and try to address underlying attitudes, on the theory that words are often important, but are somes just costmetic. (Mind you, I'm not saying that this is the only, or best, approach, or that I'm always moved to use it, and what other people do is up to them.)

Dan, Don, et al.: is my family's use of "f#@$&n' stupid" as an epithet OK? It seems to both convey our sentiments and avoid inadvertent insult of any particular group.

We heartily encourage our 6YO and 8YO to use it, anyway. Obscenity is better than bigotry.

Re: #80 Xopher: "Someday I'll be able to say I knew him when."

I hope so, though so many Promising Young People plateau-out. *sigh* But cinematographers can have a significant effect on the world, if they don't get too propagandistic, and there's always the possibility of becoming President (he sounds like someone I might vote for, though I don't expect to live that long).

Fragano, my grandmother had a tendency towards gnomic utterance. Unpacked, her aphorism meant something like, "when examining any moral rule or general law, or any change thereto, the overwhelming tendency is for each person to consider their own interests first, notwithstanding any previous moral position."

Now, as an exercise for the advanced student, how would Granny Weatherwax have put it?

Fragano, I'm in a polyfamily situation. The state of Washington would find us EEEEVIL because we got together way past childbearing interest. I AM legally married. We accreted a third, and have had to stand on our heads to make sure all parties get all benefits of owing stuff in common, being able to 'legally' visit one another/make decisions for one another in medical situations, etc.

it's a lot more complicated than getting married, because a marriage license carries a lot of assumed legal benefits that aren't really stated out in front.

We're grateful for an understanding, fannish attorney. It toiok a good gross or more of sheets of paper to make sure everyone gets taken care of in various situations, and we had to think out a great deal of stuff (powers of attorney, wills and phrasing on our property deed.

On the other hand I wouldn't have it any other way. Our third fits and we're all pretty happy with it.

Re: #82: RedMolly

Oh, sure -- I use (unmodified with profanity) "stupid" and "dumb" frequently. I'd much rather use "brilliant" or "sensible", but have to work with what's there, and unfortunately.... (Present company excepted of course/,/ /m/o/s/t/l/y/.)

I was suggesting that some people are going to be offended by just about any word one uses, and this, in itself, is not a significant criterion for choice -- one needs to consider how many, and who they are... and, in this, milages vary. (But, hey, I'd probably use "gyp" if I'd already used "cheat" in the same paragraph, and I think the best writer I know who's Rom (Cali Ruchala) would do the same.)

Dan Layman-Kennedy: What about "sinister", "churl", "bourgeois", "boor", and "villain"?

Dave Luckett, Dan Layman-Kennedy

So if we speak better linguistically it is because we stand on the shoulders of bigots?

Dan, #78: ...wow. Everyone who's been involved in the "political correctness" discussions that have cropped up on a couple of the other threads needs to go look at that link, because she nails one point that I think we all skirmished around but never quite articulated.

I don't use "lame" very often, and when I do, it does tend to include the connotation of "weak" or "limping along" -- for example, a poorly-constructed analogy, or a story that lacks plot. But I suppose my more-careful usage has been poisoned by the carelessness of others, so I'll work on coming up with another way to express that.

R Emrys Gordon @ 52: "You know when I stopped being in favor of direct democracy? It was when I found out the percentage of the public that wanted to forbid interracial marriage at the time of Loving vs. Virginia: something approaching 70%. Minority rights should not be subject to majority vote."

I'm of mixed minds about that. I agree that minority rights should never be subject to majority vote, but I think that relying on the courts has seriously degraded liberals' ability to make persuasive arguments to the public. Decades of making well-crafted, intellectually rigorous arguments in court and accomplishing their goals without having to actually convince the people hasn't made liberalism's positions terribly popular. It's not enough to change the law, though that's a big part of it--you have to change what people think too. A law is no stronger than the belief behind it.

Liberals allowed a huge gap to form between what the law said and what people actually believed, a gap which conservatives have been mining quite succesfully for the last couple of decades. Had liberals and progressives been forced to build broad coalitions, I don't think that we'd be where we are today. On the other hand, who knows how long that would have taken, or how much having the laws in place has made their rightness all the more self-evident? Like I said, I'm of mixed minds.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that, with the way the conservatives have been stacking the courts for the past few years, relying on the courts to come to the logically sound decision isn't going to be a safe bet much longer. Might not be already--see the recent "Women might regret getting abortions, so it's okay to make them illegal" ruling from the Supreme Court.

Graham Blake @ 60: "...and we probably aren't facing destruction-cum-brimstone as some kind of modern Sodom,"

That clause is a lot funnier if you think of "destruction-cum-brimstone" as containing three items instead of two.

Dave Luckett #84: That's, alas, all too common.

Paula Helm Murray #85: I'm glad you were able to get things to work out. It must have been pretty rough getting to that point. The key things, as far as I'm concerned, are that everybody in the arrangement is happy with it and that its stability can be maintained.

mythago #47: Traditional marriage had a lot more to do with property and inheritance than with anything else. Love as a basis for marriage is a very recent development.

Liberals allowed a huge gap to form between what the law said and what people actually believed, a gap which conservatives have been mining quite succesfully for the last couple of decades.

Ahem. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". The gap between the law and the world is not a new thing, nor has that gap always involved the law enforcing the rights of minorities against bigots.

A law is no stronger than the belief behind it.

That's only true if there's no belief in the concept of law itself. If we're heading there, I don't think you can blame liberals.

Y'all, I hope I'm not being mistaken for speaking for anyone in particular, except for answering one specific question. I myself am somewhat ambivalent on the issue, as I'm fond of "crazy" myself, and reluctant to jump all over people who use "retarded" even though I'm uncomfortable with it. (I do occasionally make an objection to "cocksucker" on personal grounds, even though, well, it's been a while. But you have to pick your battles.)

FWIW, I think little light makes some excellent points, especially as regards the call for precision in critique. I know she's at least an occasional reader and commenter hereabouts, so perhaps she'll show up and provide further thoughts on the matter herself.

Fragano, that was kinda my point.

Decades of making well-crafted, intellectually rigorous arguments in court and accomplishing their goals without having to actually convince the people hasn't made liberalism's positions terribly popular.

Funnily, when Loving v. Virginia was handed down, most people thought interracial marriage was a bad idea, and an awful lot of people (especially in VA) thought the laws* should still prohibit interracial marriage. Nowadays few people think much of it and even fewer argue that interracial marriage should be banned.

Do you think "liberals" should have hesitated? That the courts should have refrained from following the Constitution until The People changed their minds and got enlightened?

What's really going on is that courts are supposed to enforce the laws, and follow the Constitution. Sometimes that doesn't dovetail neatly with "the people" and their bigotry. So what?

*The official name for these laws, by the way, was "anti-miscegenation laws".

My husband works alongside of some great, raunchy-mouthed geeks who have, among other things, come up with the perfect tongue-in-cheek, self-deprecating phrase to both evoke the specific flavor of critique that "That's so gay" connotes and to make fun of the absurdity and moral bankruptcy of using "gay" as an insult.

"Oh my God, that's, like, so rainbow."

mythago @ 96: "Do you think "liberals" should have hesitated? That the courts should have refrained from following the Constitution until The People changed their minds and got enlightened?"

I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. "On the other hand, who knows how long that would have taken, or how much having the laws in place has made their rightness all the more self-evident? Like I said, I'm of mixed minds."

All I meant was that I feel there's been a tendency to battle things out in the courts instead of in the court of public opinion, rather than as well as, and I think that that tendency has been a big factor in many of the problems that liberals are having right now.

Hmm... okay, so "gay" is bad, as is "lame" and "retarded" and "crazy" and "idiot" and ... well, just about every shorthand insult is based upon highlighting the perceived negative qualities of a particular group of people. There are times, though, when I'd rather just say "omg that's so [fill-in-blank]" and get on with things, and not stop to rant out a full-fledged dissertation about exactly what I've just found offensive. That's the whole point of having shorthands. Anyone have a suggestion for a good, one-word, all-purpose word to fill in my blank with?

#98: Given the sheer number of so-called Defense of Marriage Acts which have gone for referendum, I think it's safe to say that equal rights advocates are battling it out in the court of public opinion. We're just not doing it especially well.

The "allowing same sex marriage will make the infant baby Jesus cry and cause The End of Civilization As We Know It" argument works annoyingly well, despite making no sense. I think part of it is the persistence with which one makes the argument. For example, yesterday's ChinesePod lesson was about global warming. Someone felt the need to post a comment declaring the "lack of consensus" canard and that global warming was a conspiracy of left-wing governments on the lesson's comment thread. Usually, people talk about Chinese. (I've always wondered why one couldn't take the same evidence to show that global warming denial is a conspiracy of right-wing governments.)

About gay marriage, my current thought is that it's like green eggs and ham. People won't be convinced until they live with it, realize that the infant baby Jesus is just fine as is the civilization. It's funny to read about the woman who is now for same-sex marriage because of the nice guys who help her with her lawn. But that's what it takes, and stuff like this doesn't happen unless the law gets out ahead of the people first.

#99: Personally, I like "crumby." Also "wretched," "lousy," and "ridiculous." If restricted to one syllable, one can use "bad."

The things one can do with any of those words and an appropriate grimace are limitless.

I have (again) suppressed the rant (excuse me a moment)--

I have suppressed the urge to rant about this particular matter, but it gets harder, and I am reminded that many people have insufficient vocabularies.