GAY NEWS
Gay Marriage: We Lost The Battle, But Here's Why We'll Win The War
By L. K. Regan
Published Nov 05, 2008
Published Nov 05, 2008
The election's over, the champagne's been drunk, for some the sobbing has slowed to sniffles, and all that's left is to figure out how the outcome of the longest, most expensive election in U.S. history is going to affect...us! Today, we present a wrap-up of the fall-out from yesterday's elections, from gay marriage in California to the projected future of hate-crime legislation.
As of right now, the future of gay families has taken a big step backward. Arkansas voters passed a measure to ban unmarried couples from fostering or adopting children, a law clearly aimed at same-sex couples. And, a number of states took up the subject of gay marriage, in each case with negative outcomes. In Florida, Arizona and California, voters considered ballot measures that would eliminate same sex marriages by instituting language in state constitutions defining marriage as being between "one man and one woman." Amendment 2 in Florida passed by a wide margin (62 percent to 38 percent, with 60 percent required for passage). In Arizona, Proposition 102 passed 56 to 44 percent, putting language prohibiting same sex marriages out of the reach of the legislature and judiciary. And, in California, the most expensive social issue ballot measure in the nation's history (over 73 million dollars were spent on both sides) resulted in the passage of Proposition 8, which also amends the state constitution. In the case of California, the measure puts an end to the gay and lesbian weddings that have been taking place for the several months since the state supreme court declared prohibitions against gay marriage to be unconstitutional.
This is a pretty grim tale on its face—but there are signs of hope in the election returns as well. The Prop 8 vote was very close (it passed by a 52 to 48 margin); eight years ago, a similar measure, but one that did not amend the state constitution, passed by a much wider margin (61 percent) before being overturned by the California Supreme Court. The substantial movement in the polls suggests rapidly changing attitudes. And, that trend is likely to continue, as young voters stood against Prop 8 by a two-to-one margin (voters over 60 overwhelmingly voted for the measure, emphasizing the age trend-lines). Finally, the last word on gay marriage is almost certain to come from the U.S. Supreme Court—where the election of Barack Obama is expected to lead to appointments much more sympathetic to LGBT rights than the current Court. It's important to keep our eyes on the future, and the bigger fight ahead.
On the broader legislative level, there is reason to hope for substantive improvement on LGBT issues. ENDA—the Employment Non-Discrimination Act—faces an uncertain future even under a more sympathetic congress and president. ENDA would offer employees protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which currently is a protected category in only a minority of states. ENDA has been hung up since 2007, however, on language that would cover not only sexual orientation but also gender identity. Two versions of the bill—one with gender identity protections and one without—were introduced to congress in 2007. Resolving the conflict over how far ENDA should go will provide an obstacle to its advancement in the new administration. Still, President-elect Obama is on record in favor of the version of ENDA including gender identity protections; there is hope that, should the congress resolve the different versions of the bill, President Obama would sign it.
The recent 10-year anniversary of the murder of Matthew Shepard has brought hate crime legislation back into the public consciousness, reminding us that in the years since his death, no federal hate crime law protecting gays and lesbians has been passed. The Matthew Shepard Act made its way successfully through the House of Representatives in 2007, but stalled in the face of certain veto should it reach the desk of President Bush. President Obama, however, has been an advocate for the Shepard Act, and this summer promised that his administration would push for the bill in congress. Now, we will see the test of this commitment.
Finally, the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy may be on borrowed time in the new government. During his campaign, Barack Obama said that he anticipated being able to end the policy, which he described as "a counterproductive strategy." But, he said, he would not make opposition to the policy a requirement of serving on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and did not expect to be able to get language permitting transgendered people in the military through congress. So, while DADT may die in the new administration, it is likely to do so in stages.
The picture for LGBT rights in the new government is, therefore, cautiously optimistic. Now is clearly the moment for LGBT activists to seize the opportunity to go to work on an administration that is likely to be sympathetic and, at least for a while, have a wave of popular opinion behind it.
As of right now, the future of gay families has taken a big step backward. Arkansas voters passed a measure to ban unmarried couples from fostering or adopting children, a law clearly aimed at same-sex couples. And, a number of states took up the subject of gay marriage, in each case with negative outcomes. In Florida, Arizona and California, voters considered ballot measures that would eliminate same sex marriages by instituting language in state constitutions defining marriage as being between "one man and one woman." Amendment 2 in Florida passed by a wide margin (62 percent to 38 percent, with 60 percent required for passage). In Arizona, Proposition 102 passed 56 to 44 percent, putting language prohibiting same sex marriages out of the reach of the legislature and judiciary. And, in California, the most expensive social issue ballot measure in the nation's history (over 73 million dollars were spent on both sides) resulted in the passage of Proposition 8, which also amends the state constitution. In the case of California, the measure puts an end to the gay and lesbian weddings that have been taking place for the several months since the state supreme court declared prohibitions against gay marriage to be unconstitutional.
This is a pretty grim tale on its face—but there are signs of hope in the election returns as well. The Prop 8 vote was very close (it passed by a 52 to 48 margin); eight years ago, a similar measure, but one that did not amend the state constitution, passed by a much wider margin (61 percent) before being overturned by the California Supreme Court. The substantial movement in the polls suggests rapidly changing attitudes. And, that trend is likely to continue, as young voters stood against Prop 8 by a two-to-one margin (voters over 60 overwhelmingly voted for the measure, emphasizing the age trend-lines). Finally, the last word on gay marriage is almost certain to come from the U.S. Supreme Court—where the election of Barack Obama is expected to lead to appointments much more sympathetic to LGBT rights than the current Court. It's important to keep our eyes on the future, and the bigger fight ahead.
On the broader legislative level, there is reason to hope for substantive improvement on LGBT issues. ENDA—the Employment Non-Discrimination Act—faces an uncertain future even under a more sympathetic congress and president. ENDA would offer employees protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which currently is a protected category in only a minority of states. ENDA has been hung up since 2007, however, on language that would cover not only sexual orientation but also gender identity. Two versions of the bill—one with gender identity protections and one without—were introduced to congress in 2007. Resolving the conflict over how far ENDA should go will provide an obstacle to its advancement in the new administration. Still, President-elect Obama is on record in favor of the version of ENDA including gender identity protections; there is hope that, should the congress resolve the different versions of the bill, President Obama would sign it.
The recent 10-year anniversary of the murder of Matthew Shepard has brought hate crime legislation back into the public consciousness, reminding us that in the years since his death, no federal hate crime law protecting gays and lesbians has been passed. The Matthew Shepard Act made its way successfully through the House of Representatives in 2007, but stalled in the face of certain veto should it reach the desk of President Bush. President Obama, however, has been an advocate for the Shepard Act, and this summer promised that his administration would push for the bill in congress. Now, we will see the test of this commitment.
Finally, the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy may be on borrowed time in the new government. During his campaign, Barack Obama said that he anticipated being able to end the policy, which he described as "a counterproductive strategy." But, he said, he would not make opposition to the policy a requirement of serving on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and did not expect to be able to get language permitting transgendered people in the military through congress. So, while DADT may die in the new administration, it is likely to do so in stages.
The picture for LGBT rights in the new government is, therefore, cautiously optimistic. Now is clearly the moment for LGBT activists to seize the opportunity to go to work on an administration that is likely to be sympathetic and, at least for a while, have a wave of popular opinion behind it.
cowb26 wrote:
I think Gay Marriage is a good thing if we want to get married to a Guy I think we have all the Right To. Who is the one to tell us we can't Fuck them.
Nov 20 8:55 PM
lmtschiess wrote:
im just gland to see at least theres one sight for me to come to that doesnt slander my up bringing in the articles again the proposition. im defending left and right my heritage to people i dont even know or may never know. especially when all they know are the lies and gossip crap they hear. thank you to you real jocks in moving past the small and still respecting the big in us small people.
Nov 13 4:42 PM
santz7 wrote:
Let not fool our selves. We need to protest. Before we know the many benefits our ancestors gain for us can be taken if we don't let our voices be heard. Good luck to all of us.....
Nov 13 12:22 PM
jeffper1 wrote:
btw.....i never have nor do want to partake in st8 people marriage. a piece of paper don't make me......nor do laws surrounding it. I make me.....and my bf also
so fuck em....if they wanna sack with us....Thank You.....dint want you to
Nov 13 8:41 AM
jeffper1 wrote:
who cares....we got numbers....and gavin newsome. what more do we need......just time
Nov 13 8:36 AM
GeorgyBoy wrote:
I am not a U.S citizen, I am a Nicaraguan... I was hoping that the gay situation was going to change. But you know what... I am used to discrimitation... Why? Well... I am part indigenous so... that just makes it a continues suffering... maybe someday things change... We are a special group, we are gay, we are same in any part of the world, that makes us very special!!! Yes!!! It is just dissapointing because I am part black and I was hoping to feel proud about being black, indigenous and gay. No se desanimen! Sigamos la lucha! :oD
Nov 07 12:28 AM
DJmsCF wrote:
I just hope that Obama connects to his past in a humanitarian mindset just like he did in his winning the election and making history one. He and every other black person in the united states, every woman, every minority understands what it is like to be oppressed and shut down. To be stopped and hated and told they are wrong because of something they can't change. He's proven them all wrong on one front. I think he has a responsibility to help us out. Not because we want to get married or because we want to have kids (yes obviously we do - myself included) but because it is the humanitarian, and just plain right thing to do. I hope he sees that. How do we get him to do that?
Nov 06 5:27 PM
14keeps wrote:
Why no mention at all that measures passed, particularly Prop 8 in CA, due to a large influx of money from the bigoted Mormon and Catholic churches? Why does religion usually get a pass and is not revealed for the sham that it is? Not only did money from the superstitious promote the measures and lied to cause other superstitious people (largely in minority communities, who, frankly, should know better) to vote in alignment with their imaginary friend, the Catholic group Knights of Columbus posted on their home page yesterday, bragging about how all homophobic measures passed in the 30 states that have them, passed with support by the organization.
The problem is religion. It's a con job from start to finish and it makes otherwise nice people do hurtful things. Good people of faith, would still be good without their security blanket. It's time we stop skirting around the issue that it's a lousy idea to accept things on faith without evidence. Without an actual god to cross-examine, someone's Buddy Jesus holds no greater authority than the other guy's Asshole Jesus. The evidence for both is exactly the same. ZERO.
Having religious faith might make some people feel good, but that says absolutely nothing about whether those beliefs are true. They make claims that affect the real world. If their claims do not stand up to evidence, then we can dismiss them. Let's stop pretending that faith is harmless.
Nov 06 2:40 PM
magus_iii wrote:
We lost because we didn't want it badly enough. A temporary setback might be a good start.
Nov 06 6:03 AM
Sedative wrote:
Fuckit. This really sucks.
*goes off to bed grumpy*
Nov 06 4:28 AM
ChefNate wrote:
What about DOMA and UAFA? Those are extremely important as well. Especially those of us who have loved ones we want in the US.
Nov 06 3:42 AM
txguy1605 wrote:
i think that's suppose to say "how it's going to AFFECT....us!" not effect
Nov 06 3:29 AM
tad3 wrote:
tad3 here
Connecticut voted down the measure yesterday for a Constitutional Convention; I am surprised you did not mention that in your article. This protects their ruling back on Oct 10th for gay marriage. Since a CC decision was defeated the special interests cannot reverse the Oct ruling. Starting Nov 12th I think gay marriage will be permitted in Conn.
Nov 05 10:53 PM
McGay wrote:
Hold back a portion of your taxes in an amount that represents the rights you are denied!
Nov 05 9:10 PM