Apparently the Prop 8 problem isn't as bad as *this*...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 7:13 PM GMT
    Arkansas, as you've probably heard, banned adoption and foster-parenting by unmarried couples. When I asked Equality Texas why they weren't leading the charge against Prop 8 last week, I was informed that the Arkansas decision was more important (especially to neighboring Texan gays).

    Are we getting caught in a Prop 8 media frenzy when we should be focusing more attention to our rights to be parents? Just wondering what others think. My mind was changed.

    (FYI Equality Texas did participate and sent a speaker to Saturday's rally, they just didn't lead it as I would have expected.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 7:23 PM GMT
    I like to think of myself as a progressive Democrat. Ballot Initiatives were part of the original progressive movement in the early 20th century. However, in recent memory I can't think of an instance in which it wasn't used to codify hate into law.

    It is amazing that these initiatives usually come up for vote in years of pivotal elections. There wont be any in 2009. We need to wait for 2010 to save a few GOP seats in the house and senate.

    fuckers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 7:55 PM GMT
    In the US Army I taught the "9 Principles of War." One of them is Mass: concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time.

    California's Prop 8 was high-visibility, a symbolic issue likely to affect the rest of the US. That's why the Mormon and Catholic churches focused their greatest attention there, rather in Arkansas. Plus Arkansas was a given for the religious right, anyway (I lived there for 3 years, know those Bible thumpers for what they are)

    Gay power is diffused and impotent, because we have weak & squabbling leadership, and no well-defined objective and agenda, despite the false claims of our opponents. We need to practice Mass, concentrating our limited influence on specific soft targets. Arkansas remains a hard target, California a soft one.

    Mass is exactly what our opponents practiced in California, and we lost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 8:14 PM GMT
    I absolutely believe the Arkansas issue is more important. The problem is that it isn't surprising - the CA decision was seeing as the state is more liberal. That's why it's getting so much attention. Nothing will change that...but the overturning of the ban could mean hope for the people of Arkansas. It will gain much more leverage when the most populous state in the nation provides equal rights to all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 8:28 PM GMT
    red vespa is right. we need a gay obama figure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 8:35 PM GMT
    It would be nice if the US had a comprehensive Human Rights law that applied to all citizens regardless of what State they lived in. Then people could challenge discrimination and if they won it would not be overturned by state referendums.

    Even people who tolerate gays may vote for anti-gay legislation. Especially if it is in areas that are seen as critical to social cohesion such as marriage or raising children. People hate change, pure and simple.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Nov 19, 2008 8:37 PM GMT
    Rugger, you're right, the Arkansas decision is important and should be receiving just as much attention as Prop 8. 100s of kids forced back into a system that can't place them, taken out of loving homes. Devastating!
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 19, 2008 9:39 PM GMT
    This is ALL related ... we are the new black

    Didn't you get the memo?
    Every red state in the country is going to pass anti-gay legislation
    whether it's anti-gay marriage
    or gay adoption bans

    We're going to get whipped with the Bible Belt and GOOD!

    But it's time to fight them tooth and nail
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 9:41 PM GMT
    dancerjack saidred vespa is right. we need a gay obama figure.


    You state the matter much better than I do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 9:55 PM GMT
    GQjock saidThis is ALL related ... we are the new black

    Didn't you get the memo?
    Every red state in the country is going to pass anti-gay legislation
    whether it's anti-gay marriage
    or gay adoption bans

    We're going to get whipped with the Bible Belt and GOOD!

    But it's time to fight them tooth and nail


    I keep hoping that the residences of the bible belt will see the light and become less religious and more secular. Sort of like joining the second half of the 20th century. I am becoming a foolhardy optimist in my old age.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 10:33 PM GMT
    I think it is all related rugger. That is what happens when you have laws that seem to re-enforce the notion that a particular set of people are "unfit" is some way. Marriage is an important thing not only because the message it sends .. that is that a gay relationship is inferior to a straight one, and the notion that there is something wrong with being gay ..

    Here is what one politician wrote about a year ago ..

    "Marriage should be between a man and a woman, end of story. Next issue," insisted Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia). "It's not about civil rights or personal rights, it's about acceptance. They want to be accepted as normal. They are not normal."

    And so it goes. As long as the government does not embrace what scientists and the greater medical association has known for decades, (that is it is not an illness to be gay, gay is ok) there will be a problem.

    Interestingly enough, if marriage rights were accepted, there would be no grounds for the adoption law. All this re-enforcement towards children that gays are faulty cannot be good psychologically for young people who are gay themselves or who have a gay parent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 10:39 PM GMT
    ActiveAndFit saidI think it is all related rugger. That is what happens when you have laws that seem to re-enforce the notion that a particular set of people are "unfit" is some way.


    This is so true. It's why, even though it is incredibly difficult and courageous in ways that we in liberal states can't really appreciate fully, gay men should come out in those states. (Please, no flames. I understand the danger, and the reasons why guys would not want to come out).

    Some Arkansas resident who already knows and likes a closeted gay guy a lot, perhaps even admires him, but only conceptualizes gay men as sex-crazed, affected, shrieking, drama queens, would be forced to confront the idiocy of the stereotype.

    I agree, the Arkansas election result was awful....much worse as a single event than the passage of Proposition 8. But, I still also believe that California is perceived as a bellwether state. That's why much of the battle must be centered here and in New York and Pennsylvania, for example.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 10:44 PM GMT
    XRuggerATX saidAre we getting caught in a Prop 8 media frenzy when we should be focusing more attention to our rights to be parents? Just wondering what others think. My mind was changed.


    Are you one of those people that says "why should we worry about blacks drinking from a water fountain when South Africa still has an apartheid?"

    Common. Focus.

    We can do multiple battles for one. And for two, gay marriage is essentially the last frontier on the most populous state in the US. Once that is accomplished, California's bleeding heart liberal gay rights agenda will spread up and down the West Coast and soon Eastwards. Condsider it solidifying all gay rights in one concentrated area, then moving outward.

    Meanwhile, Arkansas is a shithole. Yes we should fight for our right to adopt. And continue to fight WHILE we continue to fight for marriage. Or maybe if enough corporate Jews for Walgreens move in, it will balance the vote to Pro-Gay. After all, 70% of Jews voted NO on Prop 8.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 11:04 PM GMT
    jakebenson said
    XRuggerATX saidAre we getting caught in a Prop 8 media frenzy when we should be focusing more attention to our rights to be parents? Just wondering what others think. My mind was changed.


    Are you one of those people that says "why should we worry about blacks drinking from a water fountain when South Africa still has an apartheid?"


    No I'm not.

    That's why I asked if we should be focusing more attention on the Arkansas decision, not all of it. I never said we shouldn't worry about both.

    Jesus fucking christ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 11:18 PM GMT
    This ban on adoption has already been in place in Florida for years, so I disagree that it is as important as equal marriage.

    However, I just want to say that I read a lot of wingnut (usually Christian) newsletters and the continuing theme in them is that gay people are more susceptible to alcoholism, illness, and mental health problems. What these newsletters don't point out however is that gay people are likely to be pretty well-adjusted if society and people like the ones who write such tripe stop demonizing gay people, stop abusing teenagers with ideas that they're sick and abnormal, and put a stop to bullying and violence. It really gets me riled up thinking about it....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2008 11:44 PM GMT
    EricLA saidRugger, you're right, the Arkansas decision is important and should be receiving just as much attention as Prop 8. 100s of kids forced back into a system that can't place them, taken out of loving homes. Devastating!

    Ironically, from anecdotal evidence I have observed, homocouples are the ones that tend to be courted by the adoption and foster systems as, I would baselessly presume, they tend to look better on paper (except, you know, for that whole "queer" thing) and actually want the children. As children.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2008 12:06 AM GMT
    It isn't amazing, it is tactical. We were paying attention to the nation and the world while these ASSHATS were working at the level of the city & state. Same thing happened with Colorado in the President Clinton election of 92. This is an old story of brush fires. Old doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.

    Remember, I always do, that the theocracy in Iran is the direct result of the Western influence of the Shaw. Pretty sad.

    MunchingZombie said

    It is amazing that these initiatives usually come up for vote in years of pivotal elections. There wont be any in 2009. We need to wait for 2010 to save a few GOP seats in the house and senate.

    fuckers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2008 12:08 AM GMT
    Arkansas . . ain't that where them Clintons is from?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2008 12:09 AM GMT
    Yeah, well I don't agree. Tsun Tsu would say that we put our ethos ahead of minority interests by keeping the planet more-or-less going by avoiding a McCain Palin Presidency.

    It is all about WHERE is the decisive place and WHICH is the decisive time.


    Red_Vespa saidIn the US Army I taught the "9 Principles of War." One of them is Mass: concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time.

    California's Prop 8 was high-visibility, a symbolic issue likely to affect the rest of the US. That's why the Mormon and Catholic churches focused their greatest attention there, rather in Arkansas. Plus Arkansas was a given for the religious right, anyway (I lived there for 3 years, know those Bible thumpers for what they are)

    Gay power is diffused and impotent, because we have weak & squabbling leadership, and no well-defined objective and agenda, despite the false claims of our opponents. We need to practice Mass, concentrating our limited influence on specific soft targets. Arkansas remains a hard target, California a soft one.

    Mass is exactly what our opponents practiced in California, and we lost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2008 12:33 AM GMT
    ursamajor saidYeah, well I don't agree. Tsun Tsu would say that we put our ethos ahead of minority interests by keeping the planet more-or-less going by avoiding a McCain Palin Presidency.


    And your credentials are what? That you can quote a Chinese military theoretician? Spare me the armchair Generals.

    Unless you can lay claim to some practical senior military experience, don't even try to second-guess my judgment regarding military issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2008 12:51 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    ursamajor saidYeah, well I don't agree. Tsun Tsu would say that we put our ethos ahead of minority interests by keeping the planet more-or-less going by avoiding a McCain Palin Presidency.


    And your credentials are what? That you can quote a Chinese military theoretician? Spare me the armchair Generals.

    Unless you can lay claim to some practical senior military experience, don't even try to second-guess my judgment regarding military issues.
    I am not trying to make fun of anyone here but I have to tell you I just had a moment of comic relief .. I had this image of a general riding into town on a red vespa icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2008 12:55 AM GMT
    ActiveAndFit saidI am not trying to make fun of anyone here but I have to tell you I just had a moment of comic relief .. I had this image of a general riding into town on a red vespa icon_lol.gif


    LMAO!!! Hi-ho Silver, and away! (Who was that masked General?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2008 2:17 AM GMT
    Also I just read in LA Weekly that the same people who started Prop 8 in California want to do the same thing to stop gays from adopting children her also
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2008 2:33 AM GMT
    ItsMyLife saidAlso I just read in LA Weekly that the same people who started Prop 8 in California want to do the same thing to stop gays from adopting children her also
    I haven't heard this, but it wouldn't surprise me. Once they feel they can have success in suppressing one minority right, then they start eroding others. At least that is how it has worked with certain groups in other times and other places. Anyone remember Orwell's Animal Farm? spooky thought. We'll see

    Squealer - Animal FarmAll animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

    P.S. Here is what you were talking about
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12savage.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalinkEven before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild; a gay man living with his male partner cannot adopt his deceased sister’s children.

    Social conservatives are threatening to roll out Arkansas-style adoption bans in other states. And the timing couldn’t be worse: in tough economic times, the numbers of abused and neglected children in need of foster care rises. But good times or bad, no movement that would turn away qualified parents and condemn children to a broken foster care system should be considered “pro-family.”
  • a2507

    Posts: 152

    Nov 20, 2008 3:03 AM GMT
    Rugger,

    I think everyone on this thread is missing a much greater point.

    Marriage and adoption, as important as they are, are second tier "rights."

    The base level civil rights, non-discrimination in employment, in public accommodations, etc. do not exist for most LGBT people in this country.

    You, in Austin, have protections but only in Austin, Dallas and Houston (if memory serves).

    Texas does not have basic civil rights protections. Nor does my state, Oklahoma (not for lack of asking). Nor do most American states but for perhaps a dozen.

    Certainly we can fight multiple battles. Certainly we hope that the successes of our brothers and sisters on the West Coast translate into greater equality for those in less populated and less progressive places.

    But the arrogance of our "movement" has been that "progress" for gay life in these States has been defined by life in LA, SF and NYC and all those f'd up closet cases in DC on The Hill or now working for HRC.

    I'd argue that real progress for us, for LGBT folk around the country, is when some butch baby dyke or femmy queer boy can grow up in a little place like Wewoka, Oklahoma and not just fear for their lives but flourish.