Should Gays start protesting at straight marriages?

[Squirt]

After reading about Obamas flip flop on Gay marriage (In 1996 he supported it, now he doesn't) I started thinking about how our voices could be heard on the issue since our own party seems nearly deaf to giving us full rights now as it might impede Obamas success as POTUS.

Should we start protesting straight marriages in our communities? It seems the quickest and loudest way for our voices to be heard. What do we have to lose? Not respect, not dignity, not equality.

[Seth]

You know, I'm actually against gay marriage being recognized by the government.

The government has no business being in the business of marriage. Whether between same sex couples or opposite sex couples. I do not support the marriages of anyone being recognized by the government.

The word marriage is religious term & should stay in the church. If the fairytale religious cults don't want to recognize gay marriage, I frankly don't give a damn. That's their right to believe whatever they want.

So to answer your question, no, I don't think we should protest the marriage of straight people. We should instead be protesting the fact the government recognizes marriage, period.

[rawTOP]

You know, I'm actually against gay marriage being recognized by the government.

So how do I give my boyfriend (and husband) citizenship? We've been together for 11 1/2 years - if he were female he'd be a citizen by now.

It's actually just the opposite - churches should stay out of marriage - it's a civil contract. The fact that atheists have been getting married for ages is proof enough that the marriage is civil, not religious. No one is up in arms about them getting married. Nor are people upset by senior citizens getting married (another group that's not getting married to procreate).

In other words, let them come up with a different word for the ceremony in a church. Why are we the ones who have to compromise and deal with the "separate but equal" solution?

[Squirt]

I understand what you're saying. People tend to forget all the denominations that support Gay marriage, and the thousands of churches in the U.S. that want the ceremony recognized like straight marriage is.

The rights associated with marriage force the government, both local and federal, to be involved. Ancestral rights, land rights, probate rights, etc. I'd rather have the government oversee that then a church any day ;)

BTW by protest I didn't mean in your face yelling protesting, but peaceful protesting with signs saying something to get into peoples heads like "we aren't all equal in America" or something I dunno.



You know, I'm actually against gay marriage being recognized by the government.

The government has no business being in the business of marriage. Whether between same sex couples or opposite sex couples. I do not support the marriages of anyone being recognized by the government.

The word marriage is religious term & should stay in the church. If the fairytale religious cults don't want to recognize gay marriage, I frankly don't give a damn. That's their right to believe whatever they want.

So to answer your question, no, I don't think we should protest the marriage of straight people. We should instead be protesting the fact the government recognizes marriage, period.

[QueerLust]

Give my partner and I the 1000+ rights granted to others for committing to each other for life and I don't care what they call it.

[basschick]

i think a protest like that will anger the churchies and confuse a lot of the rest of people.

btw, in the middle ages marriage wasn't a church function at all. it was usually used as a way to combine or attain property and the couple often not only didn't meet before the ceremony but didn't always have a say in the decision of who they married. it didn't require a clergyman to marry them, either. and women were expected to give their husbands heirs more as a political thing and a practical thing than two people sharing their love - which was often not the case. farmers and craftsmen needed more workers they didn't have to pay, nobles needed people they could raise to be trustworthy and inherit.

and of course, in many times - the crusades come to mind - the husband rarely ever came home. his wife might see him for a few brief periods a few times during their entire marriage while the rest of the time he was off warring. they literally barely knew each other. NOT the version of marriage christians now believe it.

funny how much history is forgotten and how something like marriage is considered sacred when it was once a business relationship with nothing religious or even loving about it.

[Jasun]

So how do I give my boyfriend (and husband) citizenship? We've been together for 11 1/2 years - if he were female he'd be a citizen by now.


Just my problem. Carlo and I have been together for 17 years. But the government could force us to live in separate countries.

And take half of what I own if I die... Gay couples need the same protections that straight couples get.

[tigermom]

I'm against straight marriage myself too. Over here in Israel, common law marriage is enough for guaranteeing pretty much everything we need. I never bothered "marrying" my husband and in my ID I show up as being single (so does he on his). We have two kids and share everything we own etc. We're as "married" as any wedded couple I know, and probably some more.

By all means, I don't think this should be limited by sex and AFAIK it's not, over here. Years back, about 20 years ago, things were different, but some groundbreaking court rulings here changed that. I know that now even the IDF recognizes widowers in same-sex couples just as if they were married.

In short, full rights for people who choose to "entangle" their lives together, allowing them to build their "nest" anyway they want, is what I'd like to see. Gay or straight shouldn't matter.

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

I agree with Basschick on some levels and I don't think that being obstinate is going to do anything more than come off as a bunch of wining brats. Yes, this approach did much for gay rights and worked well for Act UP but, this is the 21st century and there's no reason for anger or agresive behavior -

We are fortunate to live in a community and county in California that voted against prop 8. (one of the reasons we moved here) However, we do frequently run into folks in bars and restaurants that need a little persuading. Usually after they get to know us and see that we're really no different and can speak and act in a civilized manner and, can see that we're no threat to their kids, or way of life and fix up our home nice and bring up property values (a big plus) they're generally okay with the concept of marriage and then... they want to know why we're not married ?!?!?

to which we reply, "we're not traditionalists" and I'm not modeling my gay life after some straight peoples' notions of how two people should live together and those values and all that baggage - just give me the rights and we'll be ok!

[ccjax]

The government has no business being in the business of marriage. Whether between same sex couples or opposite sex couples. I do not support the marriages of anyone being recognized by the government.

The word marriage is religious term & should stay in the church. If the fairytale religious cults don't want to recognize gay marriage, I frankly don't give a damn. That's their right to believe whatever they want.

So to answer your question, no, I don't think we should protest the marriage of straight people. We should instead be protesting the fact the government recognizes marriage, period.

Ha. I couldn't agree more. But it is a fine line and a balance between what is right vs. what is effective.
IMHO the main issue is exactly what Seth mentions - that the term 'Marriage' is religious in origin and is still the core of the problem.
If governments changed the terminology for all citizens to 'civil unions' - and left the institution of 'marriage' to be handled by the churches - my thought is that a lot of steam would be let out of the argument from the opposition. The state doesn't grant licenses for confirmation or baptism or bar-mitzvah...
The counter-argument becomes that religion is not a part of marriage, so, the church is stuck in a quandary.

I am actually oddly encouraged that the California Supreme Court ruled the way they did. By recognizing the 18,000 same-sex marriages, they opened up the argument for discrimination to go higher in the courts.

This should be an interesting couple of years...

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

I guess the thing that really pisses me off about the whole "marriage" argument is the fact that the lion share of weddings we've attended in the past 20 years have ended in divorce.

Little 'ol selfish me gets pissed that I've been conned out of thousands of dollars of gifts and hassles flying here and there to attend these huge wedding "parties" - and so I wonder why we gays need to imitate all of this? Can't we come up with something better? After all, aren't we the creatives on this planet?

But, there is profit to be made from all of this. I know how insanely bitchy and nasty some gay men can be and I guess specializing in gay divorce would be an area of interest for my fledgling nieces and nephews who are now entering law school.

I can think back to one of the movies I was lucky to work on with my former boss Saul Bass - I wonder why anyone would want to get hitched up in the first place... check out WAR OF THE ROSES some time with Kathleen Turner - a funny movie

[rawTOP]

I agree with Basschick on some levels and I don't think that being obstinate is going to do anything more than come off as a bunch of wining brats. Yes, this approach did much for gay rights and worked well for Act UP but, this is the 21st century and there's no reason for anger or agresive behavior

I really can't believe you said that... There were negative gay men, straight women and lesbians who were part of Act Up - they weren't going to die if things didn't happen, but they made it their issue because it was just and because it affected people they loved.

Right now our husbands and wives are being deported (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/04/shirley-tan-saved-from-deportation-by-private-bill.html), we're getting fired from jobs (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/president-wont-intervene-to-stop-discharges-of-gay-soldiers.html), we're not allowed to direct the medical care of our lovers (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/06/lesbian-collapses-after-fresno-march.html) (in California), some of us are being beaten (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/05/brutal-gay-bashing-in-west-village.html) up (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/05/but-hes-good-kid.html), and even killed (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/04/report-one-lgbt-person-killed-every-two-days-in-brazil.html) (especially minority trans folk), and poz people can't even enter our country legall (http://www.poz.com/rssredir/articles/canada_travel_ban_hiv_1_16719.shtml)y. We need to make sure those things get into the news and people hear about them. Activism doesn't become inappropriate just because you got a nice weekend home in the country...

That said, I don't know about protesting the average straight marriage, but if done right I can see where it can make a political point. Find a marriage of two senior citizens, dress up as conservatives and hold placards across the street that read "This couple can't reproduce - they shouldn't be allowed to marry." Or find a marriage of a mixed race couple and hold signs that say "40 years ago this marriage wasn't considered 'traditional' and was illegal". Or dress up as conservatives and protest outside divorce lawyers' offices saying they're destroying the sanctity of marriage.

I can't see myself doing any of those things, but I still hope someone does them, and I would never say they're inappropriate because "this is the 21st century and there's no reason for anger or aggressive behavior". True, I think a Billionaires for Bush (http://billionairesforbush.com/index.php) style approach would make the point and be less aggressive, but it's not our place to say how people should act to resolve this issue. In it's day Act Up throwing blood on people made the people in power more receptive to sitting down with moderates to fix the problem. We need both...


Little 'ol selfish me gets pissed that I've been conned out of thousands of dollars of gifts and hassles flying here and there to attend these huge wedding "parties" - and so I wonder why we gays need to imitate all of this? Can't we come up with something better? After all, aren't we the creatives on this planet?

Who says we have to mimic straight marriage to be married? My partner and I got married in 2005 up in Toronto. We were staying with his Mom, but didn't tell anyone in the family (except when my sister-in-law noticed the new shiny rings and asked a direct question - but we told her she wasn't allowed to tell anyone). To us our marriage doesn't define our relationship. We didn't get married to have a wedding. We didn't expect people to respect us more because of it. We had already gone for so many years without being married it was just a piece of paper. We needed 2 witnesses, so we invited 3 close friends and then went out to lunch afterward. Yes, we're married but I still call him my boyfriend 90% of the time. To me marriage is an intensely private matter and I find weddings tacky. We've stopped going to weddings and tell friends and family how we feel. We say invite us you your 10 year anniversary party - that's what we want to celebrate...

Marriage is a set of legal rights. All the trappings of weddings are completely optional. You make of it what you want. But like "separate but equal" for schooling in the 60s - we won't ever have our full rights until we have marriage that's called marriage. Marriage is important.

[camcruise]

I really can't believe you said that... There were negative gay men, straight women and lesbians who were part of Act Up - they weren't going to die if things didn't happen, but they made it their issue because it was just and because it affected people they loved.

This makes no sense at all. Anthony said nothing about that. He lumped everyone in ACT UP together in his statement. He called all of then a "bunch of wining brats".

Please do not put words in peoples mouths.
I hate it when someone says that they cant believe you said something and then talks about something you never said.

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

Yes well, our "nice weekend home in the country" as you put it Mr. R. Top has been the staging grounds for many pro-active AIDS awareness meetings and gatherings including some of founders of the SF chapter of ACT UP and, our MONEY and TIME has helped many of these activist causes... and of course, we and thousands of others are the beneficiaries of the outcome....

So, I feel that I have the right to say what I wish when it comes to my perception of their (our/my) behavior, tactics and strategy over my past 40 years as an activist.

We still host many of these think tanks and symposiums and thank god for the family country home! (and my good home cooking)

More important, we've been trying to get the porn industry to change their hiring and filming practices by taking more responsibility for their actions. And have been working aggressively with some producers, doctors, attorneys and state orgs in an attempt to move my/our (the T&C) agenda forward.

In all my years of activism, I've never seen people yelling and screaming at each other as being an effective way of communicating. I believe that getting thrown out of the Senate Office Building for instance is STUPID when a person is trying to meet with your representatives. I can do more in 5 minutes with B Boxer or D Feinstein than I can sitting in a jail for one hour or more.

So watch yourself when it comes to condemning my approach to life and problem solving - my methodolgy is as valid to me as your methods are to you.

[gaybucks_chip]

There is a pretty reasonable solution to the problem, and that's (as I understand it) what New Hampshire has done (and, to a lesser extent, what the California Supremes did just recently with the Prop 8 decision.)

Define "civil marriage" and "religious marriage." Any two consenting adults are entitled to civil marriage, and all of the rights and benefits that come from it. "religious marriage" becomes simply a ceremony of the church, like baptism, that provides no benefits to the person participating in it. A church-based religious marriage is recorded with a marriage license, which confers the rights of marriage on the couple, the marriage of two people outside of church *also* is conferred the same rights by the same marriage license.

Of course, the issue here is... the argument the religious loonies are making *isn't* about religious marriage; they simply don't want gays getting married at all, so they will still bitch, but at least this argument is unlikely to fail since it's based at the core on equality.

I do agree that having even peaceful protests at hetero marriage ceremonies is the wrong way to go. It will be seen as divisive and mean spirited, or worse, an attempt by gay people to take away rights from heteros, which is *exactly* the sort of thing that would play right into the hands of the religious right.

[rawTOP]

Yes well, our "nice weekend home in the country" as you put it Mr. R. Top has been the staging grounds for many pro-active AIDS awareness meetings and gatherings including some of founders of the SF chapter of ACT UP and, our MONEY and TIME has helped many of these activist causes... and of course, we and thousands of others are the beneficiaries of the outcome....

So, I feel that I have the right to say what I wish when it comes to my perception of their (our/my) behavior, tactics and strategy over my past 40 years as an activist.

We still host many of these think tanks and symposiums and thank god for the family country home! (and my good home cooking)

So watch yourself when it comes to condemning my approach to life and problem solving - my methodolgy is as valid to me as your methods are to you.

The person you were 40 years ago would probably disagree with some of the things you said above. My point was that as we age and see things differently, it doesn't make other points of view wrong. Act Up had it's place. Throwing blood on people had its place. They were never my style, but I valued them as a diverse part of our community and was always glad they were around.

Today we need a variety of approaches, but it seems the powers that be in the gay community only feel there is one correct approach. That worries me. Your comments worry me because they're along the same line - one correct way, zero diversity of tactics. If someone wants to protest straight marriages - go right ahead. I probably won't be joining them, but I'm glad they're doing it. I might even join in if they take a whimsical approach to it and make jokes out of the conservatives' contradictory beliefs.

Statements like "this is the 21st Century those things aren't appropriate" is, in itself, inappropriate. I suspect they come from you growing older and becoming more comfortable with your life and with your beliefs. My referencing the country house was my way of saying you've become older and more comfortable and your friends have probably changed in the process and you edit what you say to please the people around you. It doesn't make a more youthful and more belligerent approach wrong. It just means it's not for you.

My sisters are 9 to 19 years older than me (the oldest one is now 60) and I've watched them go through it - the oldest one in particular. It bothers me how narrow minded she's become and the crazy ideas she's taken up (like making her dog a vegetarian when she's not even a vegetarian). She used to be a liberal hippie - now she works as a lawyer for the Department of Corrections and many of her friends are conservative Republicans. She's lost the person she once was. Just because she's older and more certain doesn't make her right.

You have the right to speak your mind. But you don't have the right to have your ideas go unchallenged.

[rawTOP]

There is a pretty reasonable solution to the problem...

Define "civil marriage" and "religious marriage."

We have that now...

"civil marriage" = marriage.
"religious marriage" = a wedding.

That's the distinction we need to draw for people... We're not trying to change weddings, we're trying to change the civil marriage contract issued by the state.

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

You have the right to speak your mind. But you don't have the right to have your ideas go unchallenged.

of course! its a free country after all - its just that I know that my pacifism in its own way has worked for me and hundreds of people that have benefited from my approach to activism - believe me, I'm no apathetic couch potato - I'm still doing my thing - I suppose you didn't know RT that I've been working on a significant documentary for the past several years (when I'm not putting up our weekly updates to make YOU money)

and my approach has been more polite and diplomatic and has worked well within the system and through legal process and the court system

we were heard in the supreme court of the United States and we won our case for the right to physician assisted suicide for my poor lover Thom as he struggled with AIDS - he was the only person in the history of the oourt who was given that right under the the constitution - the ONLY person

we weren't throwing blood at the court and weren't staging mock suicides in front of them

all I'm saying is that I went with the "working through the system approach" starting back in the 60's while others went for violence and upheaval and the "in your face route - get used to it" approach

I certainly don't have the energy for any more fights - I'm all fought out - and I'm just trying to finish my short life with dignity and without hostility or unnecessary stress

Tom Waddell's struggle with the Gay Olympics battle, our battles against various drug companies and battles against the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its head, Michael Weinstein, the APLA (AIDS project Los Angeles) funding and expenditres nightmares and so on...

I think its great that the younger generation now wants to take on this marriage battle - more power to them... let this be their anthem - they've got the energy and talent and they have a nice paved 8 lane freeway behind them that I and others have helped build to get their reinforcements to them and into place.

[gaybucks_chip]

Tony,

For what it's worth, I'm in complete agreement with you.

You will always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and particularly as society become more widely accepting of gays and lesbians in every aspect of society, I think it's important to honor that acceptance and show that we're no different than anyone else.

With the exception of a few people on the fringe who insist on crazy, disruptive, and offensive acts to get attention, American society seems to be moving in the direction of more civil and polite actions and using education and pursuasion. I'm sorry, but there was NEVER a valid reason to throw blood on people, or to stop traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge... those things drew attention, but had the effect of alienating a lot of people who might otherwise have been inclined to support the cause, and the people behind those activities were acting out of their own anger and frustration rather than out of an understanding of what would further their cause.

I think an excellent example of how far we've come was what happened when Fred Phelps showed up at Matthew Shepard's funeral; they got a bunch of people dressed as angels with enormous wings, and stood next to one another, right in front of the Phelps contingent, effectively blocking the Phelps people. Quiet, polite, efficient. The act-up people would probably have done some ridiculous violent thing that would have alientated people and disrupted the funeral.

We're learning. And when we can take our anger and frustration and channel it into positive action and dialog rather than disrupting things or offending people en masse, *that* is when we make a difference.

Of course, our First Amendment gives anyone the right to act like an ass and offend anyone they want to, but it's just unfortunate when someone does that, because it ends up giving a black eye to the entire gay community.

[Karl]

I liked the results obtained last Fall/WInter, when gays picketed businesses that were on donor lists on Pro 8 supporters. Caused a few noteworthy to fall. We need more of that.

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

Tony,

For what it's worth, I'm in complete agreement with you.

You will always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and particularly as society become more widely accepting of gays and lesbians in every aspect of society, I think it's important to honor that acceptance and show that we're no different than anyone else.


Yes, well said Chip.

It would be a chaotic world if people ran around all the time yelling and screaming and throwing blood and shooting and rioting and breaking windows and damaging property every time someone wanted to make a point or be disruptive.

Can't say it would be much of a civilized society would it?

[gaybucks_chip]

I liked the results obtained last Fall/WInter, when gays picketed businesses that were on donor lists on Pro 8 supporters. Caused a few noteworthy to fall. We need more of that.

That, to me, is different. In the case of prop 8, A small number of individuals gave contributions to an advertising effort the sole purpose of which was to take rights away from people. Quietly and respectfully organizing a boycott of businesses owned by people who do things that are harmful is a way of voting with one's dollars and saying "You're free to hold this viewpoint, but if you do, then I and my friends and associates will not support your business, and I suspect a lot of others won't either, once they see what you stand for."

To me, that's very different than staging even the most respectful protest of a straight marriage, because it's not a boycott, it's instead protesting their right to be married, and what we really want is for *everyone* to be able to get married. I don't think our message is furthered by protesting straight marriage, and doing so could play right into the hands of the religious right, who would simply pick up the protest and say "See? They want to take marriage away from us! They really are trying to destroy society!!"

It's a careful tightrope to walk, but stating one's views respectfully (such as with a well organized, successful boycott) will *always* get more people to understand your position than being loud and obnoxious and disrupting innocent people's lives, as Act-Up and similar organizations were so fond for doing.

[rawTOP]

I'm sorry, but there was NEVER a valid reason to throw blood on people, or to stop traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge... those things drew attention, but had the effect of alienating a lot of people who might otherwise have been inclined to support the cause, and the people behind those activities were acting out of their own anger and frustration rather than out of an understanding of what would further their cause.

My recollection was that the extreme tactics made people more willing to talk to the moderates. They did have a role and the end result was things happened faster than they would have otherwise.

[gaybucks_chip]

My recollection was that the extreme tactics made people more willing to talk to the moderates. They did have a role and the end result was things happened faster than they would have otherwise.

I don't remember the details, and perhaps you're right, but that sounds suspiciously like something out of an ACT-UP PR doctor's mouth :)