Kerry Concedes

[Timber Loftis]

LOL. The NY Times has dreamed up a "Democratic Blame Game" that is supposedly taking place regarding Kerry's loss. Truth is, it's the NY Times that wants to play the Blame Game, and it is casting its net far and wide to find someone to blame for the fact that it didn't get the president it wanted.

Well, today that Blame Game stretched to the opposite coast, and to the issue we're discussing here:

_____________________________________________

November 5, 2004
Some Democrats Blame One of Their Own
By DEAN E. MURPHY

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 4 - A year into his job, Mayor Gavin Newsom could hardly be more popular. A survey last weekend put his approval rating among San Franciscans at 80 percent.

Polls show that a mainstay of the Democratic mayor's support has been his stance on same-sex marriage. But with his party reeling from Senator John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday, Mr. Newsom's decision in February to open City Hall to thousands of gay weddings has become a subject of considerable debate among Democrats.

Some in the party were suggesting even before the election that Mr. Newsom had played into President Bush's game plan by inviting a showdown on the divisive same-sex-marriage issue.

Most of the talk has been behind closed doors. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and Newsom supporter, answered a question about the subject at a news conference outside her San Francisco home on Wednesday, the prickly discussion spilled into the open.

"I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Ms. Feinstein said of the same-sex marriages here. "I think it gave them a position to rally around. I'm not casting a value judgment. I'm just saying I do believe that's what happened."

"So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon,'' she added. "And people aren't ready for it."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who was a witness at the first same-sex marriage at San Francisco City Hall, said she received a flurry of angry e-mail messages on Thursday from people upset about Ms. Feinstein's public dressing down of Mr. Newsom.

The topic was also raised with Mr. Newsom himself at a news conference on Wednesday and when he was a guest on a radio talk show here Thursday morning. He said he had no regrets.

Some of his backers were less restrained. In an interview, Ms. Kendell accused Ms. Feinstein of looking for "easy scapegoats."

"Shame on Senator Feinstein and other Democratic leaders for latching to the most facile and shallow of explanations for the results," she said. "What Mayor Newsom did really accelerated the conversation and the movement, and I will never accept an analysis that says a leader who stands for equality and fairness and who has the courage of his convictions is doing the wrong thing."

One openly gay member of Congress, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, disagreed. Mr. Frank was opposed to the San Francisco weddings from the start and told Mr. Newsom as much before the ceremonies began. He urged the mayor to follow the Massachusetts path, which involved winning approval for the marriages in court before issuing licenses.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Frank said he felt vindicated by the election results. In Massachusetts, every state legislator on the ballot who supported gay rights won another term. By contrast, constitutional amendments against gay marriage won handily in 11 states - including Ohio, an important battleground - in large part, Mr. Frank said, because of the "spectacle weddings" in San Francisco.

Mr. Frank said Mr. Newsom had helped to galvanize Mr. Bush's conservative supporters in those states by playing into people's fears of same-sex weddings.

Had the Massachusetts approach been followed, he said, "I think there would have been some collateral damage'' in the election, but "a lot less.''

"The thing that agitated people were the mass weddings,'' he said, adding, "It was a mistake in San Francisco compounded by people in Oregon, New Mexico and New York. What it did was provoke a lot of fears."

"He created a sense there was chaos,'' Mr. Frank said of Mr. Newsom, "rather than give us a chance to show, as we have in Massachusetts, that this doesn't mean anything to anyone else."

Some conservative opponents of same-sex marriages concurred. Though the backlash against gay weddings was kick-started by court rulings in Massachusetts - and even earlier in Alaska and Hawaii - opposition resonated with a much broader group of conservatives after Mr. Newsom put San Francisco at the heart of the debate, said Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian group that sued to block the marriages here.

The California Supreme Court eventually declared the 4,000 or so weddings invalid, but the images of same-sex couples' embracing in San Francisco were permanently etched in the public's mind, Mr. Lorence said.

"The court decisions have been the triggers, but Mayor Newsom definitely accelerated the reaction," Mr. Lorence said. "I think we can get 10 or 15 more state constitutional amendments in the 2006 and 2008 election cycle, and maybe even more, because people feel so strongly about this."

In a telephone interview, Mr. Newsom acknowledged that he had taken some heat from fellow Democrats. But he said the criticism was off the mark. Mr. Bush decided to use gay marriage as a political wedge well before the weddings in San Francisco, the mayor said, and the issue had already been politicized by the court rulings in Massachusetts.

Mr. Newsom offered no apologies.

"If you think something is right,'' he said, "you have a moral obligation to act.''

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by MagiK: Thats one of the things I have been pointing out lately, the average American is NOT agaist gays being able to enter into a "civil" union, what disturbs them and angers them is this insistance of usurping the term marriage. Had there been a consolidated Gay stance that they just wanted equal rights, things would have turned out differently...but that wasn't good enough, the demand was made to take the term MARRIAGE and change its generally accepted meaning. Marriage is a rather important part of many christian religions....you get bad results when trying to strip people of what they consider parts of their religion. Im not defending it, Im just pointing it out.

In 4 States Civil Unions were banned.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: In 4 States Civil Unions were banned.

Yeah 4 out of 50...oh the horror..... And it was in reaction to the "in the face attitude and snottiness" I expounded upon elsewhere.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: In 4 States Civil Unions were banned.

And those particular amendments will most likely be challenged and eventually struck down by the Supremes.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: LOL. The NY Times has dreamed up a "Democratic Blame Game" that is supposedly taking place regarding Kerry's loss. Truth is, it's the NY Times that wants to play the Blame Game, and it is casting its net far and wide to find someone to blame for the fact that it didn't get the president it wanted. Well, today that Blame Game stretched to the opposite coast, and to the issue we're discussing here: _____________________________________________ November 5, 2004 Some Democrats Blame One of Their Own By DEAN E. MURPHY SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 4 - A year into his job, Mayor Gavin Newsom could hardly be more popular. A survey last weekend put his approval rating among San Franciscans at 80 percent. Polls show that a mainstay of the Democratic mayor's support has been his stance on same-sex marriage. But with his party reeling from Senator John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday, Mr. Newsom's decision in February to open City Hall to thousands of gay weddings has become a subject of considerable debate among Democrats. Some in the party were suggesting even before the election that Mr. Newsom had played into President Bush's game plan by inviting a showdown on the divisive same-sex-marriage issue. Most of the talk has been behind closed doors. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and Newsom supporter, answered a question about the subject at a news conference outside her San Francisco home on Wednesday, the prickly discussion spilled into the open. "I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Ms. Feinstein said of the same-sex marriages here. "I think it gave them a position to rally around. I'm not casting a value judgment. I'm just saying I do believe that's what happened." "So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon,'' she added. "And people aren't ready for it." Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who was a witness at the first same-sex marriage at San Francisco City Hall, said she received a flurry of angry e-mail messages on Thursday from people upset about Ms. Feinstein's public dressing down of Mr. Newsom. The topic was also raised with Mr. Newsom himself at a news conference on Wednesday and when he was a guest on a radio talk show here Thursday morning. He said he had no regrets. Some of his backers were less restrained. In an interview, Ms. Kendell accused Ms. Feinstein of looking for "easy scapegoats." "Shame on Senator Feinstein and other Democratic leaders for latching to the most facile and shallow of explanations for the results," she said. "What Mayor Newsom did really accelerated the conversation and the movement, and I will never accept an analysis that says a leader who stands for equality and fairness and who has the courage of his convictions is doing the wrong thing." One openly gay member of Congress, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, disagreed. Mr. Frank was opposed to the San Francisco weddings from the start and told Mr. Newsom as much before the ceremonies began. He urged the mayor to follow the Massachusetts path, which involved winning approval for the marriages in court before issuing licenses. In a telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Frank said he felt vindicated by the election results. In Massachusetts, every state legislator on the ballot who supported gay rights won another term. By contrast, constitutional amendments against gay marriage won handily in 11 states - including Ohio, an important battleground - in large part, Mr. Frank said, because of the "spectacle weddings" in San Francisco. Mr. Frank said Mr. Newsom had helped to galvanize Mr. Bush's conservative supporters in those states by playing into people's fears of same-sex weddings. Had the Massachusetts approach been followed, he said, "I think there would have been some collateral damage'' in the election, but "a lot less.'' "The thing that agitated people were the mass weddings,'' he said, adding, "It was a mistake in San Francisco compounded by people in Oregon, New Mexico and New York. What it did was provoke a lot of fears." "He created a sense there was chaos,'' Mr. Frank said of Mr. Newsom, "rather than give us a chance to show, as we have in Massachusetts, that this doesn't mean anything to anyone else." Some conservative opponents of same-sex marriages concurred. Though the backlash against gay weddings was kick-started by court rulings in Massachusetts - and even earlier in Alaska and Hawaii - opposition resonated with a much broader group of conservatives after Mr. Newsom put San Francisco at the heart of the debate, said Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian group that sued to block the marriages here. The California Supreme Court eventually declared the 4,000 or so weddings invalid, but the images of same-sex couples' embracing in San Francisco were permanently etched in the public's mind, Mr. Lorence said. "The court decisions have been the triggers, but Mayor Newsom definitely accelerated the reaction," Mr. Lorence said. "I think we can get 10 or 15 more state constitutional amendments in the 2006 and 2008 election cycle, and maybe even more, because people feel so strongly about this." In a telephone interview, Mr. Newsom acknowledged that he had taken some heat from fellow Democrats. But he said the criticism was off the mark. Mr. Bush decided to use gay marriage as a political wedge well before the weddings in San Francisco, the mayor said, and the issue had already been politicized by the court rulings in Massachusetts. Mr. Newsom offered no apologies. "If you think something is right,'' he said, "you have a moral obligation to act.''

That is funny. LOL. I have to agree with Mr. Newsome that the San Francisco weddings had little impact on the conservative voter turn-out. Seriously, it's San Francisco - who wouldn't expect gay marriages to be approved there?

No, I think it was the referendum (or whatever) in Massachusetts that "scared" conservative voters regarding gay marriages. Allowing gay marriages in San Francisco is one thing, but allowing them in Massachusetts and Vermont is another issue entirely. THAT was what made the voting public think "OMG, MY state could be next!"

Still, it is humorous to see the Times casting their net so wide in search of someone to blame. I know it's inconceivable to them that the majority of the American voters actually preferred Bush to Kerry. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: In 4 States Civil Unions were banned.

Yeah 4 out of 50...oh the horror..... And it was in reaction to the "in the face attitude and snottiness" I expounded upon elsewhere. [/QUOTE]Does the fact it was only 4 make it ok?

How do you know it was in reaction to the "in your face attitude and snottiness" that you expounded on?

Cerek, I hope you are right.

Mainly because I can read the news papers and watch the occasional discussion forum on the television, oh and some times I even participate in our local political discussion groups for our district in Maryland.....(we call them civic action groups and these are where our local Politicians get some of their ideas....I live in a heavily Democrat controlled area) perhaps maybe even, I live in the place we have been discussing and am not in a Coma?

Did I say it was ok? nope...but I did intimate that it wasn't the end of all life as we know it as well.


[ 11-05-2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Cerek]

I have to back MagiK on this one.

Whether the Gay Rights Movement really is "in your face" or not is somewhat irrelevant - because that is how it is perceived by many people.

Orignally, they said they just wanted an equal voice and equal rights. While the equal rights might be questionable, it can't be denied that they have gained a very powerful voice. And now they are using their power to try and squelch ANY opposing views.

Dr. Laura has a popular radio talk show and her views are openly based on the Bible. She calls homosexuality a sin and a perversion (which - by a strict definition - it is). When Dr. Laura was offered a TV Show, the Gay Right Movement came out in force and demanded she be removed from the airwaves completely because of her "hate speech". Thanks to their power and leverage, her TV show never made it past a few episodes - though I beleive she still has her radio show.

So they went from just wanting an equal voice to saying "there should be no opposing voices". And this is seen by many to be an attempt to force acceptance of their lifestyle on the general population.

And that approach simply doesn't work.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: In both VT and Mass the whole issue got adjudicated by the State Supreme Court first. VT's was first, when in 1998 or thereabouts the Supreme Court determined that under the State Constitution, you could not deny the basic rights of marriage to non-traditional couples, such as gays. Rather than do anything, the Court gave the legislature time to fix it. The legislature came up with the Civil Union, a parallel to marriage crafted to benefit gays and other life partnership couples (such as sisters living out their elder years together). In Massachussetts, the court also determined the same sort of thing. The legislature then certified a legal question to the Court, asking it if a Civil Union would satisfy the Mass Constitution. The Court said no, it must be marriage. In neither case was there a popular vote on the issue. However, the "take back Vermont" campaign to rip every legislator out of office who voted for the Civil Union failed pretty miserable -- though some folks did lose their legislature positions. As well, attempts in Massachussetts toward a constitutional amendment have also failed. So, in both cases, there is no popular will to undo it.

Those are good points, Timber, but I have to agree with aleph_null1. I think it was more a case of "no popular will to do anything". After all, even if they did remove every legislator in Vermont that voted for the Civil Union, that wouldn't change the law itself. Yet some of the legislators apparantly still lost their positions over that one issue. I would guess that the ones who didn't lose their positions had other issues they could bring into the campaign to offset their vote on the Civil Union.

The case in Massachusetts where attempts at a constitutional amendment have failed is a little stronger indicator that the folks there aren't willing to undo the Civil Union. But I still submit that - had the issue been put to a public vote to begin with - the results would have been different. Once the law was on the books, I'm wondering how many voters said "Well, it doesn't matter now anyway. The law is there and our actions won't change that."

Of course, that's just speculation on my part and I admit again that the case in MA is more suggestive that the general public is not upset with the Civil Union. But I do find it interesting that the only two states that actually allow Civil Unions did not put the issue up for a public vote by the general population before putting the law on the books.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek: Dr. Laura has a popular radio talk show and her views are openly based on the Bible. She calls homosexuality a sin and a perversion (which - by a strict definition - it is). When Dr. Laura was offered a TV Show, the Gay Right Movement came out in force and demanded she be removed from the airwaves completely because of her "hate speech".

I consider refering homosexuality as sinful or as a perversion, thereby refering to homosexuals as sinners or perverts, as like "hate" speech and I wish you would not repeat it here in these forums as it is antagonistic and creates hostility towards a group, of whom we have members here at IW, and thereby violate the rules. I doubt IWs gay membership appreciates it. I am personally distgusted by such language.

from the rules:

Be Nice: No posting of material that antagonizes, harasses or creates hostility toward another user or group of. If you are angry with someone in the forum, take it up with him/her through private channels like e-mail or PM or ICQ in a respectful manner.

[ 11-07-2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]