Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California, said he spent June and early July asking the opinions of nearly two dozen California political consultants and pollsters and had been surprised by the almost unanimous opinion that a 2010 race was a bad idea.
“I expected having watched the protests and the real pain that the L.G.B.T. community had experienced that there would be some real measurable remorse in the electorate,” Mr. Solomon said, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “But if you look at the poll numbers since November, they really haven’t moved at all.”
A major factor in any California balloting, of course, is money; campaigns here are remarkably expensive, with a number of costly media markets. The Proposition 8 campaign, for example, cost more than $80 million, with opponents spending some $43 million.
watched the protests
In other words, bullying doesn’t work
and the real pain that the L.G.B.T. community
Surprise, emotional bullying doesn’t work either.
Personally, I find the push a big distraction.
There are ways for the LGBT community to have almost everything. It requires people who have a solid understanding of the law. Write up contracts and clear wills; share property.
An entrepreneurial lawyer could probably put together a legal package that would protect all the essential rights of a couple. It might not be as easy as a simple marriage license, but legally binding.
There are more creative ways to go about this, ways that put pressure on the state without such expense. As it is, in 30 years, a majority of Americans will not find gays who want to marry such a strange thing.
Admittedly, I wonder why gay people would want to join an institution that straight people do so poorly at.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the widespread protests had had the opposite affect as desired.
The opposition to gay “marriage” is much stronger than was originally thought, I believe. It is deep, and it is entrenched, and it will not go away. And it is un-Biblical.
Supporters of Prop 8 and these who hold fast and true that marriage is between one man and one woman are standing firm and upright in Calif. God always wins and one will always be blessed when you stay on His path and in His inspired Word and not try to over turn it and oppose it.
#2, the purpose is not to *join* the institution but to *abolish* it. Big difference. I’ve said before, they don’t want what you have, they don’t want you to have it. That goes for the Anglican communion. Church participation up to episcopal rank isn’t what’s desired but destruction of it.
#6
I really think we need to be careful when talking of our Beloved Opposition when we go using terms like “they”. “They”, many of them, really do want marriage, and they believe their homosexuality means that gay “marriage” is the cure. This is the sad part of the continuing “dialogue”.
If by “they” you mean a pervading philosophy that has distorted generations into our present time, a certain collection of powers and principalities it is currently unfashionable to name, then you are indeed quite correct.
John (#2) – we agree on this – to a certain extent. One conservative blogger (political blog, not religious one and I can’t remember which blog) wrote: “Why not let the gays have marriage? We heteros are using it!”
Actually, I think there are two groups of people who are really in favor of homosexual marriage – wedding planners and family law trial lawyers. (grin)
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
nwlayman,
I do know of some feminists who think that marriage is a form of entrapment. Of course, I know of some straight men who feel the same way.
I admit, the evidence is that straight people don’t like marriage very much, given the way they treat it.
I don’t know many gay people who try to break up marriages of straight people. I’m not sure how your statement, “they want to abolish it,” would work, or does work, in practice. It sounds a bit too much like a slogan (“gays hate marriage”) to me, one unsupported by the evidence.
I’m one straight man who has loved marriage for 46 years! And my wife feels the same way! And my parents for 60 years before that!
John, It’s like the Gnostics of the early centuries AD. They were gnostic before Christianity came along, and found the new faith a useful vehicle to hang their theology on and corrupt it as they hitched a ride. In the same way the very strange religion that puts forward same sex marriage has got a toe hold in Anglicanism, which has virtually no defense against it. Spong, Pike, you name it, there’s no “right” or “wrong” in Anglicanism to refer to. So a thing growing along side christian faith can do what it likes and not be expelled. You can even be Muslim and stay in good standing as we know. The parallel religion has no life of its own, it sucks it out of what it finds. Hadn’t you noticed? Baptism is trivialized and means nothing, the eucharist (whatever an Anglican believes it “is” or “isn’t” this week) is open to anyone baptized (why?) or not (why not?), ordination means pretty little, and now we’re at marriage. They haven’t begun to destroy it yet, give them a little more time, but every last Anglican married man has to decide whether or not he can look his wife in the eye and say she is the exact equivalent of Gene Robinson’s concubine.