dedalus on June 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM

12,000 sounds like a lot but if 4% of MA’s 6 million residents are gay then there are 240,000 gays in the state. Yes, we’d need to lower that number to exclude minors and those not in committed relationships. Even if you cut that number in half that’s 120,000 gays so you’re still at 10% of them being married.

In any case, I agree it’s hard to really estimate these numbers. My overall point is that there is much more going on here than the simple desire for finanical benefits. I think much of the support for gay marriage is soft support…people have been hoodwinked into believing that the real issue here is that gays just want the same legal benefits as everyone else and nothing more. Polls show movement towards support of gay marriage is slowing down. I really think it’s because the gay marriage movement is overplaying it’s hand. The whole Miss California fiasco demonstrated this. The more heavy handed it becomes in trying to “punish dissent”, the less public support you’ll see for the gay marriage movement.

It’s all about gays wanting homosexuality validated as normal by society and using government to punish anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy.

frank63 on June 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM

We probably agree then that giving gay couples equal legal and tax status is appropriate, but using the government to put a stamp of approval on a particular lifestyle is not.

My preference is for civil unions, but it looks destined to not come to that.

In MA, I’ve read that there have been about 12,000 gay marriages since 2004. It seems like a lot in absolute terms. As a percentage, I guess it depends on how you arrive at the denominator. If that number is any gay person who is in a relationship then the percentages could be small.

The tax and social security benefits are big differences. In CA they got about 47% of the vote, which is more than McCain got nationally. The age demographics favor them moving from 47% to a majority in the next decade.

dedalus on June 18, 2009 at 8:23 AM

And that would be fine if the fight for same sex marriage was really all about legal benefits, but I have my doubts about that. I fear that for most gays the issue of legal benefits is just a smokescreen to garner public sympathy. Here in MA we’ve had gay marriage for 6 years now. Latest estimates are that less than 10% of gay couples here have actually taken advantage of their “marriage rights”. I work in a large office and have quite a few gay coworkers. They’ve been cheering the gay marriage movement for over a decade and yet not one of them has chosen to marry their partner. If legal recognition of gay relationships is such a necessary thing to relieve their “oppression”, you’d think the vast majority of gay couples would be clamoring to get married as soon as SSM becomes legal in their state. But that doesn’t happen. I really think this has nothing to do with legal benefits. It’s all about gays wanting homosexuality validated as normal by society and using government to punish anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy.

And what is pissing everyone else off is that they’re already being GIVEN everything legally that they’d benefit from calling it “marriage”, but to the militant “I’m gay and IN YOUR FACE!” types that’s worth RIOTING over.

wildcat84 on June 18, 2009 at 7:54 AM

The tax and social security benefits are big differences. In CA they got about 47% of the vote, which is more than McCain got nationally. The age demographics favor them moving from 47% to a majority in the next decade.

Perhaps. The GOP already gets 25% of the gay vote. I have a hard time imagining the GOP pulling in a majority, but it’s not out of the question – especially if the GOP can get out ahead of this kind of thing by trotting out Dick “Freedom for Everyone” Cheney – that the GOP might get parity with Democrats among gays.

Lehosh on June 17, 2009 at 10:02 PM

What Obama is doing is demonstrating reality… Gays are ~1% of the total population, and the militants are a minority of even that. No one, Republican or Democrat are going to win one seat in Congress based on that constituency, especially when pandering to them is sure to offend FAR more people and cost you MANY more votes than if 100% of that constituency voted for you.

Even CALIFORNIA overwhelmingly voted to not allow sodomy to be called marriage. CALIFORNIA. If the gays can’t win a vote like that THERE, they can’t win it ANYWHERE (except San Francisco).

And what is pissing everyone else off is that they’re already being GIVEN everything legally that they’d benefit from calling it “marriage”, but to the militant “I’m gay and IN YOUR FACE!” types that’s worth RIOTING over.

Mormon Doc on June 18, 2009 at 1:15 AM

I think there is more than one gay lobby, though, and most assuredly different gays have different goals. As to what happens, I think it’s in the hands of the gays who are rational, intelligent, and understand what the general population has the ability to accept. Those who pursue the ends you speak of will never succeed, I don’t think; and I can say that politicians like those currently in power will never help them.

Ever. For all the liberal promises to gays, what have they done for them?

This article is the proof – disregarding his digustingly slimy evasions is merely ignoring the truth.

Unfortunately the gay lobby does not seek acceptance, it seeks dominion over what can be said about homosexuality. These skirmishes don’t truly address what many homosexuals seek. They want to get hate crime laws changed so that describing homosexual lifestyle in anything but glowing terms is illegal. It occurred to me tonight that the homosexual lobby is similar to the Palestinians in their underlying motives.

Homosexuals don’t actually want a two idea solution. They want one government sanctioned view of homosexuality that carries a hefty legal penalty for violating. The one idea solution they seek prevents my ideas from cooexisting peacefully. I don’t believe that they will accept anything less.

Oh, come on JetBoy. Every time I drag my gay rear into a gay-related thread on HA (and I make no bones about being a HillaryDem-turned-”Republican” in about 75% of my posts, no less), I never receive 1/8th of the flak you get as a self-professed gay Republican.

I argue pro-gay stances (civil unions plz; marriage is a sacrament in my mind and should be kept as such) and never turn heads and attract bile the way you do.

Perhaps there’s an issue with how you deliver your message? Tonality is key to a civil discussion. Most anti-gay comments I see around here ratchet up ten-fold when you comment and — while I totally disagree with them — maybe it’s time to chill just a bit, step back, get some perspective, and come back with a different means of expression?

Just a thought.

lansing quaker on June 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM

In fact, just by reading that particular post I can feel how frustrating it must be for you every time one of those obnoxious “gay pride” rallies comes through and sets acceptance of gays back to …well, the beginning.

You have a good point about tonality, and a good point about marriage. As a conservative male, I think that most of my religious peers would have no qualm about gay civil rights if it were not phrased as being marriage, which traditionally is the union of man, woman, and God.

If or when being gay becomes totally accepted, it will be your way of approaching it that wins the war.

It’s official.I’m sick of topics about gays. In fact I’m sick of gays. I’m sick of hearing about gays. I’m sick of hearing from gays. I’m sick of seeing gays. Enough already, you’re like 1% of the population of the world and we’ve got to hear about you EVERY minute.

Jeff from WI on June 17, 2009 at 10:50 PM

i have been feeling the same way lately. i told my gay brother so and you know what he said?

ME TOO.

mdenis39 on June 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM

What’s my slippery slope?

The Race Card on June 17, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Upstater85 on June 17, 2009 at 11:31 PM

The line of questioning points to the slippery slope here. Whether the benefits are “meaningless” is somewhat inconsequential. What happens when this is applied to real benefits?
As a tangent observation, if civil unions for gays is recognized, then some of these problems are resolved, no? But many in the gay community aren’t satisfied with that compromise. I don’t know why.

Your line of questioning actually lends itself to the normalization of gay marriage rather than substituting these “meaningless benefits.” The questions show that gays are granted access to an unequal institution — domestic partnership.

The Race Card on June 17, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Unless… as far as the gov’t was concerned, every “married” couple/group was in a domestic partnership… Hmmm…

Being Barack means never having to say you’re sorry (to gays)
Video: Obama makes token concession to gays, hopes they’ll leave him alone now

…

mdenis39 on June 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Your line of questioning actually lends itself to the normalization of gay marriage rather than substituting these “meaningless benefits.” The questions show that gays are granted access to an unequal institution — domestic partnership.

In order for a gay couple to take advantage of these meaningless benefits, what is the burden of proof?

mdenis39 on June 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Since they’re meaningless (which they are), why would anyone who isn’t a gay couple care to apply for them?

And, more importantly, why would you care if any non-gay same-sex couples waste their time and energy hatching a plan to apply for meaningless benefits?

That’s the real question.

I’m beginning to wonder if Obama isn’t gay since it seems both he and gays can’t go 30 seconds without attention.

Jeff from WI on June 17, 2009 at 10:50 PM

But, then, how do Jon and Kate Gosselin of Jon & Kate Plus 8 fit into all of this?