Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Do you think that the "right" thing for the candidate(s) to do is to proclaim that they are preserving the word marriage for oppo-sex couples? I personally would prefer they remain silent on that, because I think it would hurt them more than it would help them with the true believers in this polarized election year. This may be related to the fact that I'm one of the few people that thinks SF has a decent legal argument that will allow for recognition of its same sex marriages, so I am aware that this may not be the most dispassionate advice...
|
I'm getting a vibe --- even in the Bay Area* --- that many, many people who support civil unions as a matter of fundamental fairness are still feeling squicky about the term "gay marriage." So I think the Dem candidate will distance himself from that term by paying lip service to the institution of "marriage" and talking instead about the lack of an adequate substitute providing the same social, governmental, and economic benefits to same-sex couples.
I think the gay activists who say "marriage or nothing" are looking at the potential for a plate full of nothing. They should grow the fuck up and realize that you sometimes have to (1) plan for incremental change of hearts and minds, and not just count on court victories; and (2) convince a majority by softening your rally-speech arguments about how you have a right to this and a right to that. This issue is easier to win on fairness grounds than on Con Law grounds.
*I don't live within CCSF city limits. YMMV.
