"Next year won't be the best time, and the year after won't be. There's midyear elections, mayoral elections and governor elections. There will never be the best time. It's the same script."—Gavin Newsom
Most of my San Franciscan friends didn't vote for Gavin, but I haven't heard a single one of them trash him for this act of civil disobedience. Hearing the current Mayor Daley in Chicago sound like Gavin gladdens my heart.
Dithering until the time gets right gets us steamrollered by Dubya/Cheney/Ashcroft and the rest of them.
Be happy for now. I'll say I was wrong if it turns out well, but if not in six months time I'm going to have a big I told you so for all of you people who thought it best to go charging up the hill without a plan.
I find myself more or less in agreement with mishalak; I suppose I could be faulted for this view as the outcome doesn't directly affect me.
I find myself wondering if pushing for meaningful civil union laws in most or all of the States might not have been better at this time. A majority of the population appears to be willing to accept that, while a majority appears to balk at same-sex marriages. The term marriage maps into the territory of religion in many peoples minds, and they feel it as an attack on their own beliefs.
I don't expect the Amendment to pass, or most likely even get out of Congress. But it will add to the noise, and will swing some voters that would not vote for Bush over to his side on what they see as a moral issue. Note that African-Americans and Latinos tend to be fairly conservative on moral issues, as do a goodly slice of Islamic-Americans. One could argue that these people have many reasons not to support the current Administration, but proper timing on this same-sex marriage issue will have a fair chance of swings a number of them over.
I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but I fear that a backlash in the general population and a second term of W may find things worse a year from now.
It was going to happen anyway; in May, gays in Massachusetts start being able to marry, and the earliest that can be repealed is 2006. Newsom merely assured that it didn't happen on Bush (or more likely, Rove's) schedule, which I suspect was a good thing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Dithering until the time gets right gets us steamrollered by Dubya/Cheney/Ashcroft and the rest of them.
From:
no subject
From:
When We Can Win, That's When
From:
no subject
I find myself wondering if pushing for meaningful civil union laws in most or all of the States might not have been better at this time. A majority of the population appears to be willing to accept that, while a majority appears to balk at same-sex marriages. The term marriage maps into the territory of religion in many peoples minds, and they feel it as an attack on their own beliefs.
I don't expect the Amendment to pass, or most likely even get out of Congress. But it will add to the noise, and will swing some voters that would not vote for Bush over to his side on what they see as a moral issue. Note that African-Americans and Latinos tend to be fairly conservative on moral issues, as do a goodly slice of Islamic-Americans. One could argue that these people have many reasons not to support the current Administration, but proper timing on this same-sex marriage issue will have a fair chance of swings a number of them over.
I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but I fear that a backlash in the general population and a second term of W may find things worse a year from now.
From:
Re: When We Can Win, That's When
From:
no subject