Posted on 11/06/2004 2:12:41 PM PST by SmithL
Despite a bruising rebuke on election day, when voters in 11 states approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, advocates for gay rights say that the future is not as bleak as it appears and that they can still win in courts and in the arena of public opinion.
"I think in a moment like this when you feel like you've taken two steps back, the most important approach is to recommit with essentially a double dose of belief and aggressiveness," said Kate Kendell, executive director of National Center for Lesbian Rights. "I do not think this is a time to be cowed. " In the wake of the election day setbacks, Mayor Gavin Newsom has faced a barrage of criticism from fellow Democrats for issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and inspiring a backlash at the polls. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriage are saying that the public has spoken -- and spoken clearly.
It's a far cry from the euphoria gays and lesbians felt in February during San Francisco's same-sex marriage mania. But those on the front lines in the battle over gay rights say they won't let recent defeats stop their fight.
The election results will probably mean new court cases challenging the legality of the amendments and some strategic recalculations on both sides. Lawsuits already in the works are largely unaffected by Tuesday's votes, advocates said, and they pointed to some bright spots around the country, including California, where voters weren't shy about electing supporters of same-sex marriage.
"I'm quite a ways away from any decision about whether we'll be changing our long-term strategy or focus," Kendell said. "There are two things that I know for sure: One is we must do a much better job of engaging one-on-one with voters in the heartland ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
They will try the Liberal court system. The judges who are legislating from the bench must be identified, impeaced and removed from the Bench. Look for Clinton apointees to start, then you start demanding their removal. Look at their decesions find out how to remove them. I am.
What's a win?
I think the best strategy for the gays is to make a big stink about this in 2006, and they can support all their Senate candidates and urge them to push this issue. They should make a really big deal about it and circumvent the laws of their states and communities as well, people really like that kind of thing, it really makes them proud to see such a spirited, gay outpouring of anarchy.
They're counting on leftist-activist judges. ......and their optimism is understandable.
They are probably correct to say that they can win in the courts. In fact, it's the only place they can win, but it's enough. A judge issuing a ruling is effectively the same as a law being passed. It's how most of the liberal agenda has been foisted on an unwilling nation.
We need a marriage amendment.
What was that article we saw earlier about knock-down drag-out fights in the heartland?
The whole sick thing is the notion that politics needs to resolve around sexual proclivities. Give it a rest. Just keep it behind closed doors among consenting adults, don't expect us to pick up the bill for the consequences and leave us alone.
Oh that's good. That's good.
Like the folks in the HEARTLAND won't guess you're LIARS and trying to pull the wool over their eyes?
Gays really don't need to take in the ... O never mind!
Give us 8 more years of Republican Presidency and even that will be difficult
Will that reality include the astronomical incidence of venereal diseases and intestinal dosorders among homosexuals? The reality of male-on-male violence in homosexual relationships being many times higher than in heterosexual relationships? The new drug-resistant strains of syphilis in the homosexual community? The rampant promiscuity of cruisers? The deliberate goal of acquiring HIV in the "gift seekers"? The far above average incidence of depression and other (still recognized) mental illnesses among homosexuals? That 80% of AIDS cases are in homosexuals?
that's faboulith.
"... we must do a much better job of engaging one-on-one ..."
Hmmmmm ... best define "engaging one-on-one..." carefully.
"We need a marriage amendment."
The marriage amendment isn't enough. The amendment must forbid judicial activism. Bork has a great idea, passing an amendment that allows any court decision to be overturned by a Congressional supermajority. I think it's brilliant and would stop the leftists judges. Of course, it might be hard to sell in naked form, so the marriage amendment can be used as a smokescreen, or at least as an example of why such reform is needed.
Anyone in favor of pressuring a few corporations who provide benefits for homsexual "couples" just as they do for married couples?
We could start with AA and go from there...just an idea.
Well given that no one in the movement seems to understand the word "overreach", they're no filing suit in federal court seeking to overturn all the bans. In other words, Federal Constitutional Amendment here we come - passes both houses of Congress on pretty much voice vote, no one in Congress will look at the election results and do otherwise. It's ratified within two years.
THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Gays say they can win, despite election losses
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.