Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
FWIW, although I don't hear the term that often in the US, it's "straight" as opposed to "bent."
Also FWIW, count me in as one who is not offended, yea who laughed, at "breeder" (even if it was in the context of telling me I have to work on Wednesday.  )
As to the topic itself, I tend to agree with KSig RC. But it's not my call. |
Me too.
But I'll go in a different and more close-minded direction. It's one thing if your cause is one that even though you're in the minority, you have an established constitutional or legal right to be who you are and get what you want/need. But if you're going to need the votes of other people to establish your legal ability to be who you are and get what you want/need, it's probably better not to do it in a particularly antagonistic way. Nobody likes to be politically strong-armed.
I'm thinking this may backfire with all the people who have been gradually coming towards acceptance of same sex marriage but still have some reservations. Think of a co-worker who really likes you and wants you to be happy, but maybe comes from a really strict, traditional religious background. This person would probably be torn if same sex marriage came up for a vote in your state and you'd have a chance of winning him or her over. If you screw this co-worker by calling in on a day that he or she will have to pick up the extra work OR jeopardize the overall health of the business or community with a deliberate spending strike, is that really going to have the effect of winning this person to your side? Isn't it possible that this person could conclude that gays are selfish people who only care about themselves and their issues?
I'm not saying that such a person would be correct or that same sex marriage advocates don't have a right to be outraged. BUT if your efforts have a big risk of actually undermining your long term success, are they right thing to do?
It seems that this kind of thing works well for issues about which people need to see that a previously invisible group is actually much more powerful than previously thought. I don't think it's going to work this way this time, for the kind of geographic reasons that K Sig RC mentioned and because I think it's going to polarize people even more in areas where the number of participants probably isn't going to be huge.
ETA: This may seem like an especially dumb question, but why does same sex marriage seem to be a popular referendum, popular vote for a constitutional amendment issue rather than a typical legislative issue? I thought that it had been used in typically conservative states as a way to make sure the evangelical vote made it to the polls for the general election, but that doesn't explain the recent vote in California. Is that a reflection of the general procedures for amending the constitution of California: that it can't be amended by the legislature?