quote:Originally posted by revglenrose
BUT it seems to me that focusing on Marriage rather than on Civil Rights has fired up the opposition -- made it even more rabid in "defense" of something that nobody is trying to attack (the institution of marriage).

Precisely. As a public relations pro for 30 years, I can tell you that there is enormous value to surfacing the opposition to any viewpoint on a public policy issue by crystallizing the issue and framing the debate. By framing the issue as "marriage" rather than civil rights, we put the focus where it belongs, on equal civil rights. We can argue 'till the cows come home that there is or is not a distinction between a marriage and a civil union (there is) but it's irrelevant in terms of actually changing public opinion which, in turn, drives public policy decisions -- our goal in this fight. "Perception is reality" is a fundamental tenet of persuasion theory so it's critical if we are to achieve "equal civil rights" that we frame the debate with the term that the vast majority of U.S. citizens perceive to be the legal union between two people that confers a plethora of civil rights: marriage.

On your second issue, that we're forcing people to defend something (marriage) that isn't being attacked is actually greatly to our benefit since we can marshal facts to counter the assertion that gay marriage threatens straight marriage. This exposes the fundamental irrationality, the belief-driven (rather than fact-driven) point of view they espouse. In public debate in the U.S. (and not in every other culture) the side that can get "fairness" on its side, in a rational, positive way, more often than not wins. (On the latter point: that's why both sides of the abortion debate have named themselves "pro" something.)

So from both a personal emotional viewpoint ("Damn it! My marriage to Randy is just as worthy as my mother and father's marriage.") and from a professional viewpoint as a guy who has been behind the scenes of many pubic policy debates, I say that we will only win the battle for equal protection and benefits for our unions if we call them marriage. And, as more and more of us go to other nations to get the stamp of government approval for our marriages, the more we will as individuals and couples contribute to changing public policy.

Let me clarify . . . I am 100% in support of extending the massive # of civil rights to gay men and lesbians, and have worked extensively for these rights for many years.

BUT it seems to me that focusing on Marriage rather than on Civil Rights has fired up the opposition -- made it even more rabid in "defense" of something that nobody is trying to attack (the institution of marriage). IMHO, basic civil rights such as family benefits under health care, the right to be next of kin in the emergency room etc., adoption, custody, rights of survivorship, etc., etc,. are MORE distant than ever, because of the fervor of the Religious Right/Political Right.

I agree, TahoeT - under current procedures/laws, powers of attorney, papers etc can be easily nullified -- And "why the hell" should you have to, indeed!! That arbitrariness is something that law can change. Changes that would extend the same civil rights to all, regardless of "marital" status, and IMHO are more possible to achieve than the changes in the marriage law.

I want to work to achieve those rights and make them irreversible -- and politics (alas) is the art of the possible.

This is the focus of my point in raising the issue -- NOT whether gay men and lesbians ought to have the extensive civil rights denied them and yet taken for granted by straight/bi citizens.

Because DUH -- OF COURSE -- they should!!!

Amen Tim Amen