The USA had eleven states with a marriage referendum on the ballot yesterday. The voters in all eleven states voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman (one male and one female), and some even voted against other civil unions for homosexual couples.

Do you agree with those voters?

Do you think this means that the gay rights movement (and, possibly, the trans rights movement) has reached a standstill for the foreseeable future, or do you think this is merely a temporary setback for those who favor recognizing and legalizing homosexual marriages?

I definitely see a brand new challenge emanating from the gay community. As one who often teachs on the Constitution, I can tell you with all certainly they will not give up. Court challenges will be made, especially if any other state decides to recognize either a gay marriage or civil union. According to the Constitution, under the doctrine of "comity," if one states allows gay marriages, then if that couple visits one of those 11 backward states, their marriage is - in theory - valid there as well. But, as I said, it will take court challenges. It's far from over.

I agree that a marriage that is legally granted in one state should should be recognized by all other states. I also agree that the issue will ultimately have to be decided by either a ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court or an amendment to the Constitution.

I'm not really qualified to comment, but it looks as though your electorate is moving steadily to the right. The same is happening in Europe, including the UK (although the Labour Party is in power, it's not really a party of labour any more).

The real test of a democracy is how well it protects the rights of minorities. I don't think you'll get much change out of Bush. I would like to think that the gay rights movement is big enough to carry on fighting. I'm not sure this would be true of the TG movement.

Catherine

I don't think the USA is moving to the right, I think we've always been there, at least on gay rights issues, specifically regarding gay marriage. It's just that we're dealing with it for the first time, so we're revealing the nation's attitudes. Those attitudes are certainly influenced by religion, but I think most Americans are approaching this issue from the standpoint of tradition, rather than any specific religious doctrine. While the people can accept minor encroachments into the mainstream, such as watching the sitcom "Will & Grace," the people just don't seem ready to handle gay marriage in the everyday world.

It's a shame we aren't there yet, but I think we will be, in time, and I think the same applies to trans issues. I do think we should continue to fight for civil rights in the courts, but as for our public efforts, rather than taking a confrontational, militant approach, I think the GLBT community will be better served by putting forth positive examples and slowly building a comfort level with mainstream society.

I so agree with Stevie's last paragraph. Trans-people WILL be accepted into society, it's only a matter of time, but it's up to us to do the educating that's needed, and the slow but sure approach is best. We need to project a positive image and as Stevie says, slowly build a comfort level within mainstream society; it can't happen overnight.
xx

I believe that you are right, Gloria. It is a case of someone has to bell the cat. Some of us are going to get pawed, clawed and even eaten, but until the public stops believing their current version of "...an imbalance of the bodily humors causes illness..." by being educated, it will not change. So we need to teach the teachers first. While HE'S A LADY is not an Oscar winner, it is being handled much more tastefully than most of us feared. As people become desensitized to GL&B's, they will be more ready to accept T's. Helping the entire GLBT cause, helps us. Desensitization, education....today Provincetown (Fantasia Fair), tommorrow the world...

But I think what we need to teach them is not that we are morally superior; only that we have the same morals as everyone else...that we are not different that way...the more they accept us as the same as them, the more they accept us for our differences.

So the question is: "Who will bell the cat?"

the world we live in really makes me sick, im ashamed to be human sometimes. wot is rong with ppl? why the hell cant 2 ppl no matter wot gender they are marry?

Ziggy, if you're going to cite the Constitution at least get it right. The actual U.S. Constitution is only 7 articles and it mostly addresses how the government is to operate. It mentions very few things Congress can and cannot do, like it cannot be pass ex post facto, can levy taxes, etc.

Many states balked at ratifying the Constitution until there was a guarantee of civil rights. Thus we have the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments. These are not the Constitution itself but AMENDMENTS to the document. Right now the total number of amendments stand at 27.

The tenth amendment says nothing about religion. Rather, it mentions that any rights not addressed are reserved to the states and the people. What you mean is the FIRST amendment which says CONGRESS (not the states) shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. The separation of church and state, therefore, lies with the first amendment. But this itself has been the subject of several U.S. Supreme Court cases under what is known as the "Lemon Test." I won't get into that now because I have to move on!

Gloria, the reason I often mention gay issues (such as gay marriages) in conjunction with TG issues is because I do see a political link between the two. In my opinion, as the gay movement goes, the TG movement follows. Even though we know there is a distinct difference, the general public tends to lumps us in as "alternative lifestyles," which isn't necessarily a bad thing. As you know, even those who are gay and/or trans often use GLBT as an inclusive term for various political/social issues and groups geared toward those issues.

While I do agree that the vote on the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election is not the same thing as a referendum on TG acceptance, I do think that the general population's acceptance of trannies goes hand-in-hand with the general population's acceptance of homosexuals. I also believe that the current majority position against gay marriage is not limited to marriage, but represents a general lack of acceptance of equal homosexual rights and homosexuals, in general.

In my opinion, as long as we continue to have a cultural bias against gays, I think we'll also have a cultural bias against trannies. So, even though I'm not gay, I have two reasons to follow gay political issues - 1) I simply believe our legal rights in the USA should be applied equally to all, including the right to marry, and 2) I believe that trans rights and gay rights are closely linked.

Some might disagree with my reasoning on the linkage, but I just wanted to explain why I brought up the homosexual marriage issue, as a tranny.

As for the morality, I do think that many Americans still believe that it's morally wrong to be homosexual and/or trans, and I think that's the primary source of what many of us consider prejudice and discrimination against gays and trannies. When people believe something is morally wrong, it's difficult to get them to support legalizing it and legitimizing it. I think legalizing gay marriage would go a long way to legitimizing homosexual couples (and therefore, the homosexual lifestyle) in our culture, and many Americans are not comfortable with that. I don't agree with them, but I do understand them.

I don’t think the election represents a setback, it just tells me that we aren’t as far along as I hoped we were (well, I already knew it, but the election was a clear confirmation). It will take time, but I think we’ll get there. Consider how long it took females to receive the right to vote. Those of us who want equal gay and trans rights can’t expect drastic change overnight. I know it sucks being patient, though.

The United States is a country with first-world technology and third-world attitudes - a dangerous combination. This country always has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into accepting the rights of all people. Every group has to face this struggle, and ours is just beginning. The gay community is a little farther along, but they still have a long way to go. By attaching ourselves to them (and the uneducated public thinks we are part of them anyway) we may progress a little faster. Oppressed groups are stronger when they stick together.

Marriage rights will ultimately be won in the courts - legislatures are always scared to grant rights for fear of backlash from the many reactionaries who are all too vocal. However, if these rights are won in the courts (as in Massachusetts) before any great social acceptance is gained, a strong backlash is likely and that is what we are seeing now in the marriage amendments and in the re-election of the fool whom I will never respect. I fear that the marriage movement may have jumped the gun in Massachusetts and may actually have set back the cause by many years. Civil unions have been gaining some ground, and it may be prudent to let this work for a while in the states that have adopted it or considered it. Of course, it is not a permanent solution, but it is a temporary middle ground which can be used to educate the general public. Now that marriage has been granted in Massachusetts, to give it up would be a major defeat, so it now has to be defended. But given the current political climate, the best tactical way to move forward at this point would be to work for civil unions in more states, and use successful examples of this (as well as the Massachusetts experiment) to help gain social acceptance. With good social acceptance in much of the country, when the courts eventually grant full marriage rights nationwide, there will not be such a severe backlash.

Of course, all will be lost if the federal marriage amendment passes. This must be fought with all our strength. If it passes, the cause of GLBT civil rights will be lost - likely for generations. Then, it may be time for us to leave the U.S. for some other country which is not controlled by hateful religious fundamentalism.

Heather H.

Heather, I agree with most of what you said about getting from here to there, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the USA, on the whole, has third-world attitudes.

Were I a Supreme Court Justice, and the gay marriage issue were in play, I don't know of any Constitutional justification for allowing heterosexuals to legally marry while denying that same right to homosexuals. However, if the U. S. Constitution is changed to ban gay marriages, that takes the issue out of the courts.

I think the problem is with the term "Marriage".
99% of the worlds population has been brought up with the idea
that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
If "Gay Marriage" was reffered to as a "Civil Union" in which
a gay couple would receive the same rights as a married couple in the eyes of the law, reguarding insurance, beneifits, inheritance, taxes and even hospital visits ect., I do not believe that there would have been any problem getting it passed.

I'm with you Sandi - in my humble opinion - it's comes down to money and power - the insurance companies don't want to pay survivor benefits to partners. The so called "family values" issue is all smoke. We are not a "religious" people - if we were there wouldn't be a death penalty or people without health benefits, etc.,etc.
jillian

I think Divorce Lawyers were the only ones campaigning for it, since it would enlarge their client base

"Oh Gays weren't duh!"
That goes without saying...
Ziggy do you even have a sense of humor?