What’s on your mind today?
We were pretty quiet yesterday because the Maine voting really had us thinking amongst ourselves, and we’ve decided to take the next step in our personal evolutions and move into actual activist mode.
We’ve been talking on this site about “Spousal Rights” as opposed to the terminology of “gay marriage” for a very long time — but we preach to a committed choir around here. But, we’ve never taken the “Spousal Rights” idea on the road and tried to start something with this.
We believe a new approach is needed to attain equal spousal rights for all couples…and that this needs to be a civil issue, with “marriage” and its religious connotations left to churches. What we need to lobby for is equal protection, equal financial opportunities, equal legal obligations for any two adults of legal age who wish to enter into this sort of civil partnership together.
We’ve decided to make it a new mission of ours to change the terminology being used by the LGBTQ community — to rebrand the Equality Issue and ultimately convince the entrenched, stubborn, myopic, delusional LGBTQ activists at the helm currently that they are very much steering ship after ship over the falls into disaster by insisting on jamming the term “gay marriage” down middle America’s throats. ”Gay marriage” will never happen.
“Spousal rights” will…as that term does not carry any emotional or religious baggage and actually conjures no visual image at all.
Please do us an enormous focus group favor today — PLEASE find one or two people you know and ask them to close their eyes and say the first thing that comes to mind when you say the following words (tell them not to think, but to just blurt out whatever it is they see visually in their minds’ eyes when you say the words):
(1) Homeland Security
(2) Clean Energy
(3) Spousal Rights
(4) School Vouchers
(5) Gay Marriage
Psychologically, we believe the people having visceral reactions against “Gay Marriage” would not be hell-bent against the more nebulous, Borax-sounding, rebranding “Spousal Rights”.
Aspic never sold as well as gelatin…or its proprietary eponym, Jell-O.
Prunes were gross and just for old people until dried plums came along.
Patagonian toothfish couldn’t be given away in restaurants but Chilean sea bass remains one of the pricier menu items.
It is all about the branding in this country, folks…words are important…there’s a psychology behind everything that current LGBTQ activists don’t appreciate.
So, strategically, we intend to do what we can to see that we get through to them. Don’t ask us how, because we have no idea, but it’s time we got off our butts and took the laptops on the road and into our community more here in Boystown. We’re going to start meeting with local LGBTQ leaders and talk to them about this rebranding. We’ll try our level best to get the message to higher ups in Marriage Equality groups. We’ll write Letters to the Editor and articles we’ll submit to LGBTQ publications.
Hopefully, when we write on this topic, you’ll help us spread those links so as many people as possible can help the LGBTQ community see the path to equality is not through forcing people to accept “gay marriage”…but giving them the opportunity to embrace “spousal rights” as a concept that doesn’t emotionally and psychologically alienate them instantly.
*******
Speaking of activist mode, Michelle Bachmann’s leading a charge of citizens to Washington today. Here’s a site with more information on that. There is information there on how to find your local representatives.
Here is something we want you all to remember everyday, that has been told to us repeatedly through the years by the Senators and Members of Congress we have known personally: letters, calls, and personal appearances by constituents MATTER. So few people bother to do this, so seldom do voters actually contact Congress, that when they do it sends the Congressional offices into panic mode.
Every letter, call, or visit a Congress Member gets is treated as if thousands if not tens of thousands of people feel the same way. Some of these Members get so few calls a week that 100 received in a day would make them apoplectic.
If Bachmann’s March is a success…we bet there will be a huge uptick in Pepto Bismal sales as Members contemplate what to do about Pelosi’s dismal Utopiacare bill.
******
Here’s some random fun we discovered this week, at www.CantYouSeeImBusy.com
These are games you can play that look like they’re Word documents or Excel spreadsheets. There’s one that’s like Pong and it’s our favorite…you run the little space bar across the document and bounce a little ball upwards to disappear the words on the document. Instead of getting caught playing Solitaire or Minesweep, you can get caught with an open Word doc that looks like you are almost kind of sort of doing what you are supposed to do all day.
******
Another fun thing we just had to share with you, which helped us get out of our post-Halloween funk, is THANKSGIVING PIZZA.
Of course, we discovered this at Pie Hole in Boystown last night (home of our favorite After School Special sausage and marshmallow pizza). Pie Hole had been running an Octoberfest special pizza in, duh, October: sauerkraut and bratwurst. We popped in for one of our After School Specials but were delighted to see the Thanksgiving theme up and running.
- Roast turkey
- Gravy (instead of pizza sauce)
- Craisins
- Sage
- Mashed potatoes
- Cheddar and what we think was provologne cheese
Great Merciful Zeus, it was Thanksgiving on a pizza. Loved it.
We never thought we’d replicate the joy of having a Thanksgiving Sandwich for the first time several years ago (turkey, mashed sweet potatoes, stuffing, cranberry sauce, on a toasted baguette…with pumpkin cheesecake drizzled with root beer sauce for dessert), but Thanksgiving Pizza was indeed such a marvelous holiday-themed gastronomic surprise.
Though, if we were to tweak Pie Hole a bit, we’d probably use cranberry sauce instead of pizza sauce and eliminate the gravy (which we personally don’t like), and we’d substitute sweet potatoes instead of the regular mashed (because we love sweet potatoes), but that’s just us.
And we will DEFINITELY be making this pizza at home in the future…and think about it, this is yet another inventive thing you can do with Thanksgiving leftovers.
From Boystown to your town, another holiday treat randomly stumbled upon.
November 5, 2009 at 1:54 am
This is brilliant.
It focuses on the solution rather than beating against the problem.
November 5, 2009 at 8:24 am
Yes, take it on the road, HillBuzz. It’s THE answer!!! Spousal rights for all!
November 5, 2009 at 2:48 am
I’ve so often said that the problem with gay marriage is the word “marriage”.
It has a religious connotation on which people are unwilling to compromise… but no one takes me seriously because I’m not gay. They tell me that I just don’t “get it”.
Personally, I think the government should get out of the “marriage” business altogether. Let religious folks have their marriages and let the gay folks have their equal status.
Civil unions for everyone!
November 5, 2009 at 8:23 am
I suggested the same thing yesterday: Civil unions for all. That’s the state’s province. Consign “marriage” to the religious realm.
This IS the answer.
Spousal rights–right on!
November 5, 2009 at 10:27 am
Unfortunately – I think trying to remove the word “marriage” and substituting it with “civil unions” for all legal purposes will be fought as hard as using it in reference to gay civil unions.
I don’t think I’d like it. But I also have no problem with allowing same-sex couples being legally married. I wish we could just do it!
It upsets me that our friends in the LGBT community have to “water down” the terminology in order to get the right. But I do agree that watering it down is the best chance for getting the right. Maybe taking this approach will eventually get communities to use the term marriage – when referring to civil unions for same-sex couples.
30 other states have had votes similar to Maine’s. All 30 voted against gay marriage just as Maine did. I think it’s pretty clear that if legal “marriage” is desired for same-sex couples, “civil unions” or “spousal rights” is how it needs to be approached.
And here is where I think the issue needs to be careful – but IMHO whether it’s “civil union”, “spousal contract” or whatever, I believe that these marriages should have to be dissolved legally, just as marriage as it exists today must be. I don’t think people should be able to just walk away from their partnerships. Anyone disagree?
November 5, 2009 at 3:12 am
HillBuzz Guys, I applaud your idea for taking action with these groups. However, I think you will find it a very difficult road because the groups are going to keep arguing that it must be called the same thing or it is not the same thing. Not seeing the opportunities for success in your plans, they will be afraid that their supporters will think they are backing down.
It’s too bad your point of view and wisdom were not taken into account at very beginning of this movement.
If “Spousal Rights” was the original terminology and they were granted across the country, it would have then made sense to go back several years later and change the terminology at that point. After several years of everyone having equal spousal rights and the world and society not falling apart, many more people would think it would be acceptable to call it marriage since, in effect, they would realize it had been marriage under a different name all along anyway.
November 5, 2009 at 5:30 am
Good plan Hillbuzz.
It just might work.
November 5, 2009 at 6:59 am
What the LGBTQ must understand is that the majority of this country leans right-of-center. They will never support gay marriage. The word ‘marriage’ in any dictionary one cares to choose is defined as the union of a man and a woman, so it’s a no brainer. Now spousal rights (like hospital visitation/direction of care) or civil unions would not ruffle as many feathers, nor cause so many to dig their heals in against it. People do understand that having a say in a partner’s health and well being when they are incapacitated is important, and should be recognized legally. The tax issues are also important, not just while alive but also upon death and inheritance of joint property, or even property used jointly, as in personal property like artwork, jewelry, etc. Without a will, such property goes to the deceased’s family, not the surviving partner.
I’m all for legal civil unions for the LGBTQ community. Besides, why should straights be the only ones who enjoy the benefit of paying for lawyers when their relationships go sour? Because, along with the legal, medical and financial benefits of a state-sanctioned union, there is also the legal and financial downside.
November 5, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I still don’t think that it will matter what you call it…like I am asking my facebook community what they think and 3-1 disagree with it no matter what it is called..due to the fact of what you first stated..right-of-center…meaning Christian…meaning they think it is immoral in any manner…
November 5, 2009 at 7:23 am
One thing also to consider is that in non-presidential elections, the majority of people who actually take the time to vote are “older americans”. No name change will ever change their minds.
You need to find a way to motivate people between 18 and 40 (who are for the most part socially progressive) to get off their duff and go to the voting booth.
The root cause of the problem is not the attitude of resistance to gay marriage amongst the population at large, its the attitude of voter apathy.
November 5, 2009 at 7:36 am
I’m not sure it’s going to matter what you call it…because I still think there will be much resistance to it…because a lot of people will look at it as a price you have to pay for belonging to the LGBTQ community..not having the same rights as heterosexuals in that regard. I think it may win over some..but it will kind of be like calling the “public option” the “competitive option” in the end it represents the same thing..
Now, I am not necessarily saying I agree, but I am just saying based on what is happening, observed, heard in other circles..
November 5, 2009 at 7:57 am
I once had a slight interchange with Andrew Sullivan about this very issue and my thinking at the time was exactly the same as expressed here. (Back when I actually read his blog…)
It’s the use of the word “marriage” that offends people but I do believe that Americans will accept civil partnerships with the accompanying legal rights as well. It is a no brainer. Approaching the issue this way is the right and smart way to do it.
I had to laugh though, yes, there will be a use for lawyers from time to time. :)
November 5, 2009 at 8:31 am
A related aside: I think gay people know that spousal rights also come with spousal responsibilities. Anyone who has stayed with and nursed their partner through a terminal illness of any kind is well aware that relationships demand responsibility (and compassion and loyalty and dependability). And the gay community has already done this (think Lionel) without the legal protections and benefits of spousal rights.
Spousal rights. Spousal rights. Let’s keep saying it this way, the HillBuzz way. Eventually, we can change the dynamic just by doing so.
November 5, 2009 at 8:39 am
HillBoyz, you are so spot on on so many issues…the “spousal rights” one being an issue that (IMO) can propel you from multiple jobs, to some form of paid writing/blogging (the commentary “go to” guys) for news and talk shows. Really…your are obviously passionate about this topic…but you (from what I have read) always tempers your commentaries with humor. Perfect mix for our 24/7/365 news cycles.
That said…anyone else hear the dismissal of the “House Call” protesters by everyone from Rachel Maddow (who IS paying for those busses???…hey Rach, I could have paid 75.00 from Ross Twp., PA…how about individual, patriotic Americans!!!) To Rep. Alcee Hastings (D of FL) “oh they’ll show up, but it won’t change one damn (channel Jeremiah Wright on the “damn”) vote.” Oh really Alcee…Nancy got ya by the…ahhhhn …arm??? (Yep, arm…because do any of them–other than Michelle Bachmann have a set??? Michelle’s are solid brass btw…)
And lastly, from people on their way TO DC…Madame Speaker, and “Deep Thinker,” Nancy Pelosi has restricted access to the House today…only one point of entry (east side visitors center). Now Nancy couldn’t be trying to keep Americans out of their House, could she be?
November 5, 2009 at 8:46 am
Why aren’t all comments being posted lately?
November 5, 2009 at 9:06 am
I think that is threading the needle. The issue is that there is a large segment of the population out there that simply hates gays. They hide behind their religion as an excuse, but they hate gays. They resent anything being equalized for them because they need someone or something to hate. Gay people is the one last segment of the population still acceptable to hate. Semantics has very little to do with it. You can rename, rebrand, invent cutsie terminology but if its to benefit gay people in any way, there will be a large portion of the rabidly moronic who will scream, invect, and work to defeat any iota of equalization. Other solutions are required.
November 5, 2009 at 9:20 am
Do you really think the gay-hating segment of the population of humanoids is large enough to stop progress?
November 5, 2009 at 1:54 pm
They just did in Maine.
November 5, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“They resent anything being equalized for them because they need someone or something to hate.”
Robert C, you seem to be attacking along the stereo-typical left wing line: Any one not as enlightened, sophisticated and brilliant as yourself is “rabidly moronic”.
I happen to believe that people like yourself are rabidly moronic. You set up a strawman argument with a sweeping generalization supported by not a single source except your own hatefilled opinion : “there is a large segment of the population out there that simply hates gays.” Figures, please? Citation from reputable sources, please?
If anyone hates, it’s you yourself. You spew hatred and bigotry against anyone you suspect does not think exactly as yourself.
November 5, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Spare me the ad hominem attacks and speaking of brash generalizations! Have you been beaten up because of your sexuality? Have you been fired after doing a remarkable job because of your sexuality? Did you have a dying partner whose family barred you from the hospital? Were you discharged from the military because you chose to love another from the same sex? Hypocrite. Do not moralize with me. Until there is full and equal rights in every sense of the word there is no equality. There is hardly stereotypical thinking except yours. Because some straights believe that gays have reached a fulcrum of equality denigrates the total gay experience based in reality.
November 5, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I should add that, yes, there are a few crazies out there like the Hillsboro Baptist Church bunch who hate gays, and nothing will ever change their minds.
But, Robert, you apparently believe that they influence a lot more people than they actually do. The Hillsboro people are all members of the same family, there’s maybe twenty of them tops and every Christian I know flinches when they are mentioned.
Most Christian sects, with the notable exception of the Catholic Church, are rapidly moving to full acceptance of gays. And as was noted by someone else, those who don’t, it’s mostly the older generation. Most of the younger congregants just couldn’t care less.
November 5, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Hillsboro? A horrid group, but the flip to your analogy is the Catholic church. Not an insignificant segment of the population. And even if some Christian sects are liberalizing their views on sexuality they are being hotly contested within their own denominations by large segments in total opposition, witness the Anglecans. Many still refuse to ordinate, and many certainly do not offer marriage as a sacrament to gay folk. Incorrect assumption.
November 5, 2009 at 9:09 am
spread the word far and wide
spousal rights for all.
November 5, 2009 at 9:36 am
I think advocating for spousal rights is really a conservative issue, or it should be. The government should get out of people’s lives and let them be. The Gov has no business telling people who they can spend their lives with and who they can share finances with.
The word “marriage” has church connotations. Everybody has a civil union when they go to a court house and apply for a license. All marriages are civil unions and authorized by the state. Whether or not people take that civil union and go have it blessed by a church is an individual choice. Churches should always have the right to refuse to bless that civil union as they currently do with straight couples.
I would like to see all marriages referred to as civil unions because that’s really what they are. LOL, actually many of them are pretty uncivil but that’s a whole different subject.
November 5, 2009 at 9:55 am
Agreed, government should definitely be out of it. I think the problem is that you will always have push back when legislators etc. make decisions that people should vote on at the state level. For what it is worth, my cousin lives in Maine and she stated to me that she knows of no one there who does not want everyone to have equal rights. It really is the word “marriage”. Personally I think it has to be a state by state issue perhaps spousal rights is the correct wording.
On a lighter note with only humor intended: Marriage sucks most of the time….. LOL
November 5, 2009 at 10:03 am
This is a better solution than co-opting a term that has such significance to many of us heterosexuals. My faith, my marriage need not be changed in meaning while allowing and even encouraging others who truly care for each other to share their lives, property, rights etc. with each other, This is acceptable to me as a fair resolution. Promiscuity and demeaning behavior by either group will continue to turn me off but I would hope those I care about that do not share my views would lead happy, fulfilling lives of mutual love and affection.
November 5, 2009 at 10:11 am
I was listening to the rehash of Tuesday’s election on Fox News and the Maine vote came up. One of the contributors (and I don’t recall who) made the comment that gay marriage was an issue that the gay community itself was split about it. Some (like our HB guys) believe that the terminology needs to change, and some believed that the term, and right of, “Marriage” needed to be fought for.
This was the first time I’ve ever heard the issue discussed in this way on a national news show.
November 5, 2009 at 12:03 pm
That was Laura Ingrham on oreilly. She said alot of people were emailing her and calling her talking about “spousal rights” vs “marriage”
November 5, 2009 at 10:15 am
That’s a great idea! When I got my Masters in Statecraft & National Security Affairs, we focused a lot on different instruments of statecraft (yes, I’m really, really dorky), and we studied a lot about political warfare. Things like changing the words used in a fight are HUGE in gaining a victory whether it’s against radical islam or those who want to stamp on spousal rights! One of the best lessons we learned is that if you control the words, you control the dialogue, and you’re much closes to winning the war of ideas. This is a brilliant use of that theory, and if it takes off (I’ve already told about 10 people about it, haha) a really great step toward a win! Good luck!
November 5, 2009 at 10:39 am
“Control the words, control the dialogue…”
YES!!! That is so true. Look at The Won, his minions and the syncophant media. An simple word like ‘hope’ was usurped into a Utopian, Skittle colored wonderland of government largesse.
Spousal rights. Spousal rights…we all have to work it into conversations and emails.
Anyone have any live feeds or into on what is happening in DC with the “Emergency House Call?” I’m stuck at work til late tonite and wish I coulda spent my $75.00 (like others from my area…Ms. Maddow) and gone.
November 5, 2009 at 11:20 am
HB, I am really trying to add to the sales of Pepto Bismol. LOL
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s House Call is today.
Those of use who will not be in Washington or our Congressional offices today can still participate in her action plan and tell our government “NO” to this health care take-over.
Let’s send a message that says “WE STAND TOGETHER!”
The following are the action steps we CAN do if we are not participating elsewhere.
Note: If you cannot adhere to the timetable, any time today will still be effective.
(1)Call the White House (202.456.1414) at 1:00pm
Tell the White House “We Stand Together.”
(2))Call your local Congressional office at 1:15 pm.
Washington, D.C. Congressional switchboard (202.224.3121) to contact the DC office.
(3)Email your Representative at 1:30 pm.
November 5, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I agree with everyone that going for spousal rights is a good idea. Intriguing what Erin said above about the use of language.
On a completely different note, hillbuzz guys, I just now read that Oprah is leaving Chicago, taking her show onto a cable network that is a joint venture between her company and Discovery network and going to LA! Did you know about this whole deal?
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/the-end-of-oprah-as-we-know-her/
November 5, 2009 at 12:21 pm
[...] some interesting blog posts on the topic: http://hillbuzz.org/2009/11/04/wedne…vember-fourth/ Thursday Open Thread: November 5, 2009 HillBuzz Frankly, I'm a little sick of straight people claiming that dropping the word marriage or [...]
November 5, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Just heard on WOWO Radio that Sarah Palin is coming to Ft. Wayne, Indiana on November 19 to promote her book..probably a book signing…I am hoping I can go…only 50 miles from my house…I will let you know..
November 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm
What is up with Fox today? They only aired the GOP health bill and House Call on their internet site…it wasn’t aired on the tv..??
November 5, 2009 at 3:36 pm
You guys are very correct. As a middle class, straight, christian we will NEVER accept the concept of gay people being able to “marry” under the same ceremony, and have the same meanings as traditional marriage does. It goes against our core beliefs, and our core values.
Most of us have no ill will toward gays living together and having the same “legal” rights we have, we just will not allow you to have the same rights “in the eyes of God and the church as we do” We will never let you call it marriage, you are correct. But I, like you think that something could be done under a different name and with a different sort of ceremony.
Then you can start to enjoy the same as us, the joys of divorce.
November 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm
None of us can rightly see through the eyes of God. Though, if you’d like to claim “the eyes of the church,” have at it.
November 6, 2009 at 8:23 am
Then NO One should be able to use the term ‘marriage’ unless it is in a religious setting. Equal means equal and ‘core’ values are insignificant if they discriminate.
November 5, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I have been to 3 weddings since June this year. None of which took place in a church, all were done by judges or JP’s. They are now married. Many couples choose to wed right at the reception site, and bring in a JP, not a priest. They are now married. Gays aren’t asking to go to a church, with gay men prancing down the aisle in a skirt. Open up your mind and heart, and see that love is the basis for all weddings, no matter where it takes place, no matter who performs the ceremony, no matter what two people are committing themselves to each other.
November 5, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Convert to Islam goes on shooting spree at Ft. Hood, TX…12 dead and 30+ injured..network anchors will not say his name : Maleek Nadal Hasan
November 5, 2009 at 8:34 pm
His cousin is now saying he is a lifelong muslim.
November 5, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Sen. Burris…what did they threaten him with? What do they have on him or his family? Or has he just gotten senile? He actually tried to say that there was nothing un-constitutional in forcing us to buy insurance…that the government has a right to force Americans because it gave a directive for the politicians to take care of the general welfare of the Country. Well, I for one, would like all of Warren Buffetts money…which would do seriously good things for my general welfare…but I don’t think Burris or the Constitution was thinking along those lines when they mentioned the general welfare. The administration must have something catastrophic on Burris or his family, to get him to say such an idiotic statement. He truly speaks with forked tongue.
November 5, 2009 at 7:38 pm
And didn’t Senator Burris support ACORN by voting against the effort to stop their funding?
November 5, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Joanne -
Watch the attacks on Roland Burris.
He’s a personal friend and a great and decent man.
Burris is key to the coming Democrat Civil War…everything he does is for a reason that might not be clear now, but someday you will see him as a true hero and patriot.
Trust us when we say there is a reason we support him. He is very much on the side of right.
November 5, 2009 at 8:30 pm
oooops. Sorry, guys.
November 6, 2009 at 4:51 am
Hillbuzz,
You say trust you. But you’ve already admitted that Democrat corruption in the form of voter fraud didn’t bother you until little ol’ Hillary was the subject of such treatment. What was it you said, it was a Democrat winning through such tactics, so it wasn’t a problem, or something like that? That attitude is why there is a very uncivil war coming down the pike. Cheating screws everybody, not just the losers. Because what goes around, comes around. In spades.
Burris is a grade-A putz who only wanted to be senator so he could have that title engraved on his mausoleum. So are most Illinois politicians putzes and very corrupt. Wasn’t Hillary originally from Chicago? You can take the beeyotch back. This New Yorker can’t stand her.
November 6, 2009 at 8:27 am
New York ain’t much better. And of all the politicians that would do the least harm and most good its the Hill.
November 5, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I was happy that Senator Burris held his ground about taking his seat and forced Harry Reid to accept him.
It’s intriguing to me that you dangle such an interesting tidbit about what isn’t clear at the moment. I hate suspense!!
I wish he hadn’t said he’d leave and not run again.