Vermont screws with their talking points. Ultimately, the problem the conservatives face is that you can only keep a population angry so long with a new idea. The new idea being gay marriage. Once people started to accept the concept of gays as a couple, even with civil unions, the right lost. It's just that line, "they are dead [on this issue], but they just don't know it yet." In other words, this is a classic example of the Overton WIndow:

"The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly [occuring in this order]:

* Unthinkable
* Radical
* Acceptable
* Sensible
* Popular
* Policy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window

This window, by the way, is the reason why it is important to fight for marriage rather than civil unions. This is a technique that both the left and the right can use. Indeed, much of what we call "conservativsm" in America today is reactionary versus what was say Goldwater conservatism because the reactionaries used the Overton window technique to dismantle to progresses of the FDR era and the 60s social progresses.

The key take away is that if we focus on pushing as hard as we can- even our most radical ideas- will one day become policy. They know this because we have already seen it. Vermont went from "judicial activism" in the late 90s to a wide based legislatve policy win. This is the nature of political history if you fight for it.

The super right-wing, religious-zealot group will of course be energized. They just haven't realized that everyone else who they had support from quickly are losing interest in the issue or are completely switching sides when they actually think about it.

I hope it scares them. Terrifies them – has them pissing their pants! Because the more scared they are, the less they will leave their house. The less they will talk.

And maybe, just maybe, they will get the idea of what it is like to be gay and being terrified to be who you are. Walk in our shoes, bitches! See how it feels!

I think fear is the only real reason we are having a debate in the first place: Be it fear of a people that they do not understand; fear that there will be some sort of divine retribution; or fear of the same-sex feelings that many of these people seem to harbor on the inside.

We don't need anymore fear, we need understanding. Opponents of Marriage Equality will lose, however, it is our responsibility to make it as painless as possible for all parties so that we can go forward without the fear of further conflict.

The best salespeople can persuade another to see their point of view, act on it, and feel good about having done so.

Look at Rick Warren!

@Richard in DC: If you wait for understanding, you will realize as African Americans did that you will be waiting for ever. The point is that majorities never feel the need to understand minorities because of the power balance.

@The Gay Numbers: I agree completely with both comments No.1 and No. 5 made by The Gay Numbers.

Me too Mad Professah (#2 comment true also) & I love Jason in WV's comment. Although maybe with just a wee bit less vitriol.

Frankly, there is one thing overlooked completely here on this post. NOTHING has changed in Massachussetts since SS marriages were allowed, NOTHING changed in Vermont when they had Civil Unions…..the sky did not fall etc.

If there were major problems or even minor ones, The AFA, FOF and all the other Christee Crazee groups would have trumpeted it from the rooftops. Just goes to show how sheep-like ALL humans CAN be., but especially the religious right.

@Jaroslaw: The modern conservative movements are not about reality. They are about fantasy. All idealogical movements ultimately are. It's just that conservatives have mostly given up on empirical proof for anything they claim, and, are at this point a group that takes pride in being know-nothings.

The Gay Numbers – I certainly can agree that conservative groups are in a fantasy world – one book by American's United for Separation of Church and State phrased it rather well – James Dobson is constantly referencing the idyllic world of the 1950s (paint your own picture here) THAT NEVER WAS.

What I was referring to, though, is the followers being so sheep-like and even sometimes stupid. James Kennedy used to make statements like 5,000 souls were converted to Christ this week; 0r there are over 10,000 communist professors on college campuses today. Possibly true, but he doesn't offer one tiny shred of evidence to back up his claims!

And more to the point, the LEADERS of these groups are raking in the money, live like kings and queens – and they certainly know they are spreading lies, but does the rank and file care about that or $40,000 vases or gold plated bathrooms (Joyce Meyer)? Apparently not, nothing is too good for the workers in the Lord's vineyards.

One little problem – Jesus himself owned nothing!

So, finally, I'm not sure what you mean about a group being "know nothing".

@The Gay Numbers: The only block to that, acknowledged yesterday by Lambda Legal, are those damn state constitutional amendments that prohibit everything. That makes legislative movement on civil unions impossible, and the only example of a referendum (in CO in 2006, domestic partnership legislation) was a failure by roughly the same margin as the marriage amendment was a success. There are only two methods of getting around that: a federal court challenge or another state constitutional amendment putting marriage on the table.

Even with a majority in support of some relationship recognition, voters in a host of states in 2004 authorized amendments going far beyond marriage, even banning domestic partnership benefits in public universities (Michigan).

The repeal of DOMA needs to be discussed and debated. A shift in federal policy is necessary to move this along. And we need to consider federal lawsuits, and not backing away from them. The most prominent example came from Nebraska's 2000 amendment which squarely targeted same-sex couples, and the Eighth Circuit upheld it in 2005. But the developing case law (in CA, CT, and especially the IA decision, imo) might make it worth a shot.

I just hope it demoralizes, distresses and depresses them. A lot of them are old, and it may reduce their life expectancy.

We still have a fight on our hands, yes we have gained ground, but we have a long way to go, lets not become complacent

this is not a civil rights issue. It is issue about sexual preference. What next, people marrying sheep?

@Jaroslaw: Know-nothing is a term in American political history. It comes from the Know-nothing party of the 19th Century. It's meant as a pejorative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

Basically, it means a political class, party or individual who takes pride in being anti-knowledge or empiricism. They are not only ignorant, but that they want to be ignorant and look down upon those who are not. It can refer to populism, but more specifically, I use it here to refer to the anti-empiricism of modern conservatism. You see it again and again.

@Alec: I think the first goal must be to shift the balance in the courts. With people l ike scalia around, it will not be effective to go to the federal courts. The conservative had 30 years to put in right wing nutbags who are reactionary onto the lower federal courts as well as the S.Ct.

@The Gay Numbers: Then fight for two terms and a third Democratic term in 2016, because if we're unwilling to risk a setback in the federal courts we're doomed to wait a long time. I could easily see four votes now; Justice Kennedy is the swing vote on this issue, and he always has been.

We had Bowers before Lawrence, after all.

@Alec: Except we need 5. Bowers is exactly why I want the right test case with better odds on the U.S. S.Ct. Frank was right to call Scalia a bigot. So are other justices. I do not trust them to avoid their prejudices. I also not trust Roberts to do the right thing. We need to replace at least one of two of the conservatives. I do not think practically we will have the numbers for 4 to 5 years. I wish I were wrong, but it don't see based on the justices on the Court now. I do not want the wrong court there because they will set precedent for decades.

@The Gay Numbers: The key is Justice Kennedy. And while Bowers wasn't a great decision, even more sodomy laws were invalidated by courts or repealed by legislatures in its wake, until finally the Supreme Court determined that what remained was unconstitutional.

Because of the 2004-2006 amendments, the majority of states have these amendments. We need some plan to fight them. As it stands, couples in CA at least have domestic partnership rights that give them almost every right the state can povide to married couples. Hell of a lot better than the situation in most of the country.

@Alec: I am only questioning whether we have the votes or not.

@The Gay Numbers:

I agree with Alec, Kennedy is a wild card. A bit too much of a wild card for my tastes. But we may have the votes already, I trust that Lambda Legal is reading all of this correctly.

I think we will eventually win more states, but then we're going to end up in a situation like we had previously where some states continued to criminalize sodomy, which was a thinly veiled criminalization of gay people. It finally took the Supreme Court to overrule it and the states had to obey. In places like Arkansas, Kentucky, and South Carolina, anti-same sex marriage amendments could stay on the books for decades, if not indefinately unless they were struck down by the Supreme Court.

@kevin (not that one): And what's the plan for winning more states? We lost CA. We also lost FL, which required a 60% approval (whoever ran that campaign was either the most incompetent campaign manager in history, given FL's demographics, or simply lacked any money to pull it off because of Prop 8). And we're stuck with not only amendments that put marriage off the table, but also amendments that put civil unions or domestic partnerships off the table (FL, OH, MI, GA, VA, WI, etc.).

Lambda Legal is clearly contemplating its next move on this front, but there are ONLY two viable solutions in states with these amendments: Passing marriage amendments that favor marriage equality and/or civil unions by winning statewide popular votes or winning a federal court challenge.

Let them explain to the poor why they are throwing their money in the toilet, in the pursuit of a losing battle. Let them explain it to their children and their grandchildren. These are the same people who screwed America by ensuring Bush was elected and helped that cur steal two elections.

When is America going to tell the truth about these seditious swine? When is America going to say: 'Shut the fuck up, fundies and get back in your damned Churches and stay there'? It's time. They've done enough damage. They need to have their charitable status revoked, every single cover of evil that has been responsible for the near destruction of the United States and the continuing attack on the civil liberties of LGBT Americans. Fire it up.

Call in the reinforcements to combat their energy, while reveling in their fear. That's what we should do.

#14 The Gay Numbers – I did ask and you answered about the Know-nothings – so don't think I'm responding as if insulted -cause I'm not – I am aware of the "know nothing party" from the turn of the last century.

I guess I would need an example or two of what you're speaking of when referencing the religious right of today. If you don't mind. Thanks.

@Jaroslaw: I would define it more broadly as the right. Not just Christian Right. a) The assault on science. One example is evolution. Another is climate change data deniers like George Will. There are a lot actual- the denial of all science related to homosexuality. The lowest common demoninator in all discourse to tax and spend and other catch phrases. Basically anything that relies on ignorance to moe forward the agenda.

Democrats are not innoncent of this. We are talking degrees here rather than kind of behavior.

This issue need not be a right wing issue. It can become a leftwing one when you have radical gays for example denying research showing a biological component to sexuality, but who deny it because it does not fit idealogical arguments they want to make about sexuality.

But, in the main, most cases right now are from the right trying to deny modernity or complexity. The later one especially is dangerous. They will label complexity as left, and argue against it on that ground.

Well I would agree it is the right, but the Christian right is the most well organized and well financed so to me they are about 80% of it. I could be wrong. Thanks for your answer.

I agree, the Dems are not innocent.