And, in the aftermath...

[missroserose]

I honestly think the article in our local paper says it better than I ever could:

Republican legislators opposed to providing benefits for same-sex partners of state employees may have made a strategic mistake when they asked voters to weigh in on the issue, some say.

Tuesday's statewide vote was intended to pressure lawmakers to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, a move that requires a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Hoping for a powerful show of support, such as the 68 percent who voted in favor of a ban on same-sex marriage in 1998, they instead got a favorable vote of 53.4 percent, versus 46.6 opposed.

So...instead of pressuring fence-sitting senators into supporting a constitutional amendment, the $1.3 million public opinion poll did absolutely squat. Bully for our government.

One of the quotes that really made me laugh, however, was this one:

Sen. Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River, a staunch opponent of same-sex benefits, said it was a mistake to go to voters without preparing beforehand. Opponents of the constitutional amendment mobilized more quickly than did proponents, Dyson said.

Not to sound disrespectful of an elected senator, but is Mr. Dyson deaf, dumb and blind? Did he even listen to the radio or watch television at all in the period leading up to this poll? The pro-gay-rights groups in Alaska have almost no financial backing, whereas the "protect the sanctity of marriage" folk has the backing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the "burn the fags" sect has the backing of our infamous Jerry Prevo and his Anchorage Baptist Temple - all of which have large reserves of cash with which to fund propaganda blitzes whenever the issue comes up. Those of us who were in Alaska in 1998 when the "marriage = one man + one woman" ballot came up were inundated with "Protect family values!" ads on the radio, on TV, through the mail, and any other outlet available. The entire run of the campaign, I heard exactly one ad encouraging people to allow same-sex marriage, and it was on a non-mainstream radio station. (I felt rather proud, though, since the ad prominently featured the senior pastor of the church I was attending at the time.) While I have intentionally avoided listening to the radio or watching TV until this particular vote was over, everyone I've talked to says that not only was there another inundation of anti-gay-rights ads, many of them seemed to teeter on the edge of mean-spirited and vitriolic. I seriously doubt the pro-gay-rights groups had the financial ability to "mobilize more quickly" than their opponents. So I'm guessing that Mr. Dyson is just having a hard time believing that many Americans, even in right-wing states, don't like the idea of denying a particular group rights that the rest of us get.

On a somewhat more fun note, Brian and I went to see Perseverance Theatre's production of Tommy last night. It was really quite a show - they had Rory Stitt (of Hedwig and the Angry Inch fame) in the title role and some really good singers and dancers in the supporting cast. They also made fantastic use of their relatively limited stage space by building up - the set was fairly simple, but it had multiple tiers that provided extra space for different things to happen at the same time. Rory did a fantastic job in the title role, as well; he's a very good actor with an amazing voice. Oddly enough, even though I saw him as Hedwig (a role in which he ends up nearly naked at the end) at least four different times, it never struck me what an odd figure he has. He's really quite short, and has almost no hips - he'd look like a 12 year old boy if he didn't have fairly broad shoulders. But you pretty much forget about what he looks like when he gets into a role - he has that much stage presence. I only hope I can be as good as that someday.

Which means, I guess, that I need to get up off my arse and start working on my vocal and acting skills again. Goddammit. I was enjoying being a normal person for a while. But I just don't think it's going to be enough to make me happy in the future...

Comments

[borismarkovich.livejournal.com]

Hey Rose, just though you might like to know, the likelihood of any money actually being funneled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (And just so you know, calling it the Church of Latter Day Saints is...uhh, incorrect at best, and to some people, though not me, insulting) into the coffers of political special interest groups is almost zero. Money being spent by members of the church for that purpose is much higher, of course. As far as I know, the only thing the church has done as far as the "Protect the sanctity of marriage" thing goes is to lobby congress to define marriage. And the amount of money spent doing that was minimal, since the people doing the lobbying were the leaders of the church themselves.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Hey Adam,

I'm sure you already know this, but no offense was intended - I was just looking for a shortened version other than "Mormon", which seems overused. I'll go back and edit it.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree with you about the likelihood of your church funding these campaigns. Both Alaska and Hawaii had constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage up for vote in 1998; and both campaigns received money from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ($500,000 to Alaska and $600,000 to Hawaii, documentation here (http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/mgayhat5.htm), here (http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/mgayht6.htm), and here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/1998/11/05/MN95784.DTL)). As you might guess, it caused a fair amount of uproar, both because the LDS church doesn't usually get involved in politics and because it was seen by many as a large religious institution breaking the separation of church and state. That part is more or less up for debate, but I'm afraid that the campaign money was very real.

Please understand that I don't mean this as bashing your church. I have a lot of respect for their tenets and I've never met a member who didn't seem like they tried their hardest to be a decent human being. I simply don't agree with them on this issue, and was somewhat discouraged that they saw fit to spend so much money trying to convince others to exclude a group of people rather than finding it in their hearts to let people who don't share their beliefs make their own choices.

[jamesd.livejournal.com]

What were they advocating exactly?

Muslims support marriages of more than one woman per man.

Various churches frequented by homosexuals support marriage of those of the same gender, inluding some Christian sects with large memberships.

The eleventh Article of Faith says "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may".

If that advocacy was for the commonly suggested one man and one woman definition of marriage, it appears to be an attempt to legally define marriage in a way contrary to the beliefs of many, applying the law for prohibition of faith, much as was done against the Church itself in the early days and directly breaching the spirit of the eleventh Article of Faith.

hello?

[hobgobblin201.livejournal.com]

you still in juneau alaska?

Shorter Senator Dyson:

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

"I support the right of the people to choose! Except when they choose wrongly!"