Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 05/28/2008 9:58 am

Liz Smith: Gays Don't Have the Same Rights as People on Death Row

© Shutterstock


Editor’s Note: Featuring Kathleen Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a professor of communications and the former dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

LESLEY: This month, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban against homosexual marriage. They say things happen in California first and then spread across the country.

LIZ: But isn’t it likely, Lesley, that this California ruling does not mean very much? That it could be rescinded before we even get used to the idea?

LESLEY: Do you think that if they do put this to a vote that the public will overturn it? Go the other way? Ban homosexual marriages?

LIZ: I don’t know.

LESLEY: Candice, you …

CANDICE: Well, it happened already.

LESLEY: Yeah, that’s right. They voted against it. So we think this could easily be overturned?

LIZ: I think the marriage struggle for gays is going to be a long time coming. But eventually it’ll happen because just as with movements in women’s liberation, a lot of positive things have already taken place. Let’s consider this: A gay woman named Ellen DeGeneres has the most popular talk show in America. She even outstrips Oprah Winfrey. Doesn’t this say something? I think people are really kind of conflicted. Sometimes they’re sneaky and fuzzy when it comes to homosexuality. They go crazy over one demonstration of it, and then they’ll ignore another. And TV and entertainment – now you see they use gays as come-ons, lively examples, for emphasis. They use gay characters the way the movies sort of used the black comic Stepin Fetchit. The networks get a lot of bang for their gay buck.

LESLEY: This is definitely an issue that is generational. No question about it. People under a certain age are ho-hum on this issue. They don’t understand the controversy, and if they come out in large numbers to vote in California, I think that could have a huge effect on how it goes, if it’s put up to a vote this time.

CANDICE: If that’s true, it could also have a huge effect on McCain.

LESLEY: That’s right. What are you picking up on this, Kathleen? Anything?

KATHLEEN: It puts the position that candidates have taken on the Defense of Marriage Act into play in the presidential election. And I think that’s the way we’re going to see it play out. We’re going to see the discussion happen indirectly in relationship to that previous vote, or that previous position.

LESLEY: Are they different?

KATHLEEN: Yeah. The question is, do states have to recognize a marriage from another state or not? That’s one of the issues. And I do believe McCain and Obama are different.

LIZ: Do you remember that a lot of people felt that the Republicans brought up the gay marriage issue and that it helped defeat Al Gore, even though he won the popular vote? So I’m wondering if this was brought up this time to make it an issue again. Or did it just happen?

LESLEY: Well, the Supreme Court of California made the ruling, so it would be hard to see how it was done deliberately to affect the campaign.

LIZ: I had a gay kid say to me the other day, "Men and women on death row can marry people on the outside. They’re allowed to get married. And gays want the same rights as people on death row." I thought that was pretty good thinking.

LESLEY: I didn’t know that. Is that true?

LIZ: Well, women and men on death row are allowed to get married. Sure.

LESLEY: Oh, I see. They’re allowed to get married … not to each other.

226 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

JeJe De
I have two sons, both gay. When my eldest told me he was gay -I cried after he left because of how society would treat this wonderful, gentle man. But after over 10 years, he manages to live a life reasonably free of those who are harsh to gays [or maybe he has never mentioned it to me.] My fears for both my sons are not completely erased but I enjoy them for who they are … loving, talented men with great humor and love for mankind. As for scripture, you can prove anything by scripture. I am a minister’s wife and have read it all my adult life. Every scripture is interpreted by someone. I choose to interpret for myself. “… love your neighbor as yourself.” “…The greatest of these is love.”
By JeJe De on 05/28/2008 12:49 pm
Frannie Em
Jeje Amen
By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 1:14 pm
Dona Howlett
Sorry I used the word Man when I meant ‘inspired by God
By Dona Howlett on 05/28/2008 12:50 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
I think you got it right the first time.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 05/28/2008 5:30 pm
Maurine H
There is discussion in California that one reason the Republican judge made the ruling at this time, before the November elections, is to make sure it becomes an issue in the campaign, i.e. to weaken the Democratic candidate who will most certainly be accused of favoring gay marriage while the Republican candidate will oppose it.
By Maurine H on 05/28/2008 1:13 pm
Frannie Em
Maurine, There was an interesting interview with the judge who believed that at this juncture and with the arguments presented, from here on forward, gay marriage would be pursued as a civil rights issue, and therefore face it now. The judge is a moderate Republican who has voted both ways on issues - sometimes more conservative, sometimes more liberal. I can’t remember where I read the article - it was on an internet site - I wish I would have bookmarked it. Sorry. Maybe Politico.com. Everyone always brings up that issue - the repubs are doing it to get this power - the dems are doing it to get that power - yeah sure - of course, but sometimes the issues just move forward because they are supposed to, but not always at the pace people want. California’s delegates, because of all the redistricting that has been done, usually go democrat. It is almost always expected. When a majority of Californians voted it in before, it didn’t change the voting make-up of Cal - did it? No not really. To assume that there is a conspiracy on the judge’s part is a little far fetched, because that could have backfired as well, Californians could put an initiative on the ballot to get rid of him. I believe we can do that, can’t we? I am never surprised by assertions of actions to gain political control, but not always. So Maurine, these things just move slowly.
By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 1:39 pm
Maurine H
Frannie - thanks for the clarification on the timing of this ruling. I agree that it’s a stretch to think of it in terms of a conspiracy, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the thought of leveraging hadn’t crossed a few Republican minds. I fear that when it comes up on the ballot in November, the voters will be all stirred up by the groups which are out this week vociferously campaigning to outlaw gay marriage and in California it’ll be back to square one. Of course, I’m living in a little hotbed of conservatism and am considered a radical leftie by my neighbors (who, incidentally bring in my trash cans and occasionally mow my lawn…funny old world, isn’t it?).
By Maurine H on 05/28/2008 3:17 pm
Frannie Em
Maurine, Hey, I know what it is like to live in a conservative area. I think leveraging crosses all political minds. Look at what is happening in the primary. Sheesh. I think that people are so tired of every other day a new issue that is argued about, they vote in reaction to the headache. The in your face politics results in - in your face reactions. Deni posted a current poll that suggests that people are more in favor than was thought. I don’t know how much traction this bill will get, or what, but I think if the gay community went about it in a different way, they would get better results. The American people are essentially center/right. That is who they have to win over. Maybe more public relations efforts would work. It is all politics. Use what they know works. Quit trying to define marriage - what difference does that make? Look how many divorces there are. It is a civil right, keep a clear issue to win. What they are up against is people worrying about their children. I think that is the issue more than anything. Not that the children will be taken advantage of, but that they will become confused about their own sexuality.
By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 4:09 pm
mary lou s
believe me, frannie, the first time those kids fall in love, they will know their feelings toward whomever it is!
By mary lou s on 05/28/2008 8:21 pm
Frank Peterson
What’s interesting to me is why we view sexuality the way we do and I’m coming to the conclusion that is strictly societal conditioning when we’re very young. We’re given A and B and nothing else. I think, and this is tentative only, that ominisexual is probably, and I’m still on very tentative grounds here, what most mammals are. Which is going to have me blasted by a lot of people. lol so fire away.
By Frank Peterson on 05/28/2008 1:14 pm
Maurine H
Nope, Frank, I’m not blasting you…I’m agreeing with you 100%. I remember my anthropology professor making the same case and that I was startled by the possibility that we humans actually had a bigger sexual repertoire than we’d been led to believe. As I went into the “big world” and realized that I knew terrific people in all sorts of relationships, I could not understand why their personal lives and choices of partners caused such a ruckus, particularly amongst “religious” people who didn’t even know them. At that point I parted company with organized religion and have never regretted my decision. Legalizing gay marriage with its attendant rights and privileges is the only sensible, humane course for a democracy to take. To deny that right to any adult American citizen is tantamount to denying women and minorities the right to vote.
By Maurine H on 05/28/2008 1:32 pm
Frank Peterson
Maurine: I am so happy I know you if it’s only knowing on line. You make my life a lot brighter and happier. You really are a good woman—the best. And don’t go aw shucks-ing it and stubbing your toe in the first and blushing lol—you are a good friend. Big hug.
By Frank Peterson on 05/28/2008 1:40 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
Yipppee!!! I think it’s time for us lefties, you, Frank, Frannie and others to have another party. We can turn on James Brown, drink some good stuff, talk until the cows come home and at the end put our hand on the OLD BOOK of books and say Amen!!
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 05/28/2008 5:40 pm
Frannie Em
Phyllis Thanks for including me in the fun, but I wouldn’t call me a lefty. I am an independent - some things I am liberal, most things moderate, and some things conservative. I just don’t think the word marriage is important enough to have a civil war over. My position is one of pragmatism at this point, because I believe it will probably happen in California just because people want to put the issue to rest. I don’t feel I have the right to hold judgement over anyone. I respect those who believe that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. That is how they define it, it is what they have experienced, and it is what they are comfortable with. I don’t know anywhere in the bible where God presides over a wedding ceremony. Marriage is a manmade institution, designed by flawed human beings, and as such is therefore open to examination and reinterpretation. I have been married for 27 years. I love my husband, but it is not what it was cracked up to be. It does not make you a whole person, it is very hard work, it does not guarantee that two people stay together, and it may define me in some way to others out there, but what defines me more, is my own identity. Every person’s journey is to find their true identity and that has nothing to do with other human beings, or who you are married to.
By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 7:20 pm
M L Staats
Wearing my fire retardant suit, I have to agree with Maurine and Mr. Peterson. As a person who considers herself dual-natured, I believe we love whom we love and since there is not a great abundance of love in this hard world, I say let people love - and marry - whom they please. I know I am most attracted to the heart and soul and the twinkle in a person’s eye. Is that so over the top or wrong? Turning me on requires reaching the space between my ears; I care little about bits and pieces, Part A or Part B. I recall laughing when I first realized most people would look down upon me for my nature. It’s still ludicrous to me. When you think about it, this is not a matter to be legistated. People who pay taxes, contribute to society an do no harm deserve the same benefits as any other human being. As for changing the world for one idea, why not? Life is in constant evolution and now is the time for this particular piece of evolution. That’s my take on it.
By M L Staats on 05/28/2008 6:48 pm