Am I the only Dem who cares more about gun control than gay marriage?

[Beet]

In response to this article:
What’s Left?

Of the issues I think are important, they probably fall in this order:

1. Economic equality
2. Government reform (campaign finance reform, revolving door, etc)
3/4/5. Foreign policy
3/4/5. Abortion rights / womens' rights
3/4/5. Environment / energy investment
6. Gun control
..
huge gap
..
7. Gay marriage

Now don't get me wrong I firmly support gay marriage and will never change my position on this, but the stakes are just so much higher on all those other issues. I feel a lot of Democrats have overemphasized gay marriage solely because it's an easy political issue with no real opposition / the opposition is so easily caricatured. It's the political equivalent of laziness, and makes it so much easier to ignore the tough stuff. Certainly, the 'tough stuff' often seems so hopeless, but that's what makes it interesting.

[Peter the Lefty]

Well, I can certainly understand your argument about why it's less important than those other issues.  Though one also has to consider that gay marriage is a civil rights issue (and I'm not saying that you're not thinking of it as such), and I do think that a lot of Democrats who push it are thinking of it in that context.  That said, I'm sure they're also hoping to garner gay votes in the process.

[Beet]

Well, I can certainly understand your argument about why it's less important than those other issues.  Though one also has to consider that gay marriage is a civil rights issue (and I'm not saying that you're not thinking of it as such), and I do think that a lot of Democrats who push it are thinking of it in that context.  That said, I'm sure they're also hoping to garner gay votes in the process.

Yeah it's a civil rights issue, but when people think of the word civil rights, they tend to think of Bull Connor's dogs and fire hoses, the whole infrastructure of Jim Crow. And sorry but, Nate Silver not being able to get married just doesn't rise to the same level.

[bedstuy]

What does it mean to over-emphasize an issue?  It's not a zero-sum game.  How does gay marriage taking away from  advocacy of other issues?  If Democrats decided to give up on gay marriage, they'd still have the House GOP blocking everything else. 

And, sure, even as a gay man, I agree that this aspect of my rights is not as important as the economy or gun control.  That seems obvious.  But, again, it's not a choice between gay marriage and addressing the economy.  I also care about making streets in NYC more safe for bicycles.  Should I shut up about that because it's not "as important as economic inequality?" 

[Beet]

What does it mean to over-emphasize an issue?  It's not a zero-sum game.  How does gay marriage taking away from  advocacy of other issues?  If Democrats decided to give up on gay marriage, they'd still have the House GOP blocking everything else.  

And, sure, even as a gay man, I agree that this aspect of my rights is not as important as the economy or gun control.  That seems obvious.  But, again, it's not a choice between gay marriage and addressing the economy.  I also care about making streets in NYC more safe for bicycles.  Should I shut up about that because it's not "as important as economic inequality?"  

Maybe it's not so much a matter of overemphasizing gay marriage as that our victories on gay marriage have created the illusion of greater momentum for progress than there actually has been. Sometimes I do think the argument is made that 'the young generation is turning liberal' solely on the basis of gay marriage and a few other thin reeds. But if you look across the major areas that progressives care about, it's clear that the broader pattern is one of retreat and disappointment, not progress.

Edit: The recent end of the latest Supreme Court session is a good example. Roberts has gotten good at handing down liberal victories on the last day of the session (as he did striking down DOMA) while in general obscuring the steady rightward march of the Court on a large host of lower profile issues. For instance, in AT&T vs. Conception, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals can be denied the chance to bring class action lawsuits against corporations even if it can be conclusively demonstrated bringing individual lawsuits is economically irrational [!] Class actions are critical because large corporations often make significant profits by unfairly treating thousands of millions of workers or customers in very small ways, such that individually, we won't have the incentive to try to fight it. This is a critical, conceptual issue with a broad application and it strikes at the core of what the left is supposed to be about: the little guy or gal versus large corporations. And yet how much attention did the Court's earth shattering ruling on class actions get, compared to the DOMA ruling? Hardly any.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Gay marriage being legal actually benefits people. Passing stupid laws like the Assault Weapons Ban and just about everything Carolyn McCarthy proposes doesn't.

Actually effective gun control laws might, but the gun control lobby wasted all their political capital on meaningless junk laws that did nothing, and now are paying the price for it. If the extended background checks successfully filibustered a couple weeks ago was the main focus of their activism and not a AWB or banning all sorts of gun accessories that have little to do with how lethal the gun is they might've got it passed. So yeah as long as the gun control lobby's main focus is on stupid and useless laws like the AWB or California's ban on certain models of firearms that don't even exist I'm not going to care too much about the issue.

[Napoleon]

the gun control lobby wasted all their political capital on meaningless junk laws that did nothing

The pro-gun lobby made them that way, is why.

[bedstuy]

What does it mean to over-emphasize an issue?  It's not a zero-sum game.  How does gay marriage taking away from  advocacy of other issues?  If Democrats decided to give up on gay marriage, they'd still have the House GOP blocking everything else. 

And, sure, even as a gay man, I agree that this aspect of my rights is not as important as the economy or gun control.  That seems obvious.  But, again, it's not a choice between gay marriage and addressing the economy.  I also care about making streets in NYC more safe for bicycles.  Should I shut up about that because it's not "as important as economic inequality?" 

Maybe it's not so much a matter of overemphasizing gay marriage as that our victories on gay marriage have created the illusion of greater momentum for progress than there actually has been. Sometimes I do think the argument is made that 'the young generation is turning liberal' solely on the basis of gay marriage and a few other thin reeds. But if you look across the major areas that progressives care about, it's clear that the broader pattern is one of retreat and disappointment, not progress.

Who cares?  People will find new things to feel disappointed and sad about soon enough.  In the meantime, I had a lot of fun celebrating at the Stonewall Inn the night of the SCOTUS decisions.

[Beet]

Dude, BRTD you've been saying the same thing for years despite the fact that the dynamics of the issue have changed drastically. The background checks was the main focus of activism this year and it was still filibustered. It's time to stop living in 1994 and realize that if you agree that the gun lobby of 2013 is too powerful, you should be on our side on this life-or-death issue regardless of how you felt about the AWB.

[Beet]

What does it mean to over-emphasize an issue?  It's not a zero-sum game.  How does gay marriage taking away from  advocacy of other issues?  If Democrats decided to give up on gay marriage, they'd still have the House GOP blocking everything else. 

And, sure, even as a gay man, I agree that this aspect of my rights is not as important as the economy or gun control.  That seems obvious.  But, again, it's not a choice between gay marriage and addressing the economy.  I also care about making streets in NYC more safe for bicycles.  Should I shut up about that because it's not "as important as economic inequality?" 

Maybe it's not so much a matter of overemphasizing gay marriage as that our victories on gay marriage have created the illusion of greater momentum for progress than there actually has been. Sometimes I do think the argument is made that 'the young generation is turning liberal' solely on the basis of gay marriage and a few other thin reeds. But if you look across the major areas that progressives care about, it's clear that the broader pattern is one of retreat and disappointment, not progress.

Who cares?  People will find new things to feel disappointed and sad about soon enough.  In the meantime, I had a lot of fun celebrating at the Stonewall Inn the night of the SCOTUS decisions.

If that's as far as your interest in public policy goes, fine then. We're far apart on this.

[Beet]

While you're celebrating at Stonewall Inn.

[bedstuy]

What does it mean to over-emphasize an issue?  It's not a zero-sum game.  How does gay marriage taking away from  advocacy of other issues?  If Democrats decided to give up on gay marriage, they'd still have the House GOP blocking everything else. 

And, sure, even as a gay man, I agree that this aspect of my rights is not as important as the economy or gun control.  That seems obvious.  But, again, it's not a choice between gay marriage and addressing the economy.  I also care about making streets in NYC more safe for bicycles.  Should I shut up about that because it's not "as important as economic inequality?" 

Maybe it's not so much a matter of overemphasizing gay marriage as that our victories on gay marriage have created the illusion of greater momentum for progress than there actually has been. Sometimes I do think the argument is made that 'the young generation is turning liberal' solely on the basis of gay marriage and a few other thin reeds. But if you look across the major areas that progressives care about, it's clear that the broader pattern is one of retreat and disappointment, not progress.

Who cares?  People will find new things to feel disappointed and sad about soon enough.  In the meantime, I had a lot of fun celebrating at the Stonewall Inn the night of the SCOTUS decisions.

If that's as far as your interest in public policy goes, fine then. We're far apart on this.

How does appreciating our success on gay marriage detract from advocating for other issues?  I don't understand.  You haven't made any argument connecting those two things.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Dude, BRTD you've been saying the same thing for years despite the fact that the dynamics of the issue have changed drastically. The background checks was the main focus of activism this year and it was still filibustered. It's time to stop living in 1994 and realize that if you agree that the gun lobby of 2013 is too powerful, you should be on our side on this life-or-death issue regardless of how you felt about the AWB.

OK let's imagine someone offered me a trade, my state repeals its gay marriage law in exchange for repealing its concealed carry law as well. Would I take it?

No because I don't believe concealed carry laws increase crime or cause a major threat. Yet opposing them is still one of the cornerstones of the anti-gun lobby.

Yes the gun control lobby might be improving its focus a little bit, but it still doesn't change the fact the reason they are so weak now is because their focus and priorities were so messed up for almost 20 years.

[Beet]

What does it mean to over-emphasize an issue?  It's not a zero-sum game.  How does gay marriage taking away from  advocacy of other issues?  If Democrats decided to give up on gay marriage, they'd still have the House GOP blocking everything else. 

And, sure, even as a gay man, I agree that this aspect of my rights is not as important as the economy or gun control.  That seems obvious.  But, again, it's not a choice between gay marriage and addressing the economy.  I also care about making streets in NYC more safe for bicycles.  Should I shut up about that because it's not "as important as economic inequality?" 

Maybe it's not so much a matter of overemphasizing gay marriage as that our victories on gay marriage have created the illusion of greater momentum for progress than there actually has been. Sometimes I do think the argument is made that 'the young generation is turning liberal' solely on the basis of gay marriage and a few other thin reeds. But if you look across the major areas that progressives care about, it's clear that the broader pattern is one of retreat and disappointment, not progress.

Who cares?  People will find new things to feel disappointed and sad about soon enough.  In the meantime, I had a lot of fun celebrating at the Stonewall Inn the night of the SCOTUS decisions.

If that's as far as your interest in public policy goes, fine then. We're far apart on this.

How does appreciating our success on gay marriage detract from advocating for other issues?  I don't understand.  You haven't made any argument connecting those two things.

I was referring to your statement "who cares?" Did you really mean you don't care about any issues other than gay marriage? I hope not.

I tried to explain how it's connected. The amount of attention and energy out there in the political ether is finite. It may not be a zero sum game, but very often focus on one issue means others get buried, de-emphasized, or pushed aside. And a sense that things are moving forward based on one issue can be used to obscure retreat and regression on other issues, which contributes to complacency.

[Beet]

Dude, BRTD you've been saying the same thing for years despite the fact that the dynamics of the issue have changed drastically. The background checks was the main focus of activism this year and it was still filibustered. It's time to stop living in 1994 and realize that if you agree that the gun lobby of 2013 is too powerful, you should be on our side on this life-or-death issue regardless of how you felt about the AWB.

OK let's imagine someone offered me a trade, my state repeals its gay marriage law in exchange for repealing its concealed carry law as well. Would I take it?

No because I don't believe concealed carry laws increase crime or cause a major threat. Yet opposing them is still one of the cornerstones of the anti-gun lobby.

Yes the gun control lobby might be improving its focus a little bit, but it still doesn't change the fact the reason they are so weak now is because their focus and priorities were so messed up for almost 20 years.

LOL. Concealed carry has been the cause celebre of the gun rights lobby and I've literally never heard of a single gun control proponent call for a ban on concealed carry, or ever bring up the issue unless it was first brought up by a gun rights proponent. Look back on my posts on this forum and see where I've ever advocated for eliminating / rolling back concealed carry, despite the numerous gun control causes I've supported. Never. The main focus of the gun control lobby is background checks, the gun show loophole, interstate gun trafficking, and giving law enforcement more abilities to track guns. It's been that way for years. Concealed carry was never a main priority for the gun control lobby.

[bedstuy]

I was referring to your statement "who cares?" Did you really mean you don't care about any issues other than gay marriage? I hope not.

I tried to explain how it's connected. The amount of attention and energy out there in the political ether is finite. It may not be a zero sum game, but very often focus on one issue means others get buried, de-emphasized, or pushed aside. And a sense that things are moving forward based on one issue can be used to obscure retreat and regression on other issues, which contributes to complacency.

I meant, who cares about your piddling argument about gay marriage making people too optimistic.  If that's the best you can do, that's a weak, tenuous connection. 

The bottom line is: Gay marriage is a good news story.  The SEC's latest enforcement action is not a good news story.  That's unfair, but that's just a general problem of how the media works, completely apart from the issue of gay marriage.  But, the attention on gay marriage isn't the problem here.

[Beet]

I was referring to your statement "who cares?" Did you really mean you don't care about any issues other than gay marriage? I hope not.

I tried to explain how it's connected. The amount of attention and energy out there in the political ether is finite. It may not be a zero sum game, but very often focus on one issue means others get buried, de-emphasized, or pushed aside. And a sense that things are moving forward based on one issue can be used to obscure retreat and regression on other issues, which contributes to complacency.

I meant, who cares about your piddling argument about gay marriage making people too optimistic.  If that's the best you can do, that's a weak, tenuous connection.  

The bottom line is: Gay marriage is a good news story.  The SEC's latest enforcement action is not a good news story.  That's unfair, but that's just a general problem of how the media works, completely apart from the issue of gay marriage.  But, the attention on gay marriage isn't the problem here.

I didn't say that gay marriage isn't a good news story! I want more good gay marriage stories, not less. If it could be made legal in all 50 states tomorrow, that would be spectacular, and I would go for that in a heart beat.

My point is that if you have five children, and one is doing great but the other four are suffering, while the whole extended family is gathered around celebrating the one who is doing great, it does not hurt to point out that the others are suffering and usually this is done by a contrast, such as, "While it's great to see that Jenny is doing so well, we should also remember Ben, Billy, Tom and Sally..." The point isn't to put down Jenny but to raise a contrast to better illustrate how we should be aiming to do on other issues just as we are with gay marriage. Sorry if it came out like I was attacking gay marriage, I was not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I feel exactly like you, Beet.

[TNF]

Putting marriage equality at the forefront makes perfect political sense from the perspective of the administration and the national Democratic Party. It helps prevent base defections as Obama proposes to gut Social Security and Medicare, sell weapons to Syrian rebels, and enact NAFTA on steroids in the Pacific and with the Europeans. If Obama and the Democratic leadership weren't making such a fuss about it, naturally they'd have a much harder time selling Republican policies to the Democratic base. But all the above betrayals of working Americans matter little to the average liberal, who has given up fighting the administration and has at least since 2011 given in to an increasingly conservative administration that talks the talk but won't walk the walk. Obama will go to bat for a gun control bill, but won't go to bat for a far more important piece of legislation, like raising the minimum wage.

[windjammer]

I feel exactly like you, Beet.

[traininthedistance]

I agree that gay marriage is overhyped, and is taking away oxygen from many more important issues.  This is even true within the narrow focus of LGBT rights, as the "easy" gay marriage fight is making progress whereas the more difficult, but arguably more important, fight for legal protections against discrimination in the workplace and in society languishes on the sidelines.

However... I still care a lot more about gay marriage than gun control, since I really don't care at all one way or another about guns, and I do still care about gay marriage, even if I wish more newsprint was dedicated to other issues.  Guns are an issue where, well, I depart from my usual deep distrust of "local control" and say, basically, it should be done (or not) on a locality-by-locality basis.  And that both gun nuts and anti-gun activists make way, way, way too big a deal out of it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I agree that other issues need to be focused on, but not at the expense of gay marriage.  Likewise, I do not believe that gay marriage should be focused on at the expense of other issues.  As bedstuy said, this isn't a zero sum game, and it doesn't have to be as long as all issues are emphasized.  Personally, I don't care much about gun control because:

a. I support only certain gun control measures based on their practicality
b. I think most crime-related issues should be discussed mainly at the local, not federal, level

Gay marriage, to me, is more than a mere pet issue.  I see it as the civil rights issue of our time, and as a fairly active member of the Christian community I constantly see conservatives not only suppress the rights of homosexuals, but try to justify their behavior with a divinely inspired text.  I am not LGBT, but the gay marriage issue affects me largely because of the work I'm involved with and the people I know whose right to marry the person they love might be denied to them depending on the state or region they reside.  If certain communities, both political, geographical, and religious, spent less time trying to push intolerance, this issue would be one that I could easily overlook.  But it's not like that in parts of this world.

If there is any issue - be it social or economic - that progressives can win on, they should emphasize it, as long as it's tied to the common goal of bringing dignity to the people our society looks down on.

[bballrox4717]

In all fairness, effective gun control would likely have a more positive effect on society than gay marriage, but the former is a completely moot fight right now. We don't have the public support to go for it like we do with gay marriage right now.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Beet, have you been hiding under a stone for the last six months?
You can't read three posts about on here without stumbling over some-one saying that altough they support same-sex marriage they think other issues are as important or more important and that it's important that this issue doesn't take attention away from those issues.

Now I'm happy to see you posting about something that isn't either you prediciting the doom and destruction of the world economy as we know it, or your complete lack of understanding about the European Union and your idea that Angela Merkel should become some EU George Washington, but really you should get with the times already, and not start a thread asking if you're the only one who thinks like this when there are countless number of posts already saying they think this way.

[afleitch]

Beet, have you been hiding under a stone for the last six months?
You can't read three posts about on here without stumbling over some-one saying that altough they support same-sex marriage they think other issues are as important or more important and that it's important that this issue doesn't take attention away from those issues.

Now I'm happy to see you posting about something that isn't either you prediciting the doom and destruction of the world economy as we know it, or your complete lack of understanding about the European Union and your idea that Angela Merkel should become some EU George Washington, but really you should get with the times already, and not start a thread asking if you're the only one who thinks like this when there are countless number of posts already saying they think this way.

Zing