Whether you're old enough to have seen the original when it aired, or if you've only caught the reruns on TV Land, most everyone has some experience with the original "Bewitched" series. With a crinkle of a magical nose and the not-out-but-flamboyant Paul Lynde playing Uncle Arthur, it was the first in a seemingly endless stream of television shows that gave a wink to their gay audiences through subtle nods.
From "Maude" to "Designing Women" to "Xena Warrior Princess," some of the most successful and lasting brands in television played directly to gay audiences, while the rest of the country was often -- but not always, particularly in more recent years--blithely oblivious to what was going on.
With Cindy McCain's "No H8" photo this week it seems that there may be a new generation of gay winking going on. She came out publicly against California's Prop 8, and stated her open support for marriage equality. No longer dodging network censors to acknowledge gay audiences, today the winking seems to come most often from political spouses whose partners have their eyes openly directed at high offices.
It happened during the 2008 campaign when Elizabeth Edwards announced her support for marriage equality, while her husband, then-presidential candidate John Edwards -- before the public revelations about their own struggles -- remained publicly opposed. Last year, Bill Clinton announced his support in contrast to Hillary's public position.
The contrast is less incongruous when it comes from the Clintons or Edwards, who have established long track records supporting a spectrum of gay civil rights issues. But John McCain is a bit more interesting because no one else is trying to have it both ways quite as brazenly as his camp seems to be.
On the one hand, Cindy's announcement softens the overall McCain brand, making it seem that there's still something of a maverick spirit in the family that doesn't simply kowtow to the base. She coupled the announcement with McCain's daughter Meghan, who has been very public in her beliefs that the Republican Party needs to modernize itself on a number of issues including gay marriage.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin, who is -- along with the rest of the Tea Party movement -- strongly opposed to marriage equality, announced yesterday that she will be campaigning in Arizona for McCain's senate re-election. The women in McCain's life are by proximity allowing him to speak out of both sides of his mouth without actually saying anything at all. (Sort of like when Rock Hudson would dance the night away with Dorris Day, simply letting the public draw their own conclusions from there.)
Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that any of these couples have had sit downs at their family dinner tables in which they decided that the non-office-holding spouse take one for the team by supporting gay marriage. It's entirely possible -- even highly probable -- that each of these people (and their office-holding spouses for that matter) is totally genuine in supporting marriage equality.
But the announcement's effect on the McCain family name -- the branding, if you will -- is undeniable. And who can blame McCain for wanting a nuanced position on marriage equality? The far right Tea Party movement, which seems to run the roost in the Republican establishment right now, is antigay to its core.
Yet Gallup Polls consistently show that the nation moves two points in favor of marriage equality with each passing year. At this point there will be full majority support for marriage in the next five years. McCain, being a smart man, knows that if he's not careful in his messaging he could be standing with the Tea Party and George Wallace on the wrong side of history by the end of the decade. But at the same time, if he doesn't play to the Tea Partiers just a little bit, there will be costs on Election Day.
The same is sort of true for Democrats, who are pulled -- though dramatically less so -- to the right by the Tea Partiers whose gravitational force seems to be creating enough drag in the country to keep the full mainstream from breaking completely for marriage equality -- for the time being.
And the time being is what's most interesting in the age of the 24-hour news cycle. Will the Tea Partiers, who claim that they want straight talk from their leaders, really tolerate these gay winks, or will they acknowledge that they're fighting a senseless battle that's already been lost?
Winnie Stachelberg is the SVP for External Affairs at the Center for American Progress. Mark Shields is a Washington DC communications consultant.
With HC reform its the "I got mine crowd" who are afraid they will lose what they've already got. Or it is the death panel scare tactics for those who don't have HC.
For the marriage equality supporters it's the perceived and contrived threat to hetero marriages and the gay wave taking over all aspects of society.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't HC reform once overwhelmingly supported by the voters and now it is a toxic stew?
And, hasn't around 38 states voted to repeal gay equality legislation passed by legislatures or proclaimed by governors?
Fanned.
The priority should be getting same-sex couples equal protections in every state, and federal recognition, not getting non-federally recognized gay marriage in a few states and nothing in most states. Roll back Massachusetts and the other SSM states to Civil Unions, retreat from the unworkable demand for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, and we'll be able to come together as a country and address the real issues that we face.
Who is Ms. Stachelerg to criticize Cindy McCain's new found support for marriage equality?
You've clearly not familiar with "the gay community." Gay men and lesbians are often at odds. I hate to do it, but, using generalities, they are VERY different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cyDwYi4TD8
You both need to get out Washington D.C. more. Those of us who live here in Arizona, and are gay, believe this "transformation" by Mrs. McCain and Miss McCain are too little, too late. While their husband and father ran for the presidency in 2008, Arizona had on its ballot a referendum to ban same-sex marriages, Proposition 102. Neither Mrs. McCain nor Miss McCain publicly spoke out against 102 (and from what I understand, still haven't). Mrs. McCain is a powerhouse in Arizona Republican circles and could have used her considerable influence to keep 102 off of the ballot (the legislature put it there under less than honorable circumstances) or to defeat it. In fact, opponents of 102 were outspent 70 to 1.
So, while everyone's focus is on California, Arizona has joined other states in making gay citizens second class citizens and neither Mrs. McCain nor Miss McCain seems to give a damn. Do you think it has anything to do with Senator McCain's attempt to not be beaten in the Republican primary against J.D. Hayworth?
They also don't have the same motivating forces as social conservatives; for example, social conservatives go to churches that may encourage voting to defend some religious doctrine coupled with strong religious convictions that send them to the polling booth.
Keep in mind that what matters is not the opinion of the majority, but the opinion of the *voting* majority. Plus, I believe that the majority still nevertheless opposes same-sex marriage (although just barely) so that makes things even harder.
I think that the first issue (time constraints) might be fixed, at least, if election day were declared a federal holiday with a mandate that all non-essential businesses be closed. It's true that you can often vote early, but this would draw a lot more attention to the process and would probably encourage the apathetic to actually get out there and vote.
Those who don't want gays marrying REALLY don't want gays marrying and they show up in full force at the polls.
Those who support it or are indifferent, often don't feel compelled to vote on the issue.
Take Maine.
Thirty-one percent of voters managed to strip gays of their rights in yet another humiliating travesty of American ideals, while 69% either voted to maintain these rights or didn't care enough about the issue to motivate themselves to get to the polls.
The majority of voters in Maine clearly have no problem with gay marriage but our supporters are often not as vigilant as those who are against us, so again, we lost.
We need more allies to take action, to make their voice heard.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut, USA.
How do I know? easy. Just ask any of them if they are willing to abide by their child-centric/bible definition of marriage for real.
1. no benefits until after a child is BORN.
2. married couple must raise child[ren]
3. adultery is, well like in the bible - you do it you get stoned to death.
4. no divorce - ever for any reason. none of this annulment nonsense either.
5. no marriage ceremonies/registrations unless both people submit to fertility test and pass. No apres-menopause marriages. no apres-sterilization marriages, etc.
6. violation of any of the above is fraud - 20 years in prison.
7. [I'll ignore suttee, but, well it is ordained. sorry...]
Oh, I guess marriage isn't about childrearing or so holy.
As for the Bible, I get the impression that the majority of "Christians" haven't actually read it given how often I encounter people identifying as such but say that they rarely or can barely read.