Democrats Cautious on Gay Rights Issues - But Candidates Have Taken Positions Exceeding Mainstream o

[jamesinca]

Source: Washington Post

Democrats Cautious on Gay Rights Issues
But Candidates Have Taken Positions Exceeding Mainstream of a Few Years Ago

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 24, 2007; A04



After Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly declared in March that homosexuality was immoral, gay supporters of Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York were furious when neither presidential candidate was very critical of Pace. They let both campaigns know it, and the next day Clinton and Obama said they do not consider homosexuality immoral.

The tentative reactions suggest the caution with which the two leading Democratic contenders approach gay rights issues when they are publicly debated. "The antenna goes up," acknowledges Ethan Geto, an informal adviser to Clinton on gay rights issues. "It's a measure of how volatile gay rights issues are in national politics."

Yet, however skittish they can sometimes be -- especially on same-sex marriage -- Democratic candidates as a group have taken stances in the 2008 campaign that only a few years ago would have been far out of the party's mainstream.

On two major issues, Clinton has rejected two policies of her husband, former president Bill Clinton: the "don't ask, don't tell" approach to gay people in the military and a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act, which could prevent the federal government from offering equal benefits to same-sex couples.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301348_pf.html

[pinto]

1. Sometimes, progress takes small steps. Yet it continues.

:thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

16. Fuck small steps! This is the 21st century and we must break the chains of superstition!

The same Bible-thumpers that are opposed to LGBT rights, are the ones that a generation ago used to Bible to justify segregation, and before used it to justify slavery.

The US is falling behind the civilized world when it comes to LGBT rights.

[OldschoolDem]

21. You can not force people to change their views

Time will change peoples views as the younger generation gets older. Besides a few countries in Europe, very few countries tolerant LGBT individuals, the US is still very much on the forefront. Considering in the Middle East, Russia, and China they kill or torture LGBT individuals. LGBT individuals have it very good here in the US, but there is still much work to be done.

[yardwork]

27. Are you gay?

You say that "LGBT individuals have it very good here in the US..." Very good compared to whom - other citizens? Why should we have it any less "good" than anyone else???

[BushOut06]

32. Using that logic, African Americans would still be sitting in the back of the bus

Sometimes, you have to force the issue, regardless of what "mainstream" society wants. Depending on the area of the country, many "mainstream" people would still support segregation!

[OldschoolDem]

37. How do you propose forcing people to think that way?

I think banning gay marriage is wrong, but we can't just force people to accept it. They have to learn to accept it themselves.

[yardwork]

38. No, we don't have to wait until everybody agrees.

As the earlier post notes, if we had waited for everyone to agree with civil rights for African Americans, we'd still be waiting. If we had waited for everyone to agree to end slavery, we'd still be waiting.

I really don't care if people choose to be bigots or not. I'm interested in changing the LAWS so that their bigotry isn't codified. That means equal rights for gay people, right now.

[OldschoolDem]

42. Unfortunately you won't be able to change the laws

without the majority of the American public behind those laws. The majority of this coutnry thinks gay marriage should be banned right now. Time will change this, mark my words.

[yardwork]

43. Evidence shows that you are wrong on both counts.

The majority of the country does not think that the constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage. That is demonstrably false. Second, the Civil Rights Movement and other laws were passed without a majority agreeing to them.

The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect the minority, not allow the majority to bully everyone else.

[BushOut06]

46. You can't force people to accept gays - any more than you can force people to not be racist

But you can sure as hell pass laws that give gays full equal rights.

[Politicub]

44. Good luck with that

Because the links of those chains are pretty darn strong. I'll take baby steps over nothing, especially since I live in the backwater of the US known as Georgia.

[caseycoon]

2. What is it about equal rights...

that so many people in this country don't understand? I believe that every citizen of the United States, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, should have equal rights. I don't think this should even be an issue. No person or group should be "more equal" than any other person or group. Maybe I'm living in LA LA LAND, but IMO that's the way it should be... PERIOD!
:crazy:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[caseycoon]

4. I'm aware of that...

I'm just saying I don't understand it, I have never understood it, I'm glad that I don't understand it. It's a totally unfair thing, not only to gays & lesbians but to all the minorities & women as well. I simply believe in equality for all. I like me that way.
LOL!

[Maribelle]

6. Of course you are correct, it is totally unfair ...

and I, along with millions, would have hoped that in the 21st century equal rights would no longer need to be a political issue.

But the fanatical right has found thumping the bible and fostering hate against targeted groups keeps the coins clanging into their coffers, a lucrative scheme they will not let subside in the foreseeable future.

I would imagine it is imperative that democratic candidates proceed cautiously to manifest a balance between the issues that need to be resolved and the feeding frenziedness of the hate mongering right.

[caseycoon]

9. It just seems like a sick attitude to me n/t

[ikojo]

7. Let's rephrase this...

"Democrats should be cautious. There are many people, especially parents, who believe that dating outside your race is immoral. Anger, name calling and harsh words only reinforce these convictions."

I think when one's rights are in question stridency, not politeness, is to be expected.

Middle class niceness did not give blacks the right to vote. Middle class niceness has done much to erode many voting rights.

Oy!

[caseycoon]

10. I think that is sad, but...

It should be a parental decision I think. It would be immoral to make laws forbidding it, though. ARE there still laws against it? I know there used to be. :o(

[dddem]

12. With all due respect,

"There are many people, especially parents, who believe that gay sex is a choice and an immoral choice. Anger, name calling, and harsh words only reinforce these convictions."

If this is what they believe, then they are wrong, and need to be educated.

As a straight woman, with gay friends, relatives and co-workers, I am offended by the idea that it's NOT our moral obligation to fight for the rights of every American, and I'm tired of sitting back listening to people who are wrong sit in judgment of others, and determine what others should and shouldn't be doing.

I certainly don't mean to attack you personally, but I am beginning to think that people like you (I used to be like you) who don't want to make waves, and want everyone to get along, and play nicely with one another are not only being ignored, but are being bullied by the "righteous" and actually hurting the cause.

I used to be nice, until I read somewher that 65% of Americans aren't bothered by Gay marriage, and civil rights for all, but the 35% who object are THE ONLY ONES SPEAKING UP! That's when I started opening up my big mouth. Please consider joining me.

Peace.

[xchrom]

15. yeah -- mealy mouthed, milktoast rhetoric

that the masses don't believe anyway will do so much for a party already perceived to be that way.

you simply couldn't be more wrong -- or offensive for that matter.

[IndianaGreen]

17. The issue is equal rights, which ought to be a core issue for Democrats

Equal rights, together with abortion rights, are uncompromising core issues to Socialists. Religion is the stuff of superstition and blood sacrifices, and it should be confined to places of worship.

[OldschoolDem]

22. You are absolutely correct

Unfortunately we are still in the minority on the gay issue, but time changes everything.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. This isn't about "gay sex", this is about rights.

Whatever anyone does in their bedroom is none of anyone else's business, and really not part of the equation.

Gay folk are discriminated against regardless of whether they are sexually active, or exactly how they express themselves sexually if they are. They are discriminated against because of their orientation, not their actions.

There's a difference between being reasonable (that is, explaining what's right without resorting to anger) and allowing someone else's prejudices to hold you back from enacting civil rights.

Those who aren't ready for it will just need to deal with their own bigotry -- it's long past time that we recognize the basic humanity of our gay brothers and sisters.

[yardwork]

28. WHAT "legitimate concerns" - ?????

WTF?? Excuse me if I'm angry, strident, or pro-gay.

[ikojo]

5. I agree caseycoon. If the headline read

something like...Dems cautious on rights of Jews, you had better believe people would not say they "need" to be cautious.


It's called LEADERSHIP people...stop following the Republicans and LEAD
How hard can that be?

I was at Gay Pride yesterday and many people are NOT happy with the Democrats...MANY. I was staffing a booth for a welcoming church and synagogue (I was there for the synagogue). When the subject of politics came up none expressed joy at the "front runners" as selected by the corporate media.

GO DENNIS!!!

[caseycoon]

8. I wouldn't express joy either...

How can anyone when it's impossible to know what they really stand for on ALL the issues? They say one thing to one group & another thing to another group.

I like Dennis Kucinich & I LOVE Howard Dean, but all the rest I am still trying to figure out where they really stand. And yes, I loved the Dean Scream! I know he's not running *sigh*

[silverweb]

36. My view exactly.

When I'm forced to interact with bigots, my standard response is:

"You consider yourself a patriot, so you know this: '...that all men are created equal... endowed by their Creator with inalienable Rights... Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. And then there's that pledge you love so much. So just what part of 'Liberty and Justice for all' don't you get?"

That usually shuts 'em up. Then I walk away.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

39. Wait a minute...Are you suggesting that Constitutional rights are for EVERYBODY?

I'm reeling from the mere concept... ;-)

[Maribelle]

11. Elizabeth Edwards is making history this morning in San Francisco

Dear Elizabeth celebrates life.

It will be interesting to read what she says today. It is marvelous that she is adding this level of clout to the issues effecting these people whom republicans would hope to keep totally marginalized.

[Nikki Stone1]

13. I have always really liked this woman. Strong, smart. I'm proud of her today.

:patriot:

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. It is highly significant that it is the spouse, not the candidate, publicly supporting equal rights

Sadly, it is not Elizabeth who would be setting national policy, so I can not credit her husband for her open display of support.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Bill Clinton gave us DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

While Hillary is the one that said she would leave it for others to decide if being gay was immoral, and told a small gay audience that she was still "evolving" on marriage rights for gays.

I'll take the Edwards over the conniving and triangulating Clintons.

[dsc]

23. I don't give a damn what Hillary or Barack believe about

the morality of homosexuality. I am electing a President, not a preacher. What I am looking for is a candidate who will be out front and center on ENDA, hate crimes, ending the military ban, and making relationships a little more equal on the federal level. That is the most I think any Democratic President and Congress could get done. So far, I am not sure who that is.

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. Key reasons why I refuse to vote the party line anymore

And the start of many gay people opening their eyes to how the Democrats have used us and abused us.

Clinton could have -- should have -- vetoed DOMA. Instead, he signed it alone late on a Friday night, as secretly as it is possible for a bill to be signed into law. Then he sent Al Gore to "explain" how instituting such a bigoted violation of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause was a postive affirmation of his commitment to equal rights, and then had the balls to demand the support of the gay community for the 1996 election a month and a half latter.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Clinton gets a pass on having sex with an employee, while LGBTs have to fight for equality

There is something very wrong with a political party that lacks conviction on what should be a core issue that distinguishes it from the Party of GAWD that is the GOP.

[Neshanic]

20. "The antenna goes up," acknowledges Ethan Geto, an informal adviser to Clinton on gay rights issues.

Well Ethan you big bad "informal" advisor you, don't be so bold! I mean REALLY. The antenna is going up? Sound the trumpets, ticker tape parade for our gal pal Hillary!

I for one am so impressed by this monumental leap forward, posed by an "informal" advisor, and he talks to her too!

God how sickening.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. I'm frustrated by this go-slow approach to basic human rights issues

Do the right thing, for pete's sake and stop calculating and triangulating on it.

People's lives are in the balance right now, not whenever the Dems decide they're finally ready to stand squarely for civil rights for ALL of our citizens.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

40. Me too...

I got in an argument with my mom over this. She believes that announcing support for gay marriage amounts to handing the election to the rethugs. But if our candidates are no better at eliminating repression than the thugs, they have no business running for office.

[dbackjon]

26. All of you "Cautious Democrats"

Please send me the THOUSANDS of dollars annually that the lack of recognition of my relationship costs me.

Put your money where your mouth is, or shut the hell up.

Fair is fair. You want us to wait for our civil rights, only fair you pony up the costs.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. That's the part I don't think enough people understand

They see themselves as the calm voice of moderation, pleading time in which everyone can gather around the idea, singing Kumbaya.

Meantime, real, actual people, leading real, actual lives, are being denied basic civil rights. They're being discriminated against, asked to wait, and wait, and wait... for the rest of us straight folk to get it.

It's not fair. And there's been more than enough waiting.

You deserve your rights, yesterday.

[Mark Twain Girl]

29. For heaven's sake, this is a civil rights issue and ought to be a bread-and-butter matter for Dems

And, as the sister of a gay man who lives in a not-great-part-of-the-US-to-be-gay, I could not give a sweet damn who that offends or makes skittish. In particular, I could not give a sweet damn whose superstitions my brother's civil rights offend.

ClintObama better get their act together, since it has been ordained that we get one of 'em. As someone said earlier, I'm looking for a President, not a preacher.

According to several gay rights activists, Hillary Clinton and Obama give largely similar statements in private meetings on their opposition to same-sex marriage, citing religious concerns and the fact that older generations of Americans view the term "marriage" as a commitment between a man and a woman.

Bah, this one is a hot button for me.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Me too, Mark Twain Girl. And I agree

It's past time for the Dems to just embrace this as the civil rights -- *human rights* issue it is, and quit allowing the right to push us around with claims of moral superiority.

Was the country entirely comfie with rights for our African American citizens? Did we politely wait until everyone agreed that segregation wasn't a good thing?

If it makes people uncomfortable, that's their problem to deal with. Their discomfort shouldn't deny other people basic rights -- rights none of us should have the right to take away from anyone else.

[pingzing58]

30. Someone once told me if you don't like the answer you're getting change the question.

If both Hillary and Obama want to respond to the question of
homosexuality from a religious standpoint (moral and immoral)
then there is no discussion.  The religious right and those
who vote based on their religious beliefs support the systemic
descrimination of homosexuals.  Don't like the answer; change
the question.  It's about equality for everyone based on each
individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.  It's about our continued fight against a
priviledged and class society and the dismantling of a second
class citizenry by recognizing the homosexual's right to equal
opportunity under the law.  

[yardwork]

31. Thank you and welcome to DU!

[ruggerson]

33. Edwards was the only one who right away said homosexuality was not "immoral"

no equivocation, no restating, no cautiousness needed.

[closeupready]

45. I going to follow Gore's lead and retire from politics, or at least,

the little guy stuff I do - it's frustrating and just making me unhappy. Bill Clinton sold us out, and I believe all of the current candidates will do the same. Just a feeling I have. I don't want to be betrayed again, so if I don't invest my energy in a candidate and they later screw us over, I haven't lost any trust that I gave. Sad, but I'm not inspired by any of them. Look, as an example, at the current crop of Dems in Congress and their mandate after the elections - they failed to use it, and now - as a result - have an approval rating of 14%. They capitulate to the GOP even with a mandate. No, thanks.