Prediction: Gays will turn up to vote in record low numbers...

[Product of Evolution]

:(

Damn pink-tutu "Democrats".

(Referring to Democrats who oppose gay rights. Is "We're less bigoted than the GOP" an overly inspiring warcry?)

[einniv]

1. Can you elaborate on why you think that is the case?

And what the name calling is in reference to?

[Product of Evolution]

3. Democrats unwilling to stand up for gay rights...

Think "we're less bigoted than they are" is an inspiring warcry?

[einniv]

10. Well lets see.

Dean signed the Civil Union thing. Clark was pro civil unions. Dennis Kucinich also supports gay rights.

I'm not sure about Edwards or Kerry to be honest. Is it one of them you are speaking of?

I personally feel it is just a strategy thing. People who support equal rights have the moral high ground but unfortunately not the majority yet. Why make a big issue of something we are going to be on the losing side of when there are other very important things to deal with at the present time. (I know easy for a straight person to say)

[Jawja]

13. Kerry

voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.

[Sapphocrat]

2. Excuse me?

I would really like you to explain what you mean, before I draw any incorrect conclusions.

In fact, you may want to edit your original post and pad it out to prevent your thread from getting locked.

[LondonReign2]

6. Pink Tutu Democrats

...is a reference to spineless Democrats that refuse to stand up for what the party believes in. Most often used on the Demos who consistently support the WarChimp's policies.

So the poster is referencing the Dems that refuse to stand up for gay marriage, and speculating that gays may not be too inspired by Dems whose message is "we are *less* bigoted".

Or so I surmise.

[Sapphocrat]

9. Yep, I'm very familiar w/pink tutu Dems...

I just wanted to be sure the poster wasn't making a "gay" crack.

I think you're probably right about his/her meaning... although it would be nice to see him/her explain it with more than a couple of cryptic one-liners.

[drdigi420]

21. i got a warning because someone took something i said

to be anti-gay

it was completely the opposite actually, i was making fun of people's religious objections to gay marriage, but it got taken the wrong way

i think a lot of ppl need to be a lot less reactionary and alert-happy

[Sapphocrat]

23. Don't look at me...

I haven't hit Alert on anybody in days -- and the LAST sort of post I would EVER alert on is one that makes fun of the religious arguments against gay marriage.

Making fun of somebody's religion (or the person expressing his/her beliefs) is different, of course -- but as far as slamming the "It's just wrong, because God says so, and if you believe anything else, you're going to hell!" variety of argument -- well, geez, man, I'll join you in making mincemeat of that!

As far as being "reactionary," that's exactly why I asked the O.P. to explain his post: I didn't want to react without knowing if he was slamming gay people or not. He wasn't, so I didn't react, did I? :)

I write lots of messages I never post (or at least not without a lot of careful editing). Having been on the receiving end of anti-gay stuff far too many times, I know how much words can hurt -- but it's a constant battle for me, too, to judge how my words might be taken.

I try very hard to take my own advice: Just because you don't think something you said is offensive, that doesn't mean it's not offensive. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to slam a variety of discernible religious or political groups (I have my prejudices, too), but ... As much as I hate to admit it, being forced to comply with DU's rather strict (and numerous) rules has had a real equalizing effect on my posting.

Damn it, I should never admit that in public! I like making the admins happy, but I hate rules! :D

[Taeger]

12. You presume ...

Your presuming that Democrats are largely for gay marriage in the first place.

I've got news for you ... THEY AREN'T!!!!!

Take the civil unions and vote for the Democratic candidate. It' the best your going to get for now.

The alternative is a COMPLETE ban on ANY possibility of gay marriage. If the Democrats lose this election, THEY WILL pass that horrible amendment and IT WILL be ratified.

[Sapphocrat]

17. Do you think you could rub that salt in just a little deeper?

If anyone knows the best we're going to get is a shit sandwich and we'd better like it, believe me -- we know.

[Taeger]

19. Ham on Rye with Mayo

It's not what you want. You want a steak sandwich, we're offering Ham on Rye with Mayo.

The "Shit Sandwich" is a US Constitutional amendment AGAINST gay marriage ANYWHERE in the US. As it is, gays may luck out in a few states where a civil union will be respected as a marriage.

So you choose, Han on Rye with Mayo, or a shit sandwich. You aren't going to get a steak sandwich, it's not on the menu.

[Sapphocrat]

20. Taeger...

You're starting to get cruel. I don't know if you know how much, or if you even care -- but your words are becoming very cruel.

[Taeger]

25. I apologize ...

I apologize if I have offended you in any way. I'm just pleading with people to understand political realities.

I know it's far easier for a straight person to take this viewpoint. I know that this issue is dear to the hearts to so many people. And deep down I fundamentally agree with you.

However, I see the sheer political reality of the situation. This issue is pushing people in the WRONG place. I'm positive and certain that once 'civil unions' or normalized and accepted for a period of time, full marriage recognition will be extended to gays and lesbians.

You have to give people a chance to get used to the idea. Seeing friends and neighbors who are in loving and stable 'civil unions' will acclimate people to the gay marriage issue. You will hit them in the heart and open up their minds. The current strategy is only triggering people's defensive mechanisms.

I sincerely hope that one day gay and lesbian relationships can be recognized as marriages. And I sincerely believe that the current strategy will make that day LATER rather than SOONER. I sincerely believe that the events of the past few weeks will stall civil union legislation and promote constitutional bans against gay marriage.

So I do apologize if I'm try to help your cause in my own way.

[Jacobin]

4. Just hope its not those log cabin guys

[David Dunham]

5. The Sad Fact Is No Pro-Gay Marriage Dem Could be Elected Pres.

[Taeger]

16. The REAL fact is ...

The REAL fact is that no pro-Gay Marriage candidate could be NOMINATED by the Democratic party.

I may be the "right" thing to do. But it's extraordinarily unpopular. Lest you forget that everyone ELSE gets a vote in this democracy as well.

[kenny blankenship]

22. While I'm not backing him in particular...

John Edwards --who is still in this fight-- has done all I want the Democratic nominee to do on the subject of gay marriage. That is to state he is "completely opposed" to any amendment that bans gay marriage.

He called it wrong and unnecessary and didn't play coy like Kerry does, pretending to offer a "compromise" position which actually enshrines separate and unequal rights.

That's all I want, and frankly it doesn't seem too hard. Edwards told his interviewer what his position was in one simple declarative sentence.

Edwards did it. WHy can't John Kerry do it?

[ronnykmarshall]

7. Dream on

[lastknowngood]

8. Then the repugnants wedge issue has succeeded

n/t

[Jawja]

15. Exactly

They want to run on Gay marriage to "divide and conquer." If it divides the Democratic Party, it does succeed.

[fleetus]

11. Nah.

I think Democrat numbers will be up across the board.

Maybe you meant "record low percentages." I'd have an easier time buying that, but you'd still have to convince me a lot better than you did in this tiny post.

[Rowdyboy]

14. Total mistake

Every gay I know-and I know a helluva lot are fired up. They're furious at this bastardized administration. Some that have never voted before are getting involved.

Obviously, we run in VERY different circles. The hatred I feel for Bush is overwhelming-far greater than what I felt for Bush I, Reagan or Nixon.

[cosmicdot]

18. I expect a higher number of Gays voting Democratic

... keeping their eye on this aspect: the Dept. of Jusice, and the courts ...

[Kinkistyle]

24. NO WAY. Dems are leaps and bounds better than Repugs on gay issues.

Yeah, they might be wishy-washy at the moment due to the elections and campaigning, but come crunch-time when the major decisions will be made, you can bet repugs will only further the oppression and repression of gay rights, while dems at the worst will just stay at the status quo.

I personally believe the exact opposite scenario will happen. Gays will show up in droves, just like all other compassionate, caring liberals and vote that f*cker out of office. Because in the end, homosexuals are humans first, and gay second.