For Those Who Wish We Would've Been Less "Pro-Gay" This Election...

[GiovanniC]

I have a question. What ARE you willing to fight for?

If not gays, then who? Blacks? Women? Muslims? Liberals? Jews?

If not now, then when? Tomorrow? Four years from now? Ten? Ever?

If not this, then what? Lynchings? Concentration camps? "Separate but equal" schools? Lack of suffrage for ALL Americans? Burning witches at the stake?

I am glad that at pivotal points in our history, proud and brave men like Martin Luther King, Jr. did not stand up and say, "I have a dream. A dream that we tell the American people that it is okay to hate us! A dream where we tolerate and even endorse racism and bigotry in the hopes that we can eventually end them somewhere down the road, at some unspecified time! A dream where I simply accept that my children will be judged by the color of their skin and not the content of their character, because Americans are fucking racist! So join with me, my brothers and sisters, as we try to out-Klan the Ku Klux Klan! I have a dream! I have a dream!"

We shouldn't either.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. Amen.

Gang, it's time to stop running away from our liberalism to placate people who are NEVER going to vote with us and who then can also say we lack the courage of our convictions. Hell, we may even get some votes from people who respect our backbone.

[BrendaStarr]

2. People here said that?

Really?

So much is said here that I can't catch much of it, but weird.

[freetobegay]

4. More than I care to count.

[robbedvoter]

54. Some dark DU moments - many of them newcomers but DU-ers

bought it. I saw it on Bartcop forum too - lots of selling out. Still some threads left in Presidential forum on "to Hell with Roe vs wade"
The Borg assimilation worked somewhat.
In the weird dapartment, after having supported all other candidates, Walt Starr now worships Lieberman and wants to join DLC. (with special homage to dolstein)

[MuseRider]

3. That is a very good question.

I would also like to know the answer. If we are not for civil liberties for all people then what is the point?

[blm]

5. I'm PROUD that we're in a party FOR gay rights.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

Would love to beat the Repunks at their own game some day. Divide and conquer.

[Touchdown]

6. How could we have been any LESS pro-gay than we were?

Adopt the Repug stance on the FMA? Both Kerry and Edwards came out against gay marriage.

These Dems need to understand one thing. Church congregations, especially the evangelical ones, do what they're told. Kerry could've been the most anti-gay, anti-abortion candidate in history, proclaim GOD Tells him to do everything, and have rhetoric further to the right than Jesse Helms, and these people STILL wouldn't vote for him. And it's all because of one reason.

There's a "D" behind his name!

[oc2002]

10. thats the truth, they HATE DEMOCRATS..EVEN IF ITS JESUS CHRIST(D)

[Eric J in MN]

32. Kerry could have endorsed a state ballot measure against

gay marriage, to prove he was sincere.

[CornField]

7. It wasn't that many years ago

When religious groups stood up against marriage between different races of people (in particular, blacks marrying whites). Many states passed legislation to prevent such marriages from happening and it finally took a decision of the Supreme Court to overturn the state decisions.

This is not so much different... and I'm quite shocked at how quickly African Americans have forgotten their own heads being placed on the religious chopping block.

What we must remember -- and what we must speak about -- is that religious rites and civil rights are two separate things. No one is demanding that each church honor same-sex marriages. No religious pillars are being pushed. No church will crumble if two men or two men stand in front of a Justice of the Peace and profess their love and loyalty to one other.

Our rights as Americans are not dependent upon approval from others. We have those rights because we are Americans. (Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.)

[underpants]

8. A very good point about churches and "mixed race marriages"

Thanks I myself had forgotten that.

[oc2002]

9. your missing the whole point.

We lost because Kerry failed to neutralize the issue, defuse the religous fervor of anti-gays.

Not supporting marrage for gays would not hurt the gays, its not like they where being draged out of thier closets and beaten to death in the streets.

this should be a states issue, not a constitutional issue.

[underpants]

11. He DOESN'T support marriage for gays

A post above states it very clearly the church crowd wasn't going to vote for him anyway no matter what he said or did.

Note that churches were allowed to directly instruct their memnbers how to vote. That SHOULD strip them of tax exempt status....but I'm not holding my breath.

[Eric J in MN]

35. Kerry said that, but Kerry didn't support a single state

or federal law against gay marriage.

Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.

[foreigncorrespondent]

43. Oh bullshit!

I suggest you go back to just after the court in Mass legalized gay marriage and take a look at what Kerry said. Kerry said he SUPPORTED an ammendment to ban gay marriages in Mass, but he did not support a federal marriage ammendment. And during the campaign he stated that it ought to be left up to the states to decide. If that isn't showing the states some fucking support, then I don't know what is.

Why the fuck do you think so many gays had to hold their nose when they voted on the 2nd?

Next time get your facts right! You have been spouting this crap in other threads as well, I suggest you do your homework so you don't look like such a fool next time.

[Eric J in MN]

58. Do you have a link for Kerry endorsing a law against gay-marriage?

If he said that, he didn't say it during the debates.

[foreigncorrespondent]

60. Well of course he didn't...

...he was really trying to stay away from that debate as much as possible. And also, remember he wanted to secure the gay vote, so he didn't want to sound too harsh at the same time.

Anyway, I couldn't find the link I was after when he came out in favor of the Mass gay marriage ban, but I did find the following link, in which he supports the gay marriage ban in Missouri.

Kerry Edwards 'No Objection' To Missouri Gay Marriage Ban

[GiovanniC]

12. Actually, I Believe YOU'RE Missing the Whole Point

There are things that make me a Democrat. But above all, it is that Democrats, as a party, embody these immortal words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

To end injustice, you must fight injustice. To end inequality, you must fight inequality. To end hatred, prejudice and bigotry, YOU MUST FIGHT IT. You do not support it, you do not condone it, you do not turn a blind eye to it. You FIGHT it.

This isn't about "neutralizing" the issue, which is a fancy way of suggesting that we as Democrats stand and say, "George Bush hates gays, but so do we! So he has no advantage on this issue!" BULL-FUCKING-SHIT.

If Democrats will not stand up against inequality, injustice, hate, bigory, and prejudice, then why do we even bother? Honestly, what's the fucking point? Either we stand for something, or we don't.

[Ardee]

16. sorry to disagree

Ignoring the rights of any part of our society is imperriling the rights of all of us, cant you see that?

We do not stand up for all Americans only when it is expedient or politically correct to do so, right is right, all the time!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

13. My sister, who thinks ** is an idiot, and voted for Kerry, had this to say

"I just don't think homos should be allowed to marry"

Which just goes to show you that not all democrats think alike on the issue. I didn't delve into her reasons for feeling that way, but I think the key is to educate people.

Passing anti-gay marriage laws (or, god forbid, a consitutional amendment) is not going to make gay people go straight. It is not going to keep them from living together or from enjoying hot, steamy gay sex. All it will do is prevent them from enjoying the benefits that married couples have access to.

Conversely, allowing gay marriage is not going to "destroy the institution of marriage" any more than a 50% divorce rate or spousal abuse will. It is not going to place a huge burden on the rest of us in terms of increased insurance premiums or social security payments.

Basically, what it comes down to is a way for gay couples to reduce pain and suffering a little bit at their times of greatest need: when one is sick or dying. Maybe if people thought about it a little bit they would realise that opposing gay marriage (or civil unions, or whatever) is just causing undue pain and suffering.

[GiovanniC]

15. I Just Have a One-Word Question For Those People

"Why?"

Just one syllable, but they almost never can answer it.

- Is it "because it says so in the Bible"? The Bible says lots of things -- do you want to legislate all of them? Would you like it to be illegal for anyone to work on Sunday, to wear clothes made of two different materials? Do you want to outlaw Red Lobster? Can we make human sacrifices legal?

- Is it "because they can't have children"? Should it be illegal for infertile couples to get married? Older couples?

Find out the reasons, and then keep asking questions that will point out the absurdity of their reasoning.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

17. I can practically guarantee

that none of them has ever even known a gay person (or, at least, never realized it). Their only exposure, if any, is through TV shows that feature stereotypes.

[GiovanniC]

18. That Has Typically Been My Experience

And I have never, not once, ever heard anyone who could produce a good reason to be against gay civil unions.

[DeadHead67]

14. AMEN !!! Couldn't have said it better . . . .

[patdem]

19. You know, you are on to something here...lets organize the objections

and the answers to these objections. This is what republicans do..they anticipate the stand and have a whole list of responses waiting to be made. We need to do this as well, they put one out..no resonance...they throw out the next response...of course these are all focus group tested!!

"Why?"

Just one syllable, but they almost never can answer it.

- Is it "because it says so in the Bible"? The Bible says lots of things -- do you want to legislate all of them? Would you like it to be illegal for anyone to work on Sunday, to wear clothes made of two different materials? Do you want to outlaw Red Lobster? Can we make human sacrifices legal?

- Is it "because they can't have children"? Should it be illegal for infertile couples to get married? Older couples?

Find out the reasons, and then keep asking questions that will point out the absurdity of their reasoning.

[Kber]

20. Actually, my husband has put his finger on the problem

We need MORE gay people. Y'all need to start a recruiting drive or something. Think about it - if we could tip the number up from about 10% of the population to 12 to 13%, we'd have it made.

[GiovanniC]

21. To Be Doubly Effective, Gays Should Recruit People Who Voted for Bush

[kayell]

29. Ewwwww. That's just a bit too much of a sacrifice for the party.

*picturing Mary Cheney*

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

*runs away*

[Sara Beverley]

22. Over 50% of the gay voters voted for Bush. Most are wealthy, well-

educated and hold powerful positions within and outside government. They vote their pocketbooks and power base because they know no matter what the politicians say or do the gays will continute to live their lives the way they want to. It's not that they don't despise the Christian wingnuts but they know they really don't matter when the bedroom door closes. Gay want the same rights that married couples have but many don't need to engage in the religiously fabricated institution of "marriage" sanctioned by some state. This issue of gay marriage was one that was played to the ignorant homophobes BY the educated homophobes. It's called "manipulation."
My brother and his mate don't give two hoots about getting married. They only care that they receive their rights and benefits from the country they fought for and support. It's most of us out here who are going nuts over this issue. The fear of loss of life, jobs, liberties, benefits, and safety crosses the lines of many lives in America, not just gays but women, the poor, minorities, and now the Democrats are all worried about the irrational and hateful behavior of the religious zealots who have been worked up into a frenzy over anything and anybody who is not white and "saved."

[GiovanniC]

23. Well, I Don't Know Where They Live

But in Michigan and other states they just lost the rights and benefits from the country they fought for in support.

[JudyM]

24. Don't believe this for a second! The vast Majority of Gays vote Dem

And the vast majority are deeply interested in civil rights not only for gays but for others, as well. If you want proof just take a look at the membership of HRC and the issues it engages in, as well as the fact that even the minority political gay group, the Log Cabin Reblicans, determined they were not going to support * this time around. I am a lesbian, and I can assure you that while like any other group we are diverse, it is exceedingly rare to meet someone gay for whom social causes are not their chief political concern, decidely not their pocketbook.

[Eric J in MN]

33. Anyone have statistics on the gay vote in 2004? nt

nt

[Kipepeo]

34. Where did you get that 50% number?

I have not seen that and don't believe it for a second. I saw something like 20%

Edited to add: here's the 21-23% figure: http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2004/11/03/3

[LTRS]

38. No they don't - 23% voted repug on Tues

In 2000 it was 25%. Too many, but not near 50%. I don't know where you got your info, but it's wrong.

And believe me, as a gay activist I have to deal with those morons, and it isn't easy.

[JudyM]

39. What's your source for that number? I'd be shocked if even 10%

... of gays voted for * The Log Cabin Repubes are a tiny portion of our number, and this time even they refused to back *!

He is antithetical to everything we stand for!

[ajmstpete]

41. Wait I heard over 200% of us voted for *

50% my ass, I am so sick of this shit, the other day it was 20%, before that 10%. Now it's 50%. Sorry sucker, but you couldn't be any more WRONG. It is not our fault that this dumb ass got reelected and you can try to pin it on us all you want. Put your blame where it belongs, and go back to Freepworld.

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. Where the hell did you get your numbers from?

It wasn't "over 50%" of the gay vote that went to Bush* at all. Bush* only picked up 22% of the gay vote this time around, and in 2000 it was 25%, so he actually dropped 3% this time around.

[kayell]

28. Hell, we already give out toasters.

[Toucano]

25. The No. 1 mistake the left in America makes

is listening to the right.

They're just speaking from the shock of the terrible loss. They don't mean it.

[kayell]

27. No, some of the ones saying this have always spoken so on DU

I wish they'd just come out of their closet like the others did Tuesday.

[foreigncorrespondent]

45. That's the problem, Kayell...

...I don't believe for a moment that everyone that has been speaking out against gay rights since Tuesday, are all freeps. I truly believe that a few of them are true democrats, but cannot over come their fears of same sex relationships, because no matter how much they know, they still listen to the talking heads on some of the issues.

Just think back to some of the people we have come up against during the last two years alone, here on DU. When you think about what these people said in other threads that were not about gay rights their was no doubt they were dems, but they showed their true colours when it came to gay rights.

If we begin to believe that everyone who hates us are repukes in disguise, then we are leaving ourselves open to a lot more hurt and anger than we currently have.

[sangh0]

30. Actually, the #1 mistake the left in America makes

is Repeating what the right says.

Gay marriage was NOT an issue we brought. The GLBT comunity as a whole wasn't up in arms over this issue. They've been fighting for hate crimes laws, employee benefits for civil unions, adoption rights, etc all related to the issue of gay marriage, but it was far from their primary concern.

The right made this the issue for this campaign, and they were very explicit about that.

[noiretextatique]

42. "Gay marriage was NOT an issue we brought"

a small voice echoes above the din: we are are our own worst enemies.

i have been listening to the paranoid rantings of some on the left "those hard-core gays are working with republicans to ruin our chances in this election." "why NOW?!" "that's going to turn off swing voters"
etc, etc, etc. repeating what the right tells us.

but, as you wrote:
"The right made this the issue for this campaign, and they were very explicit about that"

*sigh*

[foreigncorrespondent]

47. Dosn't it just make you laugh?

"those hard-core gays are working with republicans to ruin our chances in this election."

To think we are working with the one group who would love to stone us to death, or lock us away in camps? Jesus that is as bad as us "choosing" to be gay, just to go through all this pain and agony!

BTW, it is good to see you around!

[sangh0]

48. Well, the bright side

is maybe after going through it time and time again, some people will wise up and see how they're being used.

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. I agree. Allowing the right to control the agenda always

places the left on the defensive and obviously we don't play that side very well. We should have nailed them on the fact that denying civil rights is unAmerican and unChristian. Period.

[5thGenDemocrat]

26. If we lose every election from now on as to not sell out our principles

Then I'm good to go with that.
John
It's not even that I'm particularly chummy with any given subset of the American people. It's just that we're all Americans and are endowed with certain rights by our Creator.
If it's too much for the folks in Jeebusland to understand that, I guess I won't have anything to do with them. I kind of prefer it that way, anyhow.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

55. At the risk of being accused of having a "loser mindset"

I agree with you.

I am aware of strategic considerations, and tactical nuances, and reframing the language surrounding the issue. And I believe that, as with women's right to choose, there are ways we can get through to the un- and ill-informed, and positions that allow us direct attack.

But the post-election question should not be "Where would we be without the GLBT community?"

The question is "WHO would we be without the GLBT community?"

There is no way we can abandon any "inconvenient" group without abandoning our principles. Strategically, it is a bad idea. Morally, it is the wrong idea.

[Eric J in MN]

31. No one is stopping gay weddings.

No one at this message board is against civil unions.

To say that for a gay marriage not to be recongnized under the word "mariage" is close to being put into a concentration camp trivializes concentration camps.

[LTRS]

36. Federal civil unions are fine

As long as it conveys the same federal rights as marriage. We don't care what it's called. What candidate is proposing that or supporting it? No dems or republicans, I can assure you.

If they want a compromise they sure haven't offered one. Hell, we can't even pass ENDA or the bill that would remove taxes on the value of our partner health benefits.

[Bluebear]

37. Re: trivializing concentration camps

Remember that when they start coming for us. And what you did to help us.

[Ms. Toad]

46. And remember

that Gays were sent to the concentration camps, as well.

[foreigncorrespondent]

49. Really?

When was the last time you attended a gay wedding in the United States that was legally recognized by the country?

What you see happening is either commitment ceremonies, or civil unions!

[Eric J in MN]

57. Just because it isn't legally recognized as a marriage

doesn't mean you can't call the ceremony a gay weddding.

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. I disagree.

Denying equal protection under the law is equivalent to declaring one group of people less worthy of humanity than others. That's not a very big step to the mentality necessary for the existence of concentration camps. In fact, it's startlingly similar. The ability to view "same" as "other" is appalling to me.

[choicevoice]

40. I applaud you

and i agree with you 100%

[Pacifist Patriot]

50. I think we should have been more "pro-gay."

I was disappointed that the liberals allowed the conservatives to dominate this feature of the socio-political agenda. I think the democrats missed a fantastic opportunity to go on the attack and accuse Republicans of shredding the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I would have liked to see them take control of the issue and go after them for being bigoted, hateful and incredibly unChristian for encouraging less rather than more love in this world. I was unhappy with the democrat dodge and weave on this.

[okieinpain]

52. I just wonder why you have to get into that discussion at all.

shit just lie about it. and we (dems) should be smart enough to understand what the deal is. mudddy the waters as they say, bush brings it kerry knocks it down by saying let the states decide.

the repugs do this all the time.

[amazona]

56. it's always inconvenient to fight for what is right

There was never a convenient time for civil rights for blacks, women, anyone. Amen to your post.

[baltodemvet]

59. Don't worry

We're not going to back off.