Are gays ingrates? Or have we been shortchanged?

[dsc]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index2.html

A comparison of two constitutencies. First pro choicers.

Abortion Should Be Legal In...
All Clinton Dole Perot Clinton Dole Perot
All Cases 25 69 21 8 35 13 20
Most Cases 35 55 33 11 39 28 41
Few Cases 25 32 57 10 16 35 25
Never 12 23 68 7 6 20 9

Next gays/lesbians/and bisexuals.

Are You Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual?
All Clinton Dole Perot Clinton Dole Perot
Yes 5 66 23 7 7 3 5
No 95 47 43 8 93 97 95

Try to imagine a leading Democratic candidate being asked "would you support an amendment that outlined partial birth abortion?" and answering "It depends on the wording, I favor abortions in the first two trimesters."

Hard to imagine, isn't it? Yet, if you look above gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were more loyal voters than functionally pro choice ones. Even the most solidly pro choice voters are barely more loyal than gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

Yes the numbers of total voters are different, which does matter. But I could point out other groups with fewer total voters, such as Jews, who also have done better. We provided 7% of Clinton's voters in 1996 and did better for Gore. It isn't a lack of gratitude to expect to be treated similarly to other interst groups.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I'll never forgive Clinton for signing DOMA

I'll always appreciate Kerry for voting NO on it.

I still think Kerry's answer was NOT intending to indicate he would sign a bill that limits our rights and I think he MADE it clear in his entire statement. People who heard the broadcast didn't listen to ONE LINE in the manner that people who HEARD ABOUT IT posted here.

[dsc]

2. I listened to the interview BEFORE I read it

and I have no idea what he does or doesn't mean. Frankly supporting any amendment at all is bad enough, but at the very least he could have said that only if the amendment required states to provide civil unions would he vote for it. That would have been a clear statement.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. It would have been clearer

but he also did cite equal protection laws.

I think all the candidates have been asked questions on various issues where they SHOULD have been clearer.

[dsc]

8. The best answer would have been no

and every other candidate gave it. But it has been a few days and no, to my knowledge clarification.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. Well, today on CNN, he said "I don't support marriage,

support civil unions."

I understand that many people interpret that to mean that he supports marriage.

I interpreted it to mean that he does not support marriage but supports civil unions.

It is natural that he would be anxious to please everybody with his positions on this and many other issues, and I think he is skilled enough at manipulating the language and a shrewd enough politician to be successful in many cases.

However, in the case of equal protection under the law versus a separate status for certain groups, he, like all of his colleagues, will have to make a more clearly defined decision.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. yes they will

Ten bucks says they do.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. So bring it on. Click the link, read the blog, spritz the fragrance.

:bounce:

[dusty64]

31. I'm sorry but he

did NOT make it clear at all, thus all the anger and confusion. A simple "No, the Constitution should not be used to discriminate against American citizens" would have been a far better answer. Kerry needs to simply say this and that he is for equality for ALL citizens.

Allowing the extreme right to frame the debate never works for our side and is a BIG part of our problem. It wouldn't hurt to strongly point out the fact that the rethugs have NOTHING positive to offer the Country and do NOT want to discuss their foreign policy disasters, the economic mess, the environment, healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Civil rights should be discussed, but if the Democrats allow it to be the ONLY issue they will have no one to blame but themselves. The extreme right is desperate and it shows, lets get back to a POSITIVE agenda for America.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. As far as laws are concerned, gay people are not an "interest group"

Maybe if you want to talk about protrayals in popular media, or a marketing niche, ok, but when we are talking about the right of a gay person to the same, equal, NOT separate, just plain old same and equal, protection under the law, there are no interest groups.

There are just people, and if there are public servants, hired by the people, who believe that some people should have a separate legal status, school, or drinking fountain based on gender, sexual orientation, national origin or toothpaste preference, they should get that amendment to the Congress right away so that it can be voted on.

[dsc]

5. clearly that argument isn't selling

it is the one I tried first and do belive but clearly that isn't selling here. I figured this was worth a try.

[ringmastery]

4. when 66% of the public

opposes an issue. Politicans are not going to support that issue. It's very simple. Would you rather get Kerry and civil unions and some progress or four more years of Bush and no progress?

[dsc]

7. Partial birth abortion

is opposed by over 70%, gay marriage by around 60%. Yet, anti PBA bills vetoed until the cows come home and 10 for 10 amongst our candidates. Care to try another argument.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. for all I know 66% of the population support slavery

should the constitution be amended to enshrine it as the law of the land?

[IndianaGreen]

28. Most Germans blamed Jews for their troubles back in 1933

What do you think a German politician should have done back then? Play it safe and go with the flow, or make a stand against bigotry?

How is that different from the situation in which we find ourselves today?

[Sapphocrat]

39. I don't blame the 'German politicians' as much as...

...the "German people." Oh, yours is more than an apt comparison, IG -- but politicians get away with only as much as the people allow them to. There's strength in numbers, but the "numbers" are too sluggish or scared to force the politicians to do what is right and just (or maybe they're just not-so-secretly happy to see us queers finally get payback for flying in the face of their many outmoded "traditions").

I once knew a man who, at five years old, escaped Nazi Germany with his mother. Why they had to "escape," he never made clear -- which was no surprise, as he was a WWII revisionist who still pledged his allegiance to a country he hadn't seen in 40 years -- and who refused to believe that the Nazis gassed even one Jew, let alone six million.

Of course we argued, constantly. His argument invariably boiled down to this:

1. There was no Holocaust.

2. If there was a Holocaust, the German people knew nothing about it.

3. If the German people did know about it, well, then, they must have had a very good reason for letting it happen.

I think that is the the sort of "argument" we are going to hear down the road, when somebody asks, "Why did the American people allow the government to confer permanent second-class citizenship on gay people back in 200x?"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. We have a two party system in this country.

Of course gays aren't ingrates. Wouldn't any such sentiment be nothing but bigotry?

[dsc]

12. Maybe you missed some of the previous threads on this

I got called a fag in one. Told to vote for Bush on several occasions. And called other names all for daring to suggest that Kerry should have said No I wouldn't amend the Constitution.

[ringmastery]

13. you need to be pragmatic

It took 100 years after the civil war for blacks to get basic civil rights and there is still rampant discrimination against them. Gays are in for a long, hard fight to achieve civil rights. Pick your battles. Slow and steady wins the race. Demanding everything NOW NOW NOW may do more harm than good. Compared to what gays have now, I would think civil unions is a lot better than nothing.

[dsc]

15. Pro choicers aren't

or didn't you read that post. The simple fact is that partial birth abortion consistently polls worse than gay marriage. Yet PBA bans get treated one way we get treated another.

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. Equal protection under the law sounds like a good battle for everybody

Gay, straight, or independent.

Why is there so much interest in establishing a constitutional provision for separate status for certain groups?

[IndianaGreen]

29. This is the 21st century

and Europe and England are ahead of us on everything, including having gays serve in the military.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. I haven't missed anything.

And anyone who engages in namecalling like that should be banned from DU.

PS. you are misrepresenting what Kerry said.
He was responding to a question about an amendment to the MA state constitution, not the US Constitution.

[dsc]

19. two things

One that wasn't totally clear, and two I don't care which constitution nor do I think pro choicers would.

[dsc]

24. Seperately

It is irrelevant if they are removed or not for my argument. Removal of the posts doesn't make the line of thought behind them non existent. The fact those point of views exist and are to some extent common among progressives is a real problem no amount of banning makes that less of a problem.

[roughsatori]

18. The homophobic posts are allowed to stand

but I know from PMs with other gay and lesbian Duers that there is anger over OUR responses to the bigots getting deleted and a warning in our in boxes. A few of us are afraid that if we fight honestly for our rights and clearly call the bigots, bigots we will be banned.

Churches that insist on unequal policies for GLBT people should have their tax free status stripped. Sorry, but bigotry in the name of God is not a logical argument for continuing oppression or justification for tax free status.

I would go so far as to support banning any religion that practiced bigotry in the USA.

The new Christian mode of pretending to be the victim while they spread hate against other groups nauseates me.

[dsc]

20. In fiarness the fag thing was deleted and the person banned

but I do have to say that some posts have stood which have appalled me as well. But I did want to make clear that the most offensive thing I have sited was removed.

[roughsatori]

23. The polite liberal homophobes are never deleted

They just substitute "gay" for "fag" to clean up their bigotry and it stands.

[kenny blankenship]

27. Likewise

the ones who insinuate or baldly assert that you must be a Republican operative spreading disinformation because you're angry about certain Democratic candidates trading away your civil rights for the votes of a few homophobic swing/independents -- those also are allowed to stand.

[roughsatori]

22. I was told gays marrying was an "abomination" by a DUer

And obvious Freeperish mentality--but more prevalent here than I Can Believe.

[Sapphocrat]

34. Only 'abomination'? Guess you were lucky yesterday.

The posts that dash any hope I have for a meeting of the minds are those against same-sex marriage for no other reason than that it is "morally wrong" from a religious P.O.V. -- and then in the same breath the poster cries victim as if he's the one being persecuted.

How long do you suppose anyone would abide by a thread protesting interracial marriage because it was "morally wrong" according to the poster's "faith" -- with half a dozen other posters chiming in to tell all the black DUers to take what they get and like it, vote in lockstep without complaint, and stop making waves because they're bringing the Democratic party down?

I don't think a stopwatch could measure how fast a thread like that would get locked.

I'm not blaming the admins and mods -- it takes DUers to hit the Alert link. And I don't know if the anti-gay posts simply aren't noticed by anyone who isn't gay, or what. But I'm finding myself hitting Alert a lot more often lately, often hours after a blatantly offensive post has had its effect.

[Sapphocrat]

40. Told to vote for Bush, huh?

Well, at least you got that much -- I was told to stay home on election day. Repeatedly.

[Walt Starr]

16. I think it's worse than just being shortchanged

I think that what is being proposed is the moral equivalent of the ancient "Man Act" laws which prohibited interracial marriage.

[nancyharris]

26. Exactly

And the same excuses used then are being used now. It is frightening to hear Democratic candidates say they oppose gay marriage. It’s as if a new timidity has somehow worked it way into the backbone of the Party. If the Democratic Party does not stand firmly for equal rights for all; then what damn good is it?

[dusty64]

32. I'm afraid the timidity

is not new at all, it has just reached new heights over the last three years.

[dsc]

kick

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Iverson]

33. Lavender Greens link, for those interested

http://www.lavendergreens.org/

Cheers.

[IndianaGreen]

35. "The Green Party platform supports: Same-sex Marriages..."

I doubt that we are going to get such a plank in the Democratic platform!

From your link:

The Green Party platform supports:

Same-sex Marriages, Medical Marijuana & Needle Exchange, Low-Cost AIDS Drugs, Equal Rights, Ending anti-gay bias in the Military, Abortion rights, Civil Liberties, Universal Health Care, Election Reform and Instant Runoff Voting, Nonviolent Solutions to Conflict.

IF YOU BELIEVE in full human rights and equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people and the need for a political party that demands social and economic justice, nonviolence, a healthy environment, and expansion of our freedoms and human rights in a democracy....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Are the greens going to put forth a Pres. candidate or endorse Kerry?

[Iverson]

37. a prediction

This all depends upon what happens at the convention, but I seriously, seriously doubt that Greens will endorse Kerry. With Kucinich you'd have a shot, but you simply cannot ask Greens to vote for a supporter of the USAPATRIOT Act and the Iraq War Resolution. That ain't happenin'. Endorsing Kerry would be like dissolving the party.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Kerry was for the war and for PATRIOT Act

and he appears to be waffling on gay marriage.

I don't know about the Greens, but I do know that the socialist Left is divided on Kerry. Many are ABB because they hate Bush so much, others are arguing that both parties are equally bad and Kerry will merely change the draperies in the White House.