LGBT vote not united

[NMMNG]

Just two weeks out from the first presidential caucus and primary, the gay vote in Iowa and New Hampshire is not reliably behind any one candidate. Contributions to Democrats in the nation’s gayest zip codes appear to give Hillary Clinton a significant edge over Barack Obama and John Edwards. And a pre-selected internet population of lesbian, gay and bisexual consumers nationally shows Clinton with a hefty lead. But interviews with gay voters in Iowa and New Hampshire paint a different picture -- one that looks more muddled and more like that of mainstream voters in those key early states.

<snip>

A look at the four latest polls in New Hampshire show that as of Dec. 13, Clinton had only a three-point lead over Obama, with a margin of error of plus or minus three points. Edwards is in third, 12 points behind Obama. In Iowa, the average of five polls, as of Dec. 17, shows Obama three points ahead of Clinton with a three-point margin of error. And Clinton has only a two-point lead over Edwards. Interviews with gay activists in both states suggest the gay voting block is equally diffuse.

<snip>

"GLBT folks are divided up more this year than in any other," says Rettig, an observation that was echoed time and again by activists in both states. "We have three openly out elected officials here in Johnson County. One is with Clinton, one with Obama, and one, I’m unsure. I know GLBT folks with (Bill) Richardson."

<snip>

"We aren’t a tight-knit group; we’re very large, diverse, and influential," says Buckley. And, noting that a diverse voting bloc increases pressure on candidates to answer questions on gay issues more completely, Buckley adds, "It’s the best thing that we are."

Full Article

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. I would think polling GLBT in small states is quite difficult

Wonder what the South Carolina numbers are...

[NMMNG]

3. There are no LGBT people in SC

Don't you know that? :sarcasm:

[Hieronymus]

2. I know four California lesbians who like Edwards ... definitely not Hillary.

[NMMNG]

4. But all of Teh Gays are voting for Hillary

Or so we've been told. :rofl:

[sniffa]

5. of course

has someone built the updated, gay icon timeline yet?

[NMMNG]

8. I don't know

I don't keep up with that sort of thing. :shrug:

[1corona4u]

6. Well, maybe they should look at Biden...

Ending Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation: Joe Biden believes legal recognition should not be denied same-sex couples. He advocates for re-examining federal laws, including the tax code, to ensure our national laws are not unfair to same-sex couples, and that committed adults who are adopting are not discriminated against because of sexual orientation. He supports letting states determine how to recognize civil unions and define marriage.

Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Joe Biden supports ending the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy. Twenty-four of the nations serving alongside U.S. forces in Iraq permit open service, and it has no negative impact on their forces or the morale of the soldiers. Joe Biden believes turning away patriotic Americans who volunteer to serve solely because of their sexual orientation is wrong.


Stopping Discrimination at Work: While workplace discrimination is not as obvious as when Joe Biden’s ancestors faced “No Irish Need Apply,” signs, today minorities, women, and gays hear excuses like, “she won’t fit in,” or “he’s too qualified,” as employers pass on them. It may be subtle, but it’s hate in the heart, nevertheless. So Joe Biden supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit job discrimination of any kind. He also supports the Fair Pay Restoration Act to overturn a Supreme Court decision that makes it more difficult for women to bring pay discrimination cases.

Punishing Hate Crimes: Joe Biden is a strong supporter of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act to expand federal and state coordination to fight hate crimes. Every year more than 7,000 hate crimes are committed. Joe Biden believes these acts not only hurt victims, they damage the values that are America. The Act would enable the Justice Department to assist local agencies in investigating and prosecuting crimes, and would expand the definition of hate crimes to include offenses based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. He also supports the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act which would dedicate resources at the Department of Justice and FBI to re-open unsolved murders from the civil rights era.




And, as I have postd before, he's the only candidate that has addressed Huckabee's comments;



”Governor Huckabee’s comments on quarantining Americans with AIDS and his targeting of the LGBT community are not only intolerant they’re also ignorant. They perpetuate harmful myths that have no basis in fact. It is important to remember that his remarks came after we passed the Ryan White CARE Act into law and long after the scientific community had reached consensus that HIV/AIDS is not spread through casual contact. Even more telling, Governor Huckabee had the opportunity to recant his comments and chose not to do so.

”I urge all candidates for president, especially the Republicans debating today in Iowa, to stand in unison and reject this sort of hateful rhetoric. The American people are looking for leadership as well as good judgment. Governor Huckabee’s offensive and narrow-minded scapegoating of Americans with AIDS and the LGBT community is not an example of sound judgment that we expect from someone who aspires to unite and represent all Americans.”


http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/12/bidens_rapid ...




I know that's not all of it, but it's a great starting point. He seems open to changing things.

[wuushew]

40. Maybe you should check your avatar's vote on DOMA

just saying.

[Kucinich4America]

7. I only know of one candidate who believes in full equality

Funny how his name isn't mentioned in this article. Is there a "corporate gay media" now?

[1corona4u]

9. I think they were talking about viable candidates..

and before you even say it, yes, Joe is barely viable, but I think that's going to change. But it won't change for DK. Besides, he's too radical. And, by the way, I don't see anything in Joe issues above that saounds like he's against "full equality".

[Kucinich4America]

12. Too Radical for WHOM, exactly?

The corporate media? The DLC? The "defense" industry?

If American voters would stop listening to media whores and DLC spin doctors and voted in their own interests, Dennis Kucinich would win by a landslide bigger than Nixon 72 and Reagan 84 combined.

If you say..... "Well Dennis really represents what I believe, but I'm voting for Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Biden/Richardson/Dodd because they're more "electable", you aren't only compromising yourself, you're compromising this country. And sure enough, there will probably be enough people doing so, leading to compromise for all of us. On a sliding scale, of course, as some of those candidates are considerably better than others.

Bottom line: If you want this fucking war over, and another one prevented, Vote for Dennis. If you want the environment protected, vote for Dennis. If you want single payer, universal health care, vote for Dennis. If you believe that ALL Americans are equal under the law, vote for Dennis. Why settle for less, if you don't have to?

[1corona4u]

14. Too radical for me...

and I'm an Independent. Dennis has some good ideas, but he goes about communicating them the wrong way. Comes off as constantly irrational if you ask me. He has zero people skills, and I think he has a Napolean complex. If you know what I mean...

I think he would just end up bludgeoning his way through everything, with no diplomacy. Just like he did in Cleveland.

PS. I do want the war over, and I do want it done right, so I am voting for Biden, the only one with a plan to do it right.

[TheWatcher]

30. So you'd rather have someone who sounds good and schmoozes well with the Public

Over someone who will ACTUALLY implement Real Change, and actually follow the interests of We The People?

And people wonder why there are Doom And Gloomers.

[XemaSab]

29. Someone can have the right ideas

and still be a shitty leader.

[NMMNG]

10. That's one of the reasons I support him

Though Gravel also supports same-sex marriage, and the eradication of DADT/DOMA. I have no idea why Kucinich isn't mentioned in the article. So many people consider him "unelectable" and therefore, often, unworthy of discussion.

[1corona4u]

11. Let me ask you something..

is the issue that same sex want to have a "marriage" in word, or is it that they want the same benefits of a married man/woman? I'm asking because I'm not sure what the real issue is, but I suspect it's the benefits.

[NMMNG]

15. The benefits come with the word

It's been proven time and time again in VT, NJ and other states that have Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships. No matter how carefully the laws are worded to try to ensure that the CU/DP allegedly gives same-sex couples the same rights as married opposite-sex couples, problems abound. Agencies, corporations, families and others do all they can to avoid granting same-sex couples their legal rights because the couples are not married, and according to "policy" they only have to grant said rights/benefits to married couples.

Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are the "Colored Only" drinking fountains of our times. Separate but Equal has never been, and never will be, equal. Only marriage will ever give the truly equal rights of marriage.

[1corona4u]

16. So, if it was a "civil union"

with the same rights, that would be ok? I mean, if it was the law?

On edit; Ok, I see what you are saying, but, here's my thought on it. Marriage, traditionally, is between a man and a woman. It's been that way since the dawn of time. The real problem is, that there are a lot of people who think that's the way it should be. So you're basically asking people to give up their long standing traditions, and accept same sex marriage, as a marriage. That's going to be very hard to do. I think it will eventually happen, but not for a while longer. And, if it's forced on people, I don't think it's going to go over very well.

[NMMNG]

18. I'm sorry, but did you even read what I wrote?

:shrug:

[1corona4u]

19. Yeah, I had to think on it for a minute..

read it again...

[hulklogan]

26. Marriage traditions vary widely

among cultures. It hasn't always been one man and one woman in every culture for all of human history. So saying that different-sex marriage has "been that way since the dawn of time" just isn't true.

And I don't care what the caveman opinion of marriage was, nor do I care what the 14th Century Chinese version of marriage was like or the 1950s America view of marriage was. And I don't need the approval of people I don't know to validate my marriage and my relationship with my husband. It's none of their fucking business. Their traditions have nothing to do with my traditions anyway.

Why should GLBT Americans have to wait any longer for equality? Why do we need the approval of the fundagelicals and the neanderthals to have equal rights in this country?

[1corona4u]

27. Oh, jeez....

Look, I don't disagree with you, so you don't need to give me an attitude. I simply stated a fact. Maybe people should all care more about what others think. You're asking others to understand YOUR position, but you don't understand theirs.

It's just that simple.

By the way, I'd like for you to provide me some links to back up your statement about marriages not having been traditionally man/woman. I'm unaware of it, and I'd like to be informed.

[Chovexani]

28. Well, see, we're a little testy

When you have people bringing up right wing talking points as an excuse to deny you rights, and saying that you have to tolerate people's bigotry against you, it can make you a little bit cranky.

As always, wiki's your friend. You can go from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage

[1corona4u]

33. I was tallking about the reality you face...

being right wing talking points, or not. It's going to be hard to sell it to the general population.

I guess you missed MY statement, that I AGREE with you.

[hulklogan]

34. I appreciate that you agree with people who support full marriage equality

but there really should be no selling involved.

I hear these irrelevant right wing talking points every day in the small town where I live, and I would expect that people on DU would know better than to regurgitate them as an excuse for postponing full equality for GLBT Americans until every single person is "okay" with same-gender marriage. Like I said before, I don't care what other people think, I don't care about their "traditions," and full equality is not open for negotiation.

Please understand that this "one man one woman since the dawn of time " baloney is both false and offensive.

[Chovexani]

43. Do you think people haven't told us this already?

It's not exactly a stunningly new insight into human nature, nor is it particularly helpful.

When you start demanding "proof" of same sex unions in history because you can't operate Google, you seem a little disingenuous.

[NMMNG]

53. We know it's a hard sell

Our rights have been a hard sell forever, sadly. But we're not going to back down just because some bigots want to maintain their "right" to be bigots.

[LostinVA]

42. So, you also believe blacks shouldn't have been given civil rights in the 60's, eh?

And, the USSC shouldn't have found for the Lovings in Loving v. the State of Virginia? Since most people had a problem with interracial marriage, and most people in the South weren't jazzed about interracial schools. Per your logic.

btw: being public against same sex MARRIAGE is against DU rules as per Skinner's post in 2004.

[1corona4u]

45. I never said that....

and I NEVER SAID THAT I WAS AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE. IF ANYONE TOOK THE FUCKING TIME TO ACTUALLY READ WHAT I DID SAY, YOU'D SEE THAT I AGREE WITH IT.

So much for being able to discuss some questions I had in a CIVIL manner.

[LostinVA]

46. I did read what you wrote, and your logic did claim that

[1corona4u]

47. BS

I was pointing out what I saw as the problem, not MY position on it.

I'm done with this topic. I was trying to understand, but now, I don't give a shit.

[LostinVA]

57. I love it when DUers do the "I don't care about your rights anymore, and it's all your fault" post

edited to add: "You're asking others to understand YOUR position, but you don't understand theirs."

YOUR words, telling us to understand, tolerate, and kinda accept a bigot's position. And you wonder why people are a testy with you.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

48. Wow, DU rocks!

btw: being public against same sex MARRIAGE is against DU rules as per Skinner's post in 2004."

That's why I'm here, I thought it'd be fun to hangout somewhere that homophobia is strictly banned, as we gays rarely ever experience that in real life. I'm probably going to change this intentionally silly name though, that I'd originally only planned to lurk with. And I'm actually a guy anyway.

[LostinVA]

58. Oh, homophobia is still here

Sometimes enragingly so. But, it's not supposed to be. If that makes sense!

[NMMNG]

50. What's simple is this

We've had "their position" crammed down our throat for centuries and we understand it very well. They don't want to understand our position. They don't care about our position.

Their position has been used to denigrate us, stereotype us, marginalize us, closet us, make it legal for others to discriminate against us, and illegal for us to love one another. Their position has been used to justify beating and/or killing us using all manner of "legitimate" excuses. They use the to prevent us from marrying that they used to keep interracial couples apart roughly 50-years ago.

Then politicians from our own party suck up to them and people like them. Year after year these politicians throw us under the bus to get votes from homophobes, and to avoid losing elections lest the RRRW homophobes get unhappy because our politicians dared to stand up for our right to exist and have equal legal rights.

So if some of us seem a bit testy when people come here and appear to be preaching for them, maybe you'll understand why.

[TheWatcher]

31. Nice Right-Wing Talking Points.

I don't care if there are a lot of people who think that is the way it should be. As far as I am concerned, there is no logical reason why people should be denied the right to marry just because they happen to be of the same sex.

There isn't one. NOT ONE.

You can argue tradition or whatever cutsey articulation or spin you can come up with, but I'm sorry, it all comes back to one thing.

Bigotry.

And Bigotry is never a legitimate excuse to deny ANYTHING.

It's time for this country and the planet TO GROW UP.

As for forcing things on people, I think the GLBT individuals in this country and the world have had ridiculous discrimination forced upon them long enough.

Like another poster said, we've had enough of it.

[LostinVA]

39. I was married in September

Most of the attendants at the wedding were fairly strict Catholic Republicans. If a 75-year-old head of The Knights of Columbus, who incidentally thinks Hillary is Satan, can be okay with my same-sex marriage, I think more people can handle it than you think.

Calling it a civil union doesn't work, because too many people say "it's not a marriage" and don't give the benefits.

[WCGreen]

13. Wow...

That means the GLBT community is just like America...

Not a monolithic bloc...

[NMMNG]

17. Exactly

Which is why every time I hear stuff like "All the gays are voting for Hillary" I just :eyes:.

[hardleft38655]

20. the problem..

the problem is each candidate (besides kucinich and that's just not realistic) has basically the same stance on lbgt issues. they all, in theory, want to abolish dont ask dont tell. they all support rights for couples, short of marriage. they all seem to be about the same on hate crimes. lbgt issues are so touchy to the general population that none of these people are going to come out and say they support marriage even if they really do at heart (which i think many of them do). people need to grow some balls. but if none of them is going to go out on that limb, i'm guessing the lgbt community should stand for the electability factor because the GOP sure as hell isn't going to do anything for us.

[1corona4u]

21. I think you're right....

I think you all have a better chance with a democrat than you ever will with a republican. Shit, they want all of us in chuurch on Sunday too...ain't happening here. The problem with the general population is, most of them are religious, which is why they won't allow same sex "marriage". But you all already know that I'm sure.

[NMMNG]

22. Welcome to DU

:hi:


And you make some good points, but I'm so sick and tired of settling just because we have to choose the lesser of two evils and--as they say--"What are you gonna do, vote Republican?"

[hardleft38655]

35. completely agree...

i wish with all my heart we wouldn't just have to settle for the lesser of two evils...and i'm not just talking about on LGBT issues either-environmental legislation, poverty, government spending, etc. unfortunately "liberal" is a four letter word in our society which is really unfortunate because we obviously need change and it's not going to happen, even if we have a dem. in the white house, until someone gets some balls and says "screw the religious right."

[NMMNG]

55. The RRRW has made Liberal a slur

Much like many other words. It's up to us to take it back, own it, and make it something to be proud of again.

[CyberPieHole]

23. But...but...I thought all the gays were for Hillary...

:eyes:

:kick: and recommend

[NMMNG]

25. So we've been told

:P

[IndianaGreen]

24. The Clintons have thrown LGBTs under the bus on more than one occassion

We shouldn't be voting for people that have caused so much harm to our community with their DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[TheWatcher]

32. And they will do so again.

If the GLBT individuals in this country truly believe that Hillary is the answer, I have some bad news for them.

You will NOT gain equality under her watch.

And I have no reason to believe it will be any different with the other candidates.

Kucinich is the only one that has made an impression on me in this regard.

[JackBeck]

36. After Kucinich

I feel Edwards is next as far as understanding the needs of the LGBT community. Even though he hasn't endorsed gay marriage, his wife and daughter have publicly stated their support for gay marriage.

[TheWatcher]

41. Agreed.

I was impressed with that as well.

I just hope he would be willing to do as much as Kucinich would.

[NMMNG]

52. I don't know where the "Gays all are voting for Hillary" notion came from

Just like every other group in the world and every other voting bloc we are not a single-minded monolith. That was the point of the article in the OP. Every time I see that The gays are all voting for Hillary thing I want to :banghead:.

[terrya]

37. I'm cynical enough to believe that ALL of the Dem candidates will throw us under the bus.

Sorry...but I was led down the "gay rights for all" path by Bill Clinton in 1992...and well...once bitten, twice shy. I saw the Logo Presidential forum and they all said nice things (except Clinton, Richardson, Obama and Edwards on same-sex marriage) about the issues we care about. But those are just words. And Obama with the McClurkin episode proved how ready he was to throw us under the bus when it came time for pandering to a hostile group of voters.

Let's just say that I have a wait and see attitude on GLBT issues about all of them if any of the Democratic candidates become President.

[redqueen]

44. No exception for Kucinich? (nt)

[terrya]

49. Even Kucinich.

I know, redqueen, Kucinich is the best candidate for GLBT people. I guess I'm too cynical about this...I just can't buy into this idea that Kucinich, as President, will make all of the issues important to the GLBT community instantly happen. ENDA, for instance, this year is a perfect example of raised expectations.

[Kucinich4America]

51. I don't know if anyone (short of Jesus himself) could change things instantly

What I do know, is that even a process of change isn't possible if those in power have no commitment to change it. Putting Dennis in the White House is half the battle. Convincing the spineless jellyfish in Congress to stand with him for equality is the other half.

Would Bill Clinton have done more without assholes like Sam Nunn in his way? It's possible. Did Bill Clinton really fight Nunn and the other homophobes on the issue? Not from what I remember.

[redqueen]

56. It's true... he couldn't wave a magic wand...

but I do trust that he would honestly try.

[bicentennial_baby]

38. Happy to give this a 5th rec!

:bounce:

:hi:

[NMMNG]

54. Thank you!

:hi:

[wuushew]

59. kick

:kick: