What is the Dems problem with Gays

[sjdnb]

I've posted several times indicating that Gays should be allowed to marry and be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.

Yet, on these boards this seems to remain somewhat taboo - like Dems want to kind of support gays, but not in the 'religious' sense.

That is BS.

And, I'm not even gay - but I can respect the fact that two people love each other - no matter what the sexes - and want to commit to a life together. Love is a great thing - and, given what most gays are up against, the fact that they're willing to fight to preserve it is even more compelling.

[MadBadger]

1. Are you sure ur talking about DU?

[Mr_Monday]

2. Trying not to disenfranchise the Gay Vote nt

[Kucinich4America]

3. I have no problem with full equality whatsoever

Neither does Dennis Kucinich.

[gateley]

4. What on earth are you talking about? Dems don't have a problem with gays.

Why do you keep posting these threads?

[sjdnb]

6. Read a few threads about how civil unions are ok

but marriage -- not so much, and get back to me.

[CarbonDate]

5. Before I answer....

...let me first say that I fully support gay marriage and equal rights for gays in every aspect of our society, including the military.

With that said, I think the reason many Dems are hesitant to support gays is because gay marriage has been successfully used as a wedge issue with which to beat Dems up, and Dems would rather focus on issues where the majority of the public is clearly on their side, at least in election years.

Not an excuse, of course; I'm just saying that's probably why.

[Mr_Monday]

8. Excatly.

We should avoid the subject like the plague until the end of the elections. Just my opinion.

[sjdnb]

9. And, that is precisely why the Dems have gotten stomped by the GOP

they are not willing to lay it on the line for what they believe in.

Whether it be Iraq, No Child Left Behind, Impeachment, or Gay Marriage ... they fold before the confrontation.

It's pathetic ... and, something our fore fathers would have found quite shameful.

Does anyone believe what they fought for was 'popular'?? Given Britannia ruled the day??

[Mr_Monday]

14. Ask yourself

What percentage of the electorate has "Gay issues" as their #1 concern?

[cboy4]

37. Yes, the wishy washy don't want to rock the boat

political strategy of the Democrats is why the party struggles with it's wimpy, soft on defense, tax raising reputation.

None of that is true, but they're too nice.

It's why impeachment was immediately off the table.

The reason same sex marriage, and talk of same sex marriage sounds so more mainstream now is because the issue was rightfully shoved into the faces of a mostly unhappy populace, just as all civil rights issues have been over the years.

If the Democrats have their way, this is how they will handle same sex issues:

Oh we can't do it now because we don't want it to cost us the White House this year.

Then when we win the White House. Oh, we can't do it now because we don't want it to be used as a wedge issue for the '10 midterms.

And then after the '10 midterms, can't do anything about it now because we don't want it to cost us the White House in 2012.

Vicious cycle. Ya know?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. Unfortunately, support for equal marriage is still viewed as political suicide

As evidenced by the unwillingness of the 3 frontrunners to support it. It may be the polls on the issue, or pure cowardice, but whatever the reason, only Kucinich has expressed support for it.

[origin1286]

10. As I explained to you in the other thread (I think it was you)

You can't open the can of worms that would be forcing churches to marry gays.

Federally they should get all rights that go to married couples, but churches should be free to set their own rules.

[sjdnb]

11. No church HAS to marry gays -- but, they also need not be

considered tax-exempt entities, if they do not (if they chose not to adhere to our laws of equity, so be it). Either they believe in what the government deems as a civil right -- or, they go it on their own, and God bless (without the tax exempt status).

[origin1286]

12. Political minefield

Treads on dangerous waters. Comes dangerously close to regulation of religion. Will divide the country even more. Why not force churches to integrate? Some are still white and black only. Why not force churches not to promote a woman submitting to her husband? That goes against equality.

It opens up a can of worms that is unnecessary.

If gays are afforded the same legal rights as married heterosexuals, there will be no shortage of McChurches popping up to marry them.

[sjdnb]

15. That's Bullshit

If churches are allowed tax exempt status the least we can do is make sure they are not sexist, racist, homophobic entities. Otherwise, we are undermining everything this country was meant to stand for.

[origin1286]

17. Not necessarily

Churches depend upon participation. If the church is that disagreeable, people won't attend and the church dies.

The beauty of the tax exempt status is that it applies equally to churches of all beliefs. Regulating what a church can promote is a violation of the first amendment (providing tax exempt status to a religion only presenting favorable beliefs).

[sjdnb]

18. Yeah, that might be fine and dandy except

Gays are a minority ... and, just like all other minorities they will never get a 'real' place at the table. But, the churches will still be tax-exempt - no matter what they support/do.

[origin1286]

20. Let me illustrate

Lets say the Church of Bigoted Assholes doesn't believe in gay marriage. They interpret their bible to say that. It is the pillar of their belief.

If the Government punishes them for that belief, they are punishing them because their beliefs aren't in line with the government's and public's belief. This is a violation of the 1st amendment and the legal principal of separation of church and state. It would never hold up in the courts.

Just let gays get married and have them find a church on their own to perform the ceremony. There are plenty.

Also, I think you may be confusing religious marriage and federal marriage. You can get married without the involvement of any religion.

[sjdnb]

21. And, so the completely lose their tax exempt status

Fine with me. Only the Constitution matters in this debate -- and, it explicitly states that the government shall NOT promote or prohibit religion ... not that it wills subsidize -- especially, if the religion alienates a significant population of the people.

[origin1286]

23. But

By removing their tax exempt status it is punishing them for their beliefs. It would be unequal treatment of religion. It would not fly and it really is pointless to even try. It's completely unnecessary.

[sjdnb]

24. BS religion of any sort was never intended to be

subsidized by the country/it's tax dollars.

All the founding fathers recognized the danger of supporting a/any religion and, specifically, wrote such language out of the Constitution.

[origin1286]

25. But it is

And now that it is, all must be treated equally.

I'm all for removing any and all government involvement in religion.

[sjdnb]

26. So you are saying because some UnConstitutional things

have occurred, we must follow with more UnConstitutional things?

[origin1286]

27. If it is not prohibited by the constiution...

It is not unconstitutional.

[sjdnb]

30. PROMOTING or PROHIBITING any Religion IS

Unconstitutional ... look it up.

Thereby, any government entity granting any religion preference over another = UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[origin1286]

32. Exactly

Which is why all religions are given the same tax exempt status. No promoting or prohibiting there since they're all being raised to the same level at the same time.

[sjdnb]

33. None should be given tax exempt status

is my argument -- not promoting or prohibiting means no preferential treatment - hands off -- including tax exempt status.

[origin1286]

35. I agree with you

I said awhile back that I would like government removing themselves totally from religion. It's just not a feasible platform to run on and no way it gets through congress (anyone who votes yes is screwed when it's time for re-election).

[ingac70]

31. Hang on just a second...

Churches regularly reject marrying couples for a variety of reasons. My Methodist cousin married a Jewish girl, and it took them forever to find a non denominational Christian church to marry them. Their own religions wouldn't touch it.

Rejecting folks in that regard is the churches prerogative. There are other churches, and folks can always go to the court house when gay marriage finally gets anywhere.

[sjdnb]

34. Fine, they want to descriminate -- let them give up their

tax exempt status -- let's see how many of them are willing to give that away,

[ingac70]

36. That is never going to happen...

It is best for gays to go get legally married (when it happens) in an atmosphere friendly to them than shove it down the throats of religions that don't accept it by forcing them to use their church for the ceremony.
I can only imagine the horrors that will go of if the gov't starts threatening mosques that refuse to marry gays in your ideal world, let alone backwater Baptist churches.

The way you want things is only inviting violence.


:wtf:

[harmonicon]

19. but that's just silly

LOTS of churches perform gay weddings. It's the government that's behind the curve. Personally, I think we ought to do way with marriage, apart from as a legal contract which any two persons could make, as far as the government's concerned. Marriage is, and should only be, a religious matter. I would much rather see a fight for the end of government sanctioned heterosexual marriage than for gay marriage. Sill, equal is equal, and as long as the government wants to be involved, they ought to treat all people equally.

[cboy4]

38. No offense, but you've recited one of the false talking

points of the fundies.

Nobody is demanding that any church be forced to marry same sex couples.

Please learn about this issue before you spread harmful misinformation.

The churches would still write their own rules regarding same sex issues.

And that's why it's so ridiculous that this is even a problem.

How have the couples who have gotten legally married in Massachusetts threatened the churches?

[Anouka]

13. In Real News: Guess where the head of HRC was/is, instead of NH?

Or, perhaps 'real-er' news; depending on one's feelings for whether this is newsworthy or not:

HRC leader at LA party for 'L Word,' avoiding NH

(with a thank you to mpetrelis of Daily Kos for putting the thread up about Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign prefering Paris Hilton to New Hampshire. Or perhaps it's too much to ask that he be in New Hampshire. In mpetrelis' own blog there is a link to a gossip site with photos, mostly of Paris. There is a man in one of the candid shots -- ONE -- but I wouldn't have been able to tell you if it were Solmonese or not. Is Paris a gay/lesbian icon? Why?)


EDIT: I'd include the photo of Solmonese in front of a backdrop with Showtime and the Human Rights Campaign symbols written across it, but the link is broken when trying to post it here.

mpetrelis writes:

Where, oh, where in the world could the fearless leader of the country's premier gay political pressure group, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, be at this historic political moment?

We know that on Saturday he was in San Francisco meeting dozens of angry tranny leaders for a private discussion about ENDA and gender identity issues, but where was Solmonese?

You know, the man the media and lots of gay folks think of as not just the boss of HRC but by extension the number one gay leader and spokesman for all LGBT people, he was on the ground in New Hampshire doing his vital part to fighting for our visibility and equality on Sunday, right?

Nah, Solmonese was still in California. He was down in Hollywood walking the red carpet and hanging out at the shindig for the season premier of the dramatic cable lesbian series "The L Word." I am disgusted with Solmonese and the HRC.

Is a party for a television show really all that more important a political concern at this time for the head of a $25 million advocacy group, over the first in the nation primary? The answer is in the photos above.

Is this making too much ado about nothing, however?

And I wonder what happened in that private meeting with members of the 'T' in LGBT? (by the way, I always thought it was 'GLBT' -- too sexist?)

[Fearless]

16. I do know what you're talking about...

as well as the political suicide excuse described above me. Yet, there is another two occurrences I've seen browsing the GLBT forum (which I unabashedly do). First, there is the small group of libertarians and / or anti-religious folks that, although not mutually exclusive to their groups' beliefs, believe that marriage should remain a fixture of the church and that government shouldn't get involved. I have spoken at length about this in the GLBT forum just a day or two ago. (I disagree, if it matters.) And secondly, there is a group of "dems" and or dems (freepers and actual "so called" dems) who don't believe that gay marriage rights should "be given". Of course, I'd say they can't be given, only taken, and even then not really.

I digress... We also forget that the label Democrat does not make cookie cutter people. And this is a public forum with bloggers of all sorts. I personally can't tolerate a large group of them, but I'll live, I have that "thick skin" gene I suppose.

Gay rights will progress even with its detractors, perhaps in spite of them and in a quicker manner because of them. I hear what you're saying, and I don't mean to justify the -ism of their choice, which ever it may be, but they have the right to free speech the same as we do. It's simply unfortunate that they choose to use it in such an un-American and un-egalitarian manner. They claim to be for "freedom" but impose oppression. They claim to be for "equality" but impose inequality through inaction and blatant injustice. They're going to say a lot of things and I for one am not going to let them get away with it. I'll call them at every turn and for every line of hate they utter. ...I think I'm beginning to rant so I'll just say this... Hate only wins if we let it.

[musicblind]

22. the truth about gay marriage

Here's the deal, and I am gay so I think I can speak on it clearly. Gay Marriage would mean that no church is required to marry another gay person. Right now, no church is REQUIRED to marry any straight person. However, many churches would like to provide legal weddings for gay people and cannot. I have a pastor from the united church on sunset street who has complained about this. He WANTS to marry gay people in a LEGALLY BINDING wedding but cannot do so. He has offered to marry me in a non legally binding ceremony however.

The Baptist church at Wake Forrest has performed gay weddings. In fact there are all gay christian churches even in North Carolina.

Legalizing gay marriage would NOT force any church to perform anything. That would be regulating religion. However, gay marriage would ALLOW churches that WOULD LIKE TO PERFORM THESE CEREMONIES and would like them to be legally binding to do so. Allowing gay marriage does not restrict what someone can do with their religion, it allows churches the religious freedom to perform these ceremonies if they wish to do so.

[sjdnb]

28. From the parent of a gay son and his pastor

the government sucks ... making laws about what a church can or cannot do is just BS. And, treating gay partners as if they had no bond between them/responsibility for each other -- more BS. Playing games with tax exemptions -- more BS.

And, anyone making excuses for the way it is, is doing just that -- making excuses.

[NMMNG]

29. They're spineless a$$holes who don't give a damn about us

Our needs, concerns and lives aren't important enough to them for them to treat us like humans because they might piss off the bigots. So long as they're not so nasty we stop voting for them they think they're doing right by us.

[Mythsaje]

39. I just wish religion didn't get dragged into the debate.

Any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a contract with one another and the government without some nitwit's religious bias fucking it all up. And, hell, why stop at two? If five people want to get married to one another, I'm okay with that too. Why anyone would WANT to, I have no idea (real emotional and mental intimacy with one partner can be difficult enough sometimes...I can't imagine having multiple partners).

Near as I can tell, the only objection seems to come from religious perspectives... So a particular church doesn't want to "marry" two people of the same gender. Fine. Let the government issue the damn license and let someone from another church (or a complete heretic like myself) perform the ceremony.

Why should anyone who's not specifically involved even give a rat's ass?