I might be stepping on thin ice, but the whole gay marriage thing..

[Bread and Circus]

is making me nervous.

It's getting way more attention than I like and the issue
being raised does serve the purposes of George Bush.

Frankly, I am hetero. I've got some gay friends and family.
I am certainly pro Civil Unions and if a Church wants to marry
gay folks than I am all for it.

However, this is going to be a liability for our candidate.

Bushco. wants to fan the flames.

So here is where I am going to piss some people off:

I wish the gay folks would keep a lid on it and stop waving their
banner for the moment. Rosie getting married on TV is great but
it's not great this year.

I disagree where Kerry and Edwards are on this issue. They are
waffling. It makes them look bad. However, a more principled
position will only help solidify the opposition. It's a lose lose
for us.

Am I wrong to wish all those San Francisco couples would not be
on TV?

[Padraig18]

1. Not to antagonize, but...

... why should we 'be quiet' about an issue of such fundamental importance to many of us? If you want our votes, is it too much to ask for you to respect us and our quest for equal rights?

:)

[Bread and Circus]

2. Yes, I agree that it is a fundamental issue...

But don't you agree both Edwards and Kerry look pretty
pathetic dancing around the issue?

[Padraig18]

I think they're both sincere.

I have no great love for Sen. Kerry, as you may know, but I think that both he and Sen. Edwards are sincere in their statements on this issue. I can respect someone who sincerely holds a different point of view from my own, yet respects my view, at the same time. I think both senators' positions do that.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

99. So........

We should "be quiet" about very valid issues so as not to make our candidates look pathetic? If issues makes them look pathetic then thay have no business what so ever running in the first place. What we really need is not for the gay community to be quiet but candidates that can handle the issue.

[krkaufman]

55. Also not trying to antagonize, but...

... I agree with the original poster; I fully support gay marriage but wish it were being raised as an issue *right now*.

I just wish this issue weren't getting such exaggerated press relative to all the other issues where Bush's performance puts him in the electoral minority.

It's very possible that "gay marriage" could become the 2004 GE equivalent of "Oval Office blow job" -- scaring just enough people to keep the Idiot in office. And what's *THAT* gonna do for *anybody's* equal rights?

[arwalden]

106. Consider Me ANTAGONIZED!!

I'll just sit over here until nice folks like you let me know when you think it's okay for me to SCREAM MY FUCKING LUNGS OUT!!

Who should I be more OUTRAGED AT??? The "sit-down-and-shut-up" stealth bigots on this BBS, or the criminal Bush*?

-- Allen

[Cronus Protagonist]

108. One wonders if this were during segregation would...

...any posters on here be asking these nice "nigra folk" to tone it down while we try to win an election with some only slightly racist Democratic leaders?

So, not only would they be asking that you continue to sit in the back of the bus, but, pretty please, keep your trap shut about it as well, much like some posters on this thread are exhorting.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Then the question should be asked why now

Why is this happening now rather than two years ago? If it could wait that long why can't it wait a little longer when there won't be a Presidential campaign where a Republican can use this as a wedge issue?

[Cuban_Liberal]

84. Focus.

Creative tension. Visibility. Leverage.

[maxanne]

113. because

next year, or two years from now, you'll have another reason to put it off. Civil rights aren't a matter of convenience. Would you have said to slaves, "hey - it's damned inconvenient to free you right now, could ya wait till next year?"

[Atlant]

3. It should make you nervous.

Your candidate has a long history of waffling on tough questions,
and he's already waffling mightily on this one.

Unless he finds a position soon and sticks with it, this one
issue alone will cost him millions of potential votes, no
matter which position he appears to hold (for the moment).

Atlant

[Bread and Circus]

5. Ok, so what's your realistic alternative....

seriously.

Kerry is not perfect, but he has a chance of winning and he's
decent (on balance).

I love purists like Kucinich but politics is the art of compromise.

We are not electing the mayor of San Francisco, we are electing
the President of the United States (including the red states).

[rucky]

11. Politics is the art of Negotiation

there's a difference between that and compromise.

You go to the table stating what you want - not what you're willing to give away. Dems.

[Bread and Circus]

14. Semantics...negotiation...compromise...

Give me a break. Ultimately, the effect is the same.

We can't have it "just our way" as much as the Christian
Right Wing can't have it "just their way".

On Federal issues, you have to find common ground.

[rucky]

34. I would love to sell you a car.

You tell me how much a fair price would be & I'll tell you how much I want, then we'll meet in the middle.

:)

[Face Up To It]

40. LOL

Why don't those gays just shut up? now, replace "gays" with African- Americans.

[jansu]

51. Or women or any other group of people who just asking for their Rights!

[Atlant]

21. *I* would have been for "Civil Unions" all along.

If *I* were trying to get elected, then...

*I* would have been for "civil unions" all along.

My candidate was for "civil unions".

I'd ialso try *VERY HARD* to re-define the terms so that *ALL* civil
marriages were "civil unions" and "marriages" were purely religious
ceremonies performed by churches. And then I'd let each church set
the rules for their marriages in whatever fashion they wished.

But as with so many other issues, Kerry has been all over the map,
and his language shifts dramatically with the progress of time and
the changes of venue and audience. At this point, he's toast as
regards this particular issue (and we'll see how many other issues
he blows by November 2nd).

(This, by the way, is somewhat "to the right" of my personal beliefs.
I honestly don't have any qualms about calling gay civil unions
"marriages" any more than I have qualms about calling non-gay civil
unions "marriages". But you asked how I would have positioned my
views to win election in this Puritanical wasteland called America
so I've answered you.)

Atlant

[cosmicdot]

31. when I took Political Science 101, politics was 'the art of persuasion'

compromise involves concession or modification of principles in attempt to reach an 'agreement'.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting about Dennis Kucinich, but it doesn't sound like a fair analysis: he's a 'purist' because he has ideas of what our Nation needs to survive and improve?? he's a purist because he won't compromise support for Founding Principles by modifying his rhetoric?? I'd call him a leader, much like those who have always 'led' in bringing all Americans civil rights guaranteed under our Constitution.

Maybe we should go back into the closet (back of the bus) until the coast is clear.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. The definition of politics is "who gets what, when , and how"

NT

[Monte Carlo]

4. The Dems would waste lots of time on money on the issue...

... whether or not gay marriage is enacted, because they are fundamentally for civil rights for gays and everyone else, but they are conflicted. The GOP, on the other hand, has no such conflict, and is happy to see the Dems use its resources defending itself.

[mmm]

20. Exactly! Bush will divide and conquer

Bush will not lose one vote on this;
the Dems will spend lots of time and energy infighting,
time and energy that should have been used attacking Bush.
Eventually the Dem candidate will lose votes
on this issue. This should have waited until after the elections.

[Monte Carlo]

24. Coldly speaking, the Dems have no votes to gain and lots of votes to lose.

Just like you said. Kerry and Edwards right now are being forced to choose between bad and worse electoral strategies. They need to absorb bad and move on.

Because America right now is just not ready to accept gay marriage. In a few years, maybe, but right now there's an election that is absolutely vital that must take precedence over gay marriage.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

100. America is not ready?

Says who? And please, don't give me poll statics. Those are very small samplings taken from God knows where. I'm sure if you polled 200 people from Jackson Mississippi you would get the "America is not ready" result, but swing it to NY or CA and it will more than likely be very different. So, again I ask, who says America is just not ready? And a better question than that, what the hell gives "America" the right to decide who can marry who? Could it be the same right that America has to decide what governments of other countries are acceptable and which ones are not?

[BootinUp]

6. She's givin way! (the ice)

LOL! You kill me sometimes Doc. :)


I wouldn't worry to much. I like the way Kerry is playing it so far, and Americans can smell a rat I mean repuke too. You heard that the Gay bashing amendment in Georgia failed right?

[daveskilt]

7. it is sad that the dem candidates are so weak

Well edwards and kerry anyway. But dancing around this is ridiculous. It is an issue of basic human rights and dignity - should all people have equal rights? I think it hurts them more to NOT take a stand on this. what bushco have done to the economy is terrible, what is going on in Iraq is a human rights issue (as well as imperial colonialism which I am always just a teensy bit uncomfortable with.) But the human rights issue in the US is gay marriage, just like any of the civil rights issues of the 60's were the big issue for human rights in america then. This issue deserves attention and the waffling for fear of losing votes is sickening.

[Not Me]

8. Things are happening so quickly

that I am beginning to think this is not going to be the polarizing issue that Rove thought it would be in November.

With almost 3500 couples married in California, a couple dozen in New Mexico, and today (see 365gay.com) Upstate New York is joining in, it is beginning to put a face on the issue. It is causing discussion and education to occur where it had been way too silent.

In Georgia, where they were absolutely certain to pass an anti-gay amendment just a few weeks ago, it just FAILED to pass in their House. I am convinced it is because of all the outrage over Bush's endorsement of FMA.

And further, Kerry and Edwards are doing a great job of not falling for the trap. If you saw the debate last night, they discussed the issue, their stand, and then brought the moderators back to what they wanted to focus on: Jobs, the economy, and Iraq.

[rucky]

16. It's a MOVEMENT. Are we on the bus or not?

Call it fanning the flames - I call it changing public perception.

[RandomKoolzip]

9. Yeah, I think you're wrong...

I'm straight too, but you should never tell an oppressed group without the same rights as you to "keep quiet" about not having those rights.

This is an important issue to a lot of folks, and I respect that. All people should have the same rights as you and me. I doubt that backlash on this one will be as harsh as you think, because there's an issue here that gets on Libertarian's nerves too, that being the proposed changes to the Constitution itself. THAT's what's really sticking in a lotta people's craws here.

[Bread and Circus]

19. It's fine to disagree....

but do you disagree this may serve Bush and ultimately
get that Amendment passed?

[RandomKoolzip]

25. No, I think it'll make Bush look like a clown.

Even most moderate- to- right social conservatives don't favor AMENDING THE DAMN CONSTITUTION to outlaw something most of them will never have any contact with. I think a lot of them (not all) see that there are too many other problems that we're facing that Bush doesn't care about, like social security.

I think it'll backfire.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

103. Sure it might

And it will be another test of the democrats in congress. Will they quiver like jellyfish again and say "Yes sir, whatever you want sir"? Or wiil they develope a spine and a little bit of resolve and stand up and say NO?

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Equal Rights under the law as an opt-inn choice for states has a lot of

very business-friendly potential.

Suppose I have 50 office employees, and several hundred laborers.

Most of the laborers belong to a particular ethnic group.

It would help me out a lot if my state would establish a separate legal status for that ethnic group. I could save a bundle in benefits alone!

[truthspeaker]

12. I don't think it's serving Bush's purposes

On the contrary, I think it's going to backfire. Even people who are uncomfortable about gay marriage are going to look on TV and see two things: gay people getting married and acting normal and happy, contrasted with far-right anti-gay forces calling for the Mayor of San Francisco to be arrested and put in jail. The hate and stridency will put them off, and even if they don't necessarily support gay marriage it won't be an election issue for them.

[HFishbine]

13. Why not apply this thinking

to any issue on which there is a difference with Bush. Sholdn't we just shut up about tax cuts, about health care, about trade, about seperation of church and state, hell, let's just keep our mouths shut about everything so that our candidates can comfortably waffle their ways towards the nomination.

[Bread and Circus]

26. I think Kerry explained it very well in the debate.

This is just a distraction from issues that are vitally
important to every American. Jobs, healthcare, and environment.

I am glad I raised this issue because it's all Kosher for many
DU'ers.

Gay marriage being a focal point will not help win the swing states.

[loftycity]

15. It is a gift to the Fundamentalist's........

And that is why our left is non-committal at the moment.

This is what the Bush Administration is after and calling it a stall.

I hope all gays notice this and realize that they are being used.


Bush is giving the Christian Right a gift and we all have to wake up to what is going on.. Fundamentalists are his base and he needs their votes.

[rucky]

23. For every RR church that opposes gay marriage

there are churches (evangelical, even) that accept it. The fight is being & has been fought within the Christian church for some time now. The Democrats could have a powerful ally (and voting bloc) if we'd just aknowledge the fight, instead of trying to separate ourselves from it. We'd have a lot more people on our side - and mainstream Christians themselves will understand the issue better. Right now everybody on our side thinks most of the churches are against it. All that does is legitamize the issue and distort it in their favor.

[mmonk]

17. All Kerry and Edwards should do is express equal rights

and not let their messages be diverted.

[Imajika]

18. It is a bad issue for Democrats

Your post is a good one.

I am pro-gay marriage. I think civil unions is something akin to separate but equal, and I believe the fight for full marriage rights is a worthy one.

The problem is the majority of the United States population is not even close to the DU position on this. The issue of gay marriage needs to move slowly. Some of the most grevious wrongs have not been solved overnight. The US population is not ready for gay marriage. The more Americans see what is happening in San Francisco and other places, the more infuriated they will get. Californians just voted against gay marriage - yet it is happening against their will.

We can not take a principled stand on every issue all the time. Politics does not work that way. Sometimes a population is just not ready to do the right thing, push the issue too far, too fast - and were liable to see a major backlash.

Most Americans are going to see Bush take a clear stand against gay marriage, and even if most Americans are not for a constitutional amendment, they will know and generally agree with Bush's position. Bush's position is easy to define - against gay marriage on every level, no waffling. Kerry's position on gay marriage is not so clear - against gay marriage, yet also against the DOMA.

Despite the politically tone-deaf predictions on DU, gay marriage is a net plus for Bush going into the 2004 elections, and it is a net negative for Kerry. Just how much of a net negative I don't know.

I am concerned about this issue as well. The other big issue that concerns me is the dealth penalty. That will also be a big issue, especially if it is true that Kerry is even against the dealth penalty for terrorists who kill Americans.

Imajika

[Bread and Circus]

27. Thanks, your post is better stated than mine but it is exactly...

how I feel.

[Dhalgren]

33. I believe that any voter who would base his or her vote

on whether or not a candidate was pro- or anti- gay marriage has already decided for whom they will vote. If you are strong pro-gay marriage, you will not vote for Bush; if you are strong anti-gay marriage, you will not vote for a Democrat anyway. The Dem candidate should treat this issue as a simple equal rights issue - which is what it is - and move on.

[Imajika]

39. That is just not the way American..

...politics work.

"The Dem candidate should treat this issue as a simple equal rights issue - which is what it is - and move on."

The Dem candidate does not get to pick and chose what will be an election issue. The media and Bush will have quite a lot to say about that.

Gay marriage is not popular with a majority of Americans. Most Americans do not like what they are seeing in San Francisco and elsewhere. Further, the issue is moving to other states and localities, and it will further infuriate people who, every chance they get, have said they do not support gay marriage.

Bush's position is clear. Kerry's position is not. Most Americans will support Bush's stance.

The Republicans and media will continue to hound Kerry till he adequately squares his opposition to gay marriage with his vote against the DOMA. Kerry will struggle to do this and it will appear that he is waffling - which plays directly into the political strategy Rove is going to run with.

The GOP is going to say Kerry waffles because he is not a decisive leader and is trying to hide the fact that he is a Massachusetts liberal.

I do believe Kerry can overcome this issue, but that is the problem, it will put him on the defensive in many States instead of Bush. Couple that with Kerry's opposition to the death penalty, even for terrorists whom kill Americans, and I suspect Kerry will have an uphill struggle to win even 1 single southern state.

Imajika

[Dhalgren]

43. This is what I am saying.

People who would vote for Bush because of a pro-gay marriage stand by the Democratic candidate would vote for Bush anyway. Anyone who thinks that anti-gay marriage is a more important issue than the economy, the war, civil liberties, social security, international relations and on and on is going to vote for Bush anyway - the Democratic candidate will not be able to win that vote by taking a less than full equal rights stand. That is MNSHO.

[unfrigginreal]

22. It was a gift from Bush

It shows Bush in an extreme light and the media will have to play it that way. The media won't be able to continue courting gay viewers if they propagandize this as a moderate view.

From what I've seen all of our candidates have handled this deftly.

[rucky]

28. Polls show a majority of Americans support FMA

but I agree, the issue will be over soon. It makes the other side uncomfortable to talk about it.

[arcos]

132. Not true, a majority OPPOSE FMA... n/t

[Fleshdancer]

29. The problem with our party and our candidates regarding this issue

is that for every time a pundit, conservative, or homophobe uses the term Gay marriage in disgust, we should be out there yelling EQUAL RIGHTS from the rooftops.

Americans don't always agree on the details but if you ask anyone if they believe all Americans should be treated equally, 99.9% would say YES. Many don't really understand what not having the right to marry means but they understand the term equal rights.

We can go out there and say "look, our party has a long history of fighting for equal rights. we do it when it's not popular because we care for ALL Americans and it's the right thing to do. Can George Bush say that? Can his party say that? We don't think so."

But no. Our candidates and our party cower. And for what? To add another point or two on a stupid poll that is irrelevant in a month or two anyway? The primaries aren't even over yet. There are many moons between now and November so we need to get off our asses and actually start embracing the political ideology I thought we believed in.

[libertad]

30. Should Rosa Parks have stayed at the back of the bus so that

we could feel a little more comfortable? So that we'd get a few more votes?

[Not Me]

32. What a great comeback!

When Bill O'Reilly (et al) start with their rant that Gavin Newsom is out there breaking the law...

reply with:

"Then you are saying that Rosa Parks should have just quietly moved to the back of the bus!"

Good one.

[Face Up To It]

41. not to toot my own horn, but

please read #40 (which I posted before seeing this because I was just reading down the line)

[gottaB]

35. I think you're wrong

I think people should stand up for their rights. The candidates can deal with it.

The only part where I sort of agree with you is that I don't think the candidates should be pressured into taking controversial positions at this time. It's the most gay-friendly Democratic field in history, standing up against the most homophobic US president in history, and I think anybody who advocates for gay rights should be aware of that fundamental political alignment.

But hell no, people shouldn't shut up or stop protesting and demanding their rights.

[NicoleM]

36. Yes.

You're wrong. How long are people supposed to wait to have the same rights as you and I? What if * wins/steals this election? Should they have to wait another four years or more?

There is a way to go about this without making it a liability for our candidate. Paint W as an extremist, a flip-flopper, someone who is willing to turn a group of Americans into second-class citizens. Educate America on what gay marriage/civil unions really mean--nobody is going to make their church marry gay people if the church doesn't want to. Make the other side articulate EXACTLY why they think gay marriage will lead to the end of the world as we know it.

This is why we lose all the damn time. Because we're so scared of losing the precious swing vote that we let the Rs roll right over us. Besides, as somebody said before, the only people who will vote on this issue alone are already committed to one side or the other. Most people will be voting on the economy and Iraq.

[BeFree]

37. Forget gay marriage

What we need is an amendment banning the sleazy marriage of business men and men politicians!

[jor_mama]

38. I think we're partly missing the point on this, too

I was thinking of making this a separate thread, but I think it could fit in here.

Aside from pro or con on the gay marriage issue, it shouldn't even be a federal issue. It should rest with the states. The states have had their powers stripped so much as of late, that I don't know if this part of the debate merits any effort, but states should have the power to decide this in and amongst themselves. And it might be that some states allow it and some states disallow it. Frankly I would much prefer this than a federal mandate that came down on either side of the issue. The reason? It establishes an unconstitutional precedent that says later the federal government can mandate issues -- the decisions on which should rest with the states. We won't always agree with every law and rule, but when the decision is up to each of the 50 states I think we have a much healthier government.

[Dhalgren]

44. I would agree with you to a point.

This issue is a civil rights issue and the feds have already mandated that states cannot by their individual laws infringe on the civil liberties of any person or group. If a state can say "two men cannot be married", then that state can say "a black and a white can not be married". I think that saying it is a states rights issue is going backward.

[On the Road]

45. From a Purely Political Point of View

the Massachusetts court decision came at an inopportune time for both Bush and the Democrats.

Bush is forced to either seriously alienate his base or lose log cabin Republicans and others sympathetic to gay marriage with the DoMA.

Democrats who supported civil unions had a winning position -- it was a progressive stance which most Americans accept, even most of those who are against gay marriage per se. (Howard Dean, for example, got points for being progressive and taking a stand unpopular at the time even while stopping short of supporting full marriage.)

Now, support for civil unions (or worse, support of DoMA) seems reactionary. Support for gay marriage is a less popular position which will turn off some Democratic voters (Catholics or some progressive churchgoers). Politically, I think the Democrats have to embrace gay marriage, but it's not as good a position to be in politically.

Personally, I don't know who comes out worse. I think the country was slowly coming to a consensus that's been thrown into chaos by a very strange court decision.

[arwalden]

46. Amazing. Just Amazing. -- I have *HAD IT* with all of you!!

>> I wish the gay folks would keep a lid on it and stop waving their
banner for the moment. <<

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

Enough of this fucking bullshit! Do you hear me?? ENOUGH!! STOP IT! Just FUCKING STOP IT! I can't take it any more!! You people are driving me crazy!! Where will it all end?? What the fuck will it take make you people happy? I don't need this SHIT!

Kill me now! Someone just shoot me and put me out of my misery.

[diamondsoul]

48. Yet you denigrate and refuse to support

the one candidate who maintains YOUR CIVIL RIGHT to marry the patrner of your choice.

How are you helping your friends and loved ones when Kerry and Edwards both said last night they wouldn't insist same sex marriages be recognized in al states?

[arwalden]

49. Yawn! --- That Is Correct. I Am Not A One-Issue Voter.

The candidate I choose to support or not support would NOT CHANGE THE FACT that there are always going to be assholes who are encouraging me to sit down and shut up.

My anger at BULLSHIT thread starters like this will not make me become the "one-issue-voter" you wish to convert me to. Sorry, nice try, no cigar.

-- Allen

[diamondsoul]

59. I'm not suggesting you become a

"single-issue" voter. I'm suggesting your disdain for a candidate who supports YOU and your loved ones and possible family plans ought to head your short-list of who to vote for in a Primary. Call me kooky, but that's sort of how I narrow my choices....by what issues are most pressing to me.

"YAWN"

Stop making shit up to accuse me of.

[arwalden]

90. You most certainly ARE suggesting that... AND

You seem to have me confused with someone else. I have no disdain for Kucinich. He simply is not my candidate. He cannot win against the criminal Bush* and he's certainly not making any headway in winning the Democratic nomination. If you can point to something I said that supports your accusation, then I will offer you my sincere apologies.

Or is the suggestion being made that simply because I have not selected him, then "logically" I must hate him?? or have something against him?? Ridiculous.

What I have disdain for are the idiots who have pledged to vote for Kucinich as a write-in candidate during the general election. There is very little I can do for those who choose to interpret that as "denigrating" their preferred candidate himself.

Thanks for the lecture on how one should "narrow down" their choice for their candidate. That makes perfect sense, and that's very similar to what I've done already. But with one big difference. It seems that you choose your candidate based on the things that are most pressing to YOU. --- I'll choose my candidate by figuring out what's most pressing for the NATION and the WORLD. (Can you see the difference?)

-- Allen

P.S. No... I won't call you "kooky". You're not "kooky".

[Bread and Circus]

57. What's your point? I can't even tell what you are trying to say.

[arwalden]

95. MESSAGE RECEIVED: Loud And Clear...

>> "What's your point? I can't even tell what you are trying to say." <<

I could tell what YOU were trying to say. Your message was very easy to understand. But why shouldn't it be? I've only heard it a million times before. Now I wonder... why couldn't you tell what *I* was trying to say?

Pardon me. I hope someone will forgive me for letting my FUCKING ANGER get in the way of someone understanding the underlying hidden message in my maniacal lunatic ravings.

Permit me to just sit over here with one thumb up my ass while I wait for you to give me the "all's-clear" signal letting me know it's safe to come out and "wave my banner" again.

Yeah yeah... I know... It's all our fault anyway. If we had just tried to blend in better and kept quiet and quit being so "flamboyant" then none of this would have ever happened. I didn't realize what a disruption to your life this could be. Can you ever forgive us?

We're just a "rancorous mob" after all, eh? We're just "old ladies" and pervs kissing on CNN and not helping at all, eh?

BULLSHIT! FUCKING BULLSHIT!!

I am sick and tired of all these god damned STEALTH BIGOTS telling me to sit down and shut up! This bullshit about "some of my best friends are gay" and "my aunt is gay" and "I support you... BU-u-u-uT!"

Yeah... there's always a "but"... a big fat ugly "BUT".

But... quit making waves.
But... you're ruining it for everyone.
But... you're embarrassing me.
But... nobody really cares.
But... you're a liability.
But... you're a lose-lose situation.
But... you've always got "civil unions".
But... it looks bad on TV.
But... you have no MLK making an 'I-have-a-dream' speech.
But... you're dividing the country.
But... you're dividing the party.
But... wait until AFTER the election.
But... yeah I'm with you... just shhhhh! Hush for now.
But... it's making me "nervous".

But, but, but, but. The fucking sons of bitches always have a god damned "BUT" to qualify their so-called "support".

I AM FUCKING FED UP WITH THIS GOD DAMNED INSANE BULLSHIT! DO YOU FUCKING HEAR ME??? I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF IT!! IS THIS MAKING ANY FUCKING SENSE TO ANYONE??? WHAT IS THERE TO NOT UNDERSTAND? WHAT IS SO FUCKING HARD ABOUT THIS?

Now as a disclaimer, let me add that I am fully aware that you personally did not say these exact words and you personally may not have intended your words to convey these sentiments.

Unfortunately, the words and sentiments that you did choose to express are in perfect harmony with same BULLSHIT melody that the FULL BLOWN BIGOTS are singing.

Is this what you HONESTLY think? Or are you playing the Devil's Advocate and merely mirroring (quite realistically) the sit-down and shut-up rhetoric that so many stealth bigots like to use?

I'm asking in all sincerity... because I just don't know. Your message doesn't make it clear whether or not you're playing Devil's Advocate, so I'm left with the clear impression that this is how you feel... all "nervous" and shit.

Exactly HOW invisible would you have me be?

-- Allen

P.S. No, DiamonSoul... I'm *still* not going to vote for Kucinich. Give it a rest. M-kay?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

61. If your not being ironic

....I agree with your sentiment.

Its sort of a "sit down and shut up" approach, and I really qeustion alot of the sentiment expressed in the thread header.

Do Democrats really want gays & lesbians in their political coaltion?

Or not?

It seems we are the red-headed stepchild of politics.

[daveskilt]

92. I hear texas is a good place for getting put out of your misery

some arguements are pretty silly. on this one if they dont get why it is such a big deal (whichever side of the fence they sit on)it just means a lack of critical thinking skills. You cant change that in a message board posting.

<---(hetero, married guy waving the big gay banner - just for the record)

[arwalden]

96. Thanks Dave... I Hear That Wyoming Is Known For That Too.

Only... there, they do it against your will.

Excellent description when you mention a "lack of critical thinking skills". There are many around here who are perfectly described by that astute observation of yours.

-- Allen

[diamondsoul]

47. I'll grant it's being used as a wedge-

what I can't do is dismiss the importance of the question to GLBT people and how it impacts their votes.

As a STRONG and uncompromising proponent of civil rights for all, I was wholly unimpressed with both the Senators comments. I doubt any serious GLBT folk were deeply inspired either.

IMO, and no not because I support him, Kucinich nailed it- "It should be a given in the United States that equal rights should be applied across the board and that includes the right to marry under the law." Or a statement to that affect.(didn't stop to check a transcript will edit if needed or requested)

That should have been the automatic position of every last one of the candidates, and it wasn't.

[sangh0]

50. Are you wrong? Yes and no.

I think it's reasonable to be concerned about the political impact this might have on the upcoming election. After all, like gay marriage, this election is going to have a profound effect on millions of people's lives too. So, in this respect I see nothing wrong with your wishes. IMO, it seems like a normal and human response.

On the other, I think you should give some thought to the fact that gay parents are denied certain benefits because they cannot marry (ex. a gay couple w/child where the legal parent has no health insurance but their partner does) and this can have a deleterious effect on the child's well-being. In such a situation, as the child's parents, these gay couples have an OBLIGATION to do what's best for their child, and if forcing the marriage issue is the way to do that, then I would not dare to tell them different regardles of how it might affect an election.

IMO, they are doing what they MUST do, and I won't judge them wrong for that.

[Dhalgren]

60. Wow, sangh0!

You and I are almost on the same side of an issue! Let's not push it though, I for one am going to enjoy this for ever how long it lasts. Don't worry, it probably won't last long. <sigh>

[sangh0]

63. Thanks

TO be honest, though I do care a great deal about GLBT issues, I had a lot of sympathy for the position expressed in the initial post. But just a few days ago I saw some show that had a piece about a lesbian couple, and the problems they had getting their child covered, which led them to sue.

My niece is adopted. There isn't anything I wouldn't do for her and damn what it does to an election. It's not that I don't care. It's that I have priorities. Gay parents have priorities also. They're a lot like the priorities of straight parents.

[Brian_Expat]

52. It's a matter of perspective

It's like the old rabbit who outran a fox. A ridiculing passerby condemned the fox for letting the rabbit escape. The fox said "I was merely running for my dinner, the rabbit was running for his life."

GLBT Americans are running for their lives over this issue -- most other Democrats are just running to win an election. Big difference and one that should not be ignored.

[Jawja]

53. Exactly, familydoctor,

Bush* thugs want desperately to run on the issue and the corporate media is trying to help them do it.

I cheered when Kerry called them on it and changed the subject in last night's debate on CNN when he basically said, "this is what Republicans want us to do, to focus on this issue, BUT the people I've been talking to are concerned about...." (I'm paraphrasing what he said).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Why not try doing the right thing for a change?

This is an issue of human rights. I'm straight but my wife's sister is gay and has been in the same relationship for over 30 years. Why shouldn't she be allowed to marry?

Kerry and Edwards appear to be trying to have it both ways. For civil unions, against gay marriage. Why not pro-gay marriage? They're falling into the trap of waffling on the issue (that shouldn't be an issue).

Why am I not surprised?

[maxanne]

56. yes, you are wrong

This is a civil rights movement. I know there were those who wanted women to shut up and stop whining about voting - and now this. It's reprehensible, in my opinion.

Back in 2000, people said there wasn't much difference between Dems and Republicans. Here's a chance for the Democrats to take a big, loud stand on civil rights - and I believe it will hurt us if we do not. The mushy middle of the road, try to have it both ways Democrats are choking the party. We used to stand for something besided cowardice on important issues.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

62. Excellent post.

There comes a time to take a stand. Im thinking this is the time.

[maxanne]

65. amen to that

WHH - and welcome to DU!! :hi:

[saracat]

86. We can't take a stand

for anything unless we WIN. And winning is everything. This election is critical to survival.Do you honestly think is Dubya is reappointed that Gays( or anyone else who disagrees with the current Admin) will have any voice whatsoever?
What is wrong with everyone who thinks this election is business as usual? We don't have the luxury of moral debate in this one. We must WIN!

[maxanne]

105. oh goody

let's just sell all of our principles down the river in the name of winning. :eyes:

It didn't work for us in 2002 - and it won't work now.

[Dhalgren]

109. And what really gets me about this particular issue is

that it isn't even a "wedge" issue! Taking the high road stand on this civil rights issue (just as DK has) will energize the base - yes the mythical "base". Folks who are anti-gay rights as a deciding vote issue will not vote Dem anyway! Why would they? They hate what Bush has done, but they hate gays more? Bullshit! This issue is out now because Bush is running scared and he knew that he could energize HIS base by making this stand. We are going to squander a perfect opertunity to energize ours, if we let this slip out of our grasp!

[arwalden]

107. In Case There's Any Doubt... My Anger Will Not Keep Me From Voting For The

Democratic nominee.

BUT I WILL BE DAMNED IF I'M GONNA SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

LIKE IT OR NOT, I'M TAKING A STAND... WITH OUR WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL, WITH OUR WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

-- Allen

[GodHelpUsAll2]

110. Stop being afraid

Bush has dealt out fear to the general public in abundance over the last. STOP BUYING IT! Fear will get you no where CUT.....IT.......OUT
Stand up and fight damn it. This is a golden opportunity for one of the candidates to take a stand and show the country they mean what they say. If they do not, then neither is fit for office and they will be the only ones to blame when they turn off a huge chunk of thir base.

[Dhalgren]

114. Spot on, God HelpUSAll2!

This is exactly right! This is our big chance and our "front runners" are going to blow it! We are the party for freedom, for liberty, for inclusion; don't give us that old divisive crap anymore! We are American, damnit! And we want that to mean good things again. NO MORE FEAR!

[saracat]

118. Large chunk of the base?

There is no large chunk of the base to turn off. There will be only one viable choice for progressives and that will be the Dem nominee. The large chunk we have to worry about are the moderates and independents and many of them are opposed to gay marriage but support domestic partnership.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

121. What????

If there is no Large chunk of a base then who, prey tell, do you suppose has been voting for them? If you believe for one second that the hostility that is brewing out there in this country is not on the verge of blowing at any minute, I think you may be surprised. If anyone believes that people will continue, to no end, being abused at the hands of the very ones that preach to protect them that will also be a mistake. Wake up America, people are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore. Screw the moderates and independents we are suppose to be democrats. Question is, when did the democratic party start worrying more about the "swing votes" more than their own? Continue to screw your own and see how far your own continues to allow you to even have the chance.

[saracat]

123. I meant what I said.

And voting for whom? Dems don't vote. That is a statistical fact. We must work very hard to get a turnout.Election 2002 was a disaster because Dems didn't vote. The largest voting block in the country right now is independent and if you think that anyone can get elected without them and only the support of the so called Dem base you are sadly mistaken. I empathize with your feelings but putting all your eggs in one basket is just not smart politics. And we began to worry about swing votes when they began to outnumber us!

[GodHelpUsAll2]

126. Well then I guess

There is a big problem. I beg to differ, Dems do vote. Or are all those in voting in the primary imagined? The democratic party will die a swift death if they continue to step on their own. If the sole focus is on the "light republicans" then I would suggest just become one. And if you are under the impression that the "so called dem base" will continue to support the very people who sell them out then I would say you will be sadly mistaken. Oh wait, they dems already were sadly mistaken weren't they.

[saracat]

127. Dem Voting

I will grant you that the primary vote thus far has vastly exceeded, by triple in many states, the number of Dems who normally vote in a primary.But if you have ever worked on a campaign dealing with strategy you would be aware that Dems do not vote in the same numbers as do Repubs, or Independents . I , too, think the Party had been taken too far to the right and didn't appreciate some of the action in DC, but facts are facts and you must first get elected to accomplish anything.We must have an all out effort to get Dems to vote .But even if we had 100% turnout of Dems, we still need those pesky Independents!
And BTW, I am a lifelong Dem and no Repug lite and am married to an Independent who , is certainly no "light republican"

[GodHelpUsAll2]

129. Don't assume

so quickly what I am and am not aware of. I'm very aware of quite a bit and for what it's worth, I have in fact worked on a campaign thank you. I stand with my assessment. They will loose what support they do have if they continue to step on the base. Period! And for what else it's worth, I would like to ask about that "strategy". How's it worked out for them so far? Dems control nothing in Washington now. What's that tell you about their strategy?

[saracat]

130. I stand with my assessment as well

And as far as assumptions go, I wouldn't necessarily assume the base is being stepped on. I believe the base have been speaking loudly via the primary!

[Bread and Circus]

58. I need some education here. Does anyone know how other societies...

handle this issue. ?Norway, Sweden, France, UK, Germany?

I just want some perspective on how this "works" elsewhere.

And P.S. to all:

I am damn glad I raised this point, it's been a good discussion
on both sides. I feel a little drowned out by the rancor of the
mob, but this is DU after all.

[Lisa0825]

68. Here's some info for you on other places...

http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/February%202003/EU%20Calls%20For%20Gay%20Marriage%20Rights%20Across%20Europe.htm
EU Calls For Gay Marriage Rights Across Europe

by Jon ben Asher, 365Gay.com February 12, 2003

Strasbourg, France -- The European Parliament has called for member states to recognize gay families.

In Holland and Belgium gays and lesbians can legally marry. There are limited civil union rights in France, Germany and some Scandinavian countries. But, spousal rights cannot be carried from one country to another within the EU.

Parliament was told that if one partner in a Dutch gay couple who were legally married, were transferred by his employer to Italy, for example, the marriage would not be recognized by the Italian government. That could mean the partner may not get a residence permit. Moreover, Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland Luxemburg and Austria do not recognize any form of gay civil union. As a result hospitals may refuse partners visiting rights because they are not recognized family members.

While heterosexual marriage is recognized throughout the EU, gay relationship law is a hodge podge of local rules and regulations that cannot be transported.

Tuesdays vote in the EU Parliament at Strasbourg calls for a recognition of gay marriage throughout Europe and for the legal acceptance of partnership unions by those gay couples who want recognition without actually having a marriage.

EU member states are now required to adapt to the stance of the European Parliament. It is expected to be a lengthy process, beginning with member states harmonizing existing laws.


edited to add another source:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030714-073510-5671r

[MoonAndSun]

64. I made some changes to your post....

I might be stepping on thin ice, but the whole inter-racial marriage thing..

is making me nervous.

It's getting way more attention than I like and the issue
being raised does serve the purposes of George Bush.

Frankly, I am white. I've got some black friends and family.
I am certainly pro inter-racial unions and if a Church wants to marry
black & white folks than I am all for it.

However, this is going to be a liability for our candidate.

Bushco. wants to fan the flames.

So here is where I am going to piss some people off:

I wish the inter-racial marriage folks would keep a lid on it and stop waving their
banner for the moment. Any inter-racial couple getting married on TV is great but
it's not great this year.

I disagree where Kerry and Edwards are on this issue. They are
waffling. It makes them look bad. However, a more principled
position will only help solidify the opposition. It's a lose lose
for us.

Am I wrong to wish all those black & white couples would not be
on TV?



What do you think of this post now?

[Bread and Circus]

67. Why don't you put in cosmonaut, bugger-eater, or Flying Walenza...

in there.

Just because you switch the words doesn't make it the same
thing.

It's not.

[maxanne]

69. how is discrimination

against gays different from discrimination against women, blacks, or interracial couples?

[Bread and Circus]

71. That's up to you to figure out...

[maxanne]

75. since you're advocating

for it, I thought you might want to explain it to us, family doctor. Why is it okay to discriminate against homosexuals? Tell us your thought process, please.

[Bread and Circus]

88. Who the hell says I am discriminating against them?

I am for Civil Unions and Marriage by the Church.

What the fuck do people want?

Why the hell can't it wait until next year?

[maxanne]

101. because next year

you'll have another reason to wait.

It took over 80 years for women to get the right to vote, because they were always asked to wait until next year.

What do I want? I want Democrats to stand up against discrimination, en masse.

[sangh0]

72. I"ve got an answer, but you're not going to like it

Unfortunately, discrimination against gays is not illegal.

[maxanne]

74. sadly you

are correct, sangh0.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

115. Oh but it is

And if one chooses to think it's "different" is out of touch with the basic concept of EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!

[maxanne]

66. try it with women

I might be stepping on thin ice, but the whole women voting thing..


is making me nervous.

It's getting way more attention than I like and the issue
being raised does serve the purposes of George Bush.

Frankly, I am male. I've got some female friends and family.
I am certainly pro women and if a woman wants to have a little job outside of the home, for pin money, I am all for it.

However, this is going to be a liability for our candidate.

Bushco. wants to fan the flames.

So here is where I am going to piss some people off:

I wish the women would keep a lid on it and stop waving their
banner for the moment. Rosie advocating voting for women on TV is great but it's not great this year.

I disagree where Kerry and Edwards are on this issue. They are
waffling. It makes them look bad. However, a more principled
position will only help solidify the opposition. It's a lose lose
for us.

Am I wrong to wish all those suffragettes would not be
on TV?

[Bread and Circus]

70. This is a joke....

It's no wonder the gop owns the WH, the senate, house, and
supreme court.

Y'all think it's because of "weak dems".

No, it's because of 30 years of think tanks and getting us
to fall on distractive issues.

Looks we're falling for it again.

Remember, it's Bush making this an issue.

Doesn't anyone wonder why?

[maxanne]

76. you're partly right

it is because of 30 years of planning. It's also because the weak willed spineless Dems let the Republicans do it, without taking a stand.

And here you are, asking us to do it again.

[Bread and Circus]

77. No, I am asking us to think strategically and long term....

pick your battles.

[maxanne]

79. you are asking

us to be quiet about legalized discrimination. Just like they did back in the 1800's when suffragettes were trying to get the vote.

[no name no slogan]

73. Why are we letting the Repubs "define" this issue?

People may be against it, but if we make a principled stand in favor of it, they will still respect our position.

However, letting the Rethugs define the terms of the debate is the SURE WAY we'll lose. And candidates waffling around it, looking for what the focus groups want to hear, will not only make them look confused, but will also make them look like they'll say anything to get elected.

Gay marriage is not nearly as big an issue as the right-wing culture warriors make it out to be. Most people are more concerned about keeping their jobs, putting food on the table, paying for their medical care, and having enought $$ to retire before they're 80.

If we continue to stick to the "do whatever the focus group tells us" mentality that we have been, we're going to get the sh!t kicked out of us come November.

[Bread and Circus]

78. Ok, so if this is really a "human rights" issue where is the MLK.....

of our time.

Until sometime is standing up and giving a "I have
a dream speech" about this, it's moot.

Two old ladies kissing on CNN is not helpful.

[Lisa0825]

80. I disagree....

I disagree with your statement, "Two old ladies kissing on CNN is not helpful."

You'd be surprised how many people I have either personally spoken to or seen quoted, who said they were really giving gay marriage a second thought BECAUSE of seeing couples like them. They were suprised by how many older couples, who had been committed for so many years, were there to get married. Too many people still think about sex first when they think about homosexuality. This showed them it's about people and love, and rights.

[daveskilt]

94. It certainly debunks the dangerous gays myth

whats so scary and dangerous about two lovely old ladies together for 51 years? pose that to the wing nuts!

[maxanne]

81. you should probably

stop saying, "some of my friends are gay." It doesn't ring true.

[Bread and Circus]

82. I think I said it once here. It's kind of beside the point anyway.

[daveskilt]

93. well I do hope the big gay MLK WILL step up and do this

since the likely nominees sure aren't having the guts to do it...

[arwalden]

104. I Simply CANNOT BELIEVE What I'm Seeing Here!!!

This has got to be the most VILE thread on this entire forum.

It's not a legitimate human rights issue because we don't have a charismatic voice like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to rally us together. Yeah... it's "moot".

Sorry for troubling all you narrow-minded bigots with our petty little problems. This little equality thing is really inconvenient for ya, isn't it?

(Edit: CLARITY! Emphasis!)

[GodHelpUsAll2]

119. You have allies

Allen. And many of them right here. Don't throw us all out with the dirty dish water.

[arwalden]

120. Oh Certainly! I Know That... Thank You!! When I Said "You All"...

I was directing the comment to "you all" bigots (who know who they are)... NOT to "you all" supporters.

Confused? Me too. Sorry if it wasn't clear the first time.

Love,
Allen


I edited the post (above) to clarify.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

125. LOL

Calm Allen Calm....... I'll mix you a drink. Relax and i'll scream for a while! LOL

[GodHelpUsAll2]

124. Wow

I think that might just be the most intelligent statement I have ever heard! <sigh> We need more education in this country please.

[ulysses]

85. gay folks didn't make it an issue this year.

Bush did.

However, a more principled position will only help solidify the opposition.

Anything that the nominee does that vaguly smells of principle will solidify the opposition. The solution is emphatically NOT to start ditching principles out of fear of the GOP.

[IconoclastIlene]

87. Maybe they were paid by the Republicans!!!

Including Rosie; one never knows!@!

[donco6]

89. So what am I supposed to do about Rosie O'donnell?

Last I checked, she hadn't checked with me.

[arewethereyet]

91. If an ammendment gets ratified, its on Newson's head.

what a stupid stupid idea.

[maxanne]

102. yeah,

what a jerk, taking a stand against discrimination.

[ScreamingMeemie]

97. National polls say it's not as big a threat as Bushco would like.

:hi: Most people find it to be none of their business. It's not a decent point to hang an election on in my opinion.

[OHdem10]

98. I heard Bill Snyder speaking at one of theThink Tanks

give an explanation which illustrates why this is such a problem issue for Dems. Based on Polling and focus groups he ascertained;
Overall , American people do not want be intolerant.They do not want to oppress others. As long as the discussion stayed at the level of civil unions they were accepting of this idea. As soon as the discussions moved to marriage --the acceptance dropped off. He was able to determine that in many peoples mind --they equate marriage with approval of Homosexuality. This is the sticky wicket.
Apparently many Ammericans do not approve of Homosexuality but also c do not wish to be intolerant. To force them to vote on marriage pushes them into a corner where they are not comfortable. Snyder said he could not explain how they came up with the equation: Gay Marriage ==approval of Homosexuality. It is interesting because as long as Civil Unions were being discussed the polls stayed up there. Gay Marriage and the hoopla begins.

ImO, this is why Bush came out and went with the Marriage Ammendment.
His base was furious that he had not gone after this issue sooner. They have said all along this issue would be the most important issue--far in excess of Guns or Abortion. Mass and Calif gave him the hand he was waiting for.
He knows it puts our candidates in a bind. We can hope eventually the people will see through all this--but this is hope.

This is subitted with respect and in no way is intended to hurt anyone. I found it enlighening.

[arwalden]

111. God Hates Fags... And Apparently He Isn't The Only One.

This is who the criminal Bush* panders to. I've had enough. I can't take this anymore. This whole fucking thread has just worn out my last nerve. I am on the edge. I am at the end of my rope. You think Joan Crawford looked scary in her no-wire-hangers scene? I'm worse! Don't come near me when I'm in THIS mood. I'm already screaming at the top of my lungs... keep me away from the dishes.

[maxanne]

112. deep cleansing breaths

arwalden. Some of us have provided a spirited defense against the ignorant.

[arwalden]

116. Indeed You Have... Many Have... And That Effort Has Not Gone Unnoticed...

It's much appreciated. THANKS!

-- Allen

[maxanne]

117. it must be really difficult

to read some of this crap. I'm sorry that so many of our fellow humans are so frightened and/or stupid. However - I do NOT believe they are the majority.

[daveskilt]

135. I even think a lot of folks here mean well

It can be easy to loose sight of the obvious. Some folks are so keen to get rid of bush (and make sure they get every vote for the dem) that they loose sight of the WHY we need to vote bush out (the economy, the war, his attempt to create a theocracy and deny rights to people he thinks his god doesnt like)

Its vote capitalism - if we can increase the bottom line by outsourcing our decency and respect for human rights - is it worth it?

[eridani]

122. So acknowledge and divert, already

Say that fair play is as American as apple pie, and then ask if you think a constitutional amendment about gay marriage will get a single person their lost job back. Sharpton did that very well last night.

[frustrated_lefty]

128. So here is where I am going to piss some people off?

Well, yes, you succeeded. They should keep a "lid" on it?

What the hell is marriage? A big party where you get your best friends and family together and say before them all "I'm gonna do every thing I can to spend the rest of my life and love and energy with this person." And then, the holy person of your denomination comes out and gives you the rubber stamp of approval on your forehead.

Why in any god's name do gay people not deserve this right?! A chance to publicly proclaim their mutual devotion and have the blessings of those around them and their god. I am hetero and this pisses me off! That's FUCKED! We sure as hell can blow up children, but oh, shit, two people might love each other....let's amend the constitution! More weak ass moderate bullshit.

Kerry and Edwards are waffling as they can on this issue and I think it would be GREAT if they could show some goddam spine somebody else didn't have to donate to them.

[KaraokeKarlton]

131. This wouldn't even be an issue if Dean were going to be the nominee

You never heard the press trying to make an issue of this subject with him because he was able to immediately silence anyone who tried to make it an issue. No one is better at arguing the issue than Howard Dean. But hey, Democrats decided to let Bush define the issues the second they decided they needed to make the election about Bush's perceived strength rather than making it about his weaknesses by voting to nominate a "war hero". Laying in that bed isn't going to be so fun or productive in my opinion, but I digress...

[Bread and Circus]

133. Well, I have heard the chorus. I certainly hope I am wrong.

Even though some here called me a bigot, I understand
where they are coming from. I feel I have a legitimate
concern but I ultimately I do hope I am wrong. That's
all the more I will say about this. We'll just have
to see how it plays out.

P.S. I only raised this topic in response to the less than
spectacular light it put our candidates in the other night
at the debate.

[daveskilt]

134. sure your concern is legitimate - this may loose the dem votes

but if more people want to limit human rights than want to expand them - Im going back to Edinburgh. This is a big deal and should be a big deal to everyone, gay/straight/bi/anything else