So they expect to get the GLBT vote after this???? Nader here I come.

[tedzbear]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0806-03.htm


Sorry folks, but these clowns can't have their cake and eat it too. They're either pro civil rights for everyone or they aren't. It makes one wonder if they would betray their Black, Hispanic, or women voters if they felt it was politically necessary. Probably.

Fortunately for the rest of you, the bigots against your particular minority aren't a big enough voting block to make the DNC betray you.

:kick:

[pagerbear]

1. Go ahead. Vote for *

That's what every vote for Nader is, and you know it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. this is why pagerbear is my favorite bear

:)

[pagerbear]

5. Pagerblush

[Kool Kitty]

164. That's because he's smarter than the average bear.

;-)

[arwalden]

52. Like It Or Not, We Have A TWO-PARTY System. Only ONE of TWO Will Win

any vote (or non-vote) that does not DIRECTLY benefit Kerry has the net effect of benefiting Bush*.

This simple fact cannot be denied or rationalized any other way.

Pagerbear is correct.

I'm disappointed that Kerry and Edwards aren't more in touch with the issues that concern Queer Americans... but at the same time, I'm not selfish enough to think that "my" issues are more important than the big picture. I'm not arrogant enough to think that "my" issues trump all the other issues that are important to this country.

Although I understand Tedthebear's reaction, that message has got to be one of the most selfish messages I've read on DU in a very long time. This election is far more important than any one issue and any one person.

I hope that between now and election day, Tedthebear will have had time to think about things more rationally and see that a vote to spite Kerry/Edwards is indeed a vote that supports Bush*. I hope he's a bigger man, and a more thoughtful and reflective man, than his angry message would lead me to believe he is right now.

-- Allen

[Tansy_Gold]

93. Superb post, Allen.

:yourock:

[Window]

104. Exactly.

Excellent post. Thanks.

Peace

[pagerbear]

112. What a guy!

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

113. I expect zero from Kerry/Edwards on gay rights.

Thats not why Im voting for them.

As far as Im concerned the Democrats are being defined by the GOP on gay issues, so they play wannabe, as with the Kerry/Edwards statement.

There are other issues why voting for Kerry makes more sense, such as having a less right-wing judiciary. And Kerry is marginally better on economic issues.

But i dont have any illusions about Kerry/Edwards, or any Democat beyond the local level, sticking up for gays. They just want or money and our votes, but they dont come through on the issues, unless we are talking local electioons where gays can be a big enough voting bloc to sway elections.

I dont plan on doing more for Kerry than just voting for him. I gave him a contribution, but I feel like cancelling that check.

[George_Bonanza]

153. Kerry has already done much for gays

It's wrong of you to assume that he's all talk. Even if he does absolutely nothing for gays in his administration, a 0% likelihood, he will still have done an excellent service for gays because of his work in the 80s, his support for gays in the military, his Hate Crimes bill, his eulogy for Matthew Shepard, his opposition to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his DoMA vote.

[TankLV]

180. Amen - you said it perfectly.

nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. Well I will vote for Kerry.

My marriage rights are not as important as an Iraqi's right to live in dignity

[tedzbear]

9. What's the difference between you and them?

You're both being oppressed. You remind me of the lady character in Dicken's Bleak House who spends all of her days raising money for the poor heathens in the English empire while her own brood of children are neglected and starving.

Shame on you.

:kick:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. i am not being bombed for one

or sexually abused by my oppressors

[tedzbear]

14. Then why not vote Green or Nader?

They both support Gay and Lesbian marriage AND ending the occupation of Iraq.

Kerry is going to do the occupation "better than Bush" or aren't you paying attention? He even said he wants to send more troops!

:kick:

[Sparkly]

19. Please be realistic.

It doesn't matter what Nader supports, because he's never going to implement any of it.

The next president will be either Bush or Kerry. And the next USSC Chief Justice could be Clarence Thomas!

The country may not be moveable as fast as you'd like it to be, but at least let's not move backward.

[JohnKleeb]

22. you also have to remember

The president doesnt say what he wants implented and automatically gets it, things arent that easy, you have to work with the congress and frankly I dont see Nader being able to, and hell Nader has 0 chance of being elected, this isnt England where third parties can win.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. because they are not going to win

and i dont want to waste my vote

[Bertha Venation]

28. Because voting for them WILL NOT OUST BUSH!

You really have to have this spelled out to you?

[Malva Zebrina]

32. yes, the vote this year and the main issue is who of the two will be

the better war president.

[IndianaGreen]

130. Unlike Nader, Kerry has a long record of votes for GLBT rights

Kerry voted against DOMA, one of Clinton's worse fuck ups since Plan Colombia, and Kerry also supports ENDA.

The reason why Kerry seems to be having problems with same sex marriage is because he is still trapped in the Roman Catholic theological bullshit that the Pope is peddling on gay rights. Kerry is also old, and thinks like an old baby boomer, and they as a group are becoming as reactionary as their parents were when they were in their twenties.

Nader's record on GLBT issues is non-existent, and that's without including his idiotic comment about "gonadal politics" that he made in 2000.

We may have issues with Kerry in 2004, and will continue to have issues with him in 2005 after he becomes President, but let's be honest here, Bush is actively doing harm to all of us no matter what our sexual orientation happens to be.

[George_Bonanza]

154. Great post

Nader has shirked the gay issue, unlike Kerry who has been a great advocate for gays, and does not hide from the issue.

[murielm99]

186. Cut it out with the stupid generalizations!

You do not speak for all baby boomers. No one does.

I am a baby boomer, and I know that many of us are Democrats. Many of us are progressives who support gay marriage.

This thread is divisive enough without saying things like that about baby boomers...Many of whom post on this board!

[Cheswick2.0]

168. They can be for giving every american a million dollars

They can be for promising to make it possible for every american to own their own home. They can be for making 100 percent clean energy use in america in the first 100 days. They can be for making your dog the fucking secretary of state. They don't ever have to deliver on anything they are "for".

I can barely tolerate Kerry or Edwards. They represent the worst of what politics has become. But they are the only ticket that is going to defeat bush.

But I wonder if you weren't voting Nader all along and just looking for an "issue" to post here to try and win over voters? The Nader party has been campaigning for democratic votes since they intentionally took part in spoiling the election in 2000.

If you want to vote for the guy who wants bush to win as a way of blackmailing the democratic party, because he is a bitter old fool, why post it here?

[rpannier]

169. Because they aren't going to win.

Face facts. It's either Kerry or scrub. Nader is not going to win. His only purpose now is to siphon votes from Kerry. Get real. There are times to make a statement, times to fall on your sword and times to look at the big picture.
Do you think that gays/lesbians will benefit more from a scrub presidency than a Kerry one? I guarantee you won't get an Amendment to the Constitution barring gay marriage from Kerry.

[Bertha Venation]

24. Ted, our right isn't as clear-cut to many; look at the bigger picture.

Our right to marry isn't as clear-cut (to many Americans) as the equal rights of others that've been fought for over the years. Our right to marry is going to come much more slowly.

Here, today, in 2004, with the evil the Bush administration has brought upon our country and the world, yes, god dammit, I am willing to concede, for three more months, the fight for my right to marry!

I'm as pissed as you about Edwards' comments, about the MO vote this week, and that Kerry thinks civil unions are equal. But there is a bigger picture that we must consider in order to get Bush out.

[LynneSin]

173. Wow, I didn't realize Lioness lives where bombs drop on a daily basis

and half her family was probably slaughtered by "smart bombs"

Thanks for clarifying that up for me. It must be such a dangerous place where she lives :scared:

[quinnox]

4. Kerry-Edwards are running to win

It would be naive to think they would endorse a concept that most Americans overwhelmingly oppose.

[pagerbear]

7. Exactly

I'm much, much more interested in getting the BFEE out of the WH than in getting married--even if I had someone who wanted to marry me.

[Malva Zebrina]

39. they do not need to endorse any concept that is not popular

but if they are Democrats they do need to fight for all people's rights. They are not real Democrats--they are lite Republican.

There is no need to try to hide one's liberalism. Why? All that had to be done was to get up the energy to pummel Bush over and over verbally, everytime he gaffed, for every mistake and every lie he told and tells, for the mess he made out of the war, for his disasters over and over--oh no--that is "attacking"-- bullshit--it is not attacking when it is the truth--instead we are getting something "smart" and we \the people do not know what it is, but we are told it is smart campaigning and electable. Really? :shrug:

I prefer a proud liberal and I prefer a proud Democrat who has not hog tied my vote.

[athena]

166. It's unfair to punish the Democrats for a situation they didn't create.

It's not so easy to defeat Bush. Not only are he and his people cleverer than most liberals realize, but they have complete control of the media. Any mistake Kerry makes, anything that could possibly be misconstrued, gets blown completely out of proportion, while news of Bush lies and illogic dies in a day. (If Kerry had accidentally said that his party wants to harm America, we wouldn't stop hearing about it until election day.) Similarly, any attacks that Kerry or other Democrats make against the Bush administration get ignored by the media. He gave a very successful speech, and all we hear in the mainstream media is how light it supposedly was on policy.

To win the election, it's not enough to attack the Republicans; the Democrats also have to avoid saying anything that can be used against them. And that's why they're not free to talk about gay marriage. They have to give some brief, uncontroversial answer and immediately steer the conversation toward issues where the Republicans are weak.

[patdem]

6. I think what is happening is that 'marriage' will become a religious term

only. And that anyone who gets hitched at City Hall will be called a civil union. It will not change the term 'marriage'..performed in a church but WILL change the term of what it is called at City Hall.

This is evolving....

[tedzbear]

11. Civil Unions don't include as many rights as marriage contracts...

...under federal, state laws. If civil unions were the same thing as marriage under the law, I would agree with you, but they aren't.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. So what?

Do you see Bush-Cheney even supporting civil unions? Sheesh!

:eyes:

[Hamlette]

29. is there federal law that addresses civil unions?

I've not heard of it and would like to read it. Can you give me a cite? I thought the only civil union law was Vermont.

[patdem]

58. What I am trying to say..'marriage' will become just a religious term..

..like baptism. Baptism does not give any extra benefits to the baptised. The 'civil union'..will be what conveys all rights and responsibilities. Marriage will be like Baptism...a strictly religious rite that one undergoes because of religion only.

[sundancekid]

92. you surely must NOT have contacted any legal experts on this matter

to make such a statement ... with the obvious exception to all references to "issue of the marriage" (meaning children conceived and born naturally of two people) all other terms of a "marriage contract" can be explicitly placed into a "civil union contract" ... you may be miffed at the religious portion, and I respect your point ... BUT DO NOT peddle misinformation about "under the law!"

[tedzbear]

175. The gay rights articles I read state that a marriage contract has...

...around a hundred rights that a civil union doesn't. I don't have the links, but I've read these statements from gay legal activists many times.

[stopbush]

8. I'll never understand single-issue voters.

Isn't LaRouche running, too? Maybe you should check out his positions.

[JohnKleeb]

10. I'd only support LaRouche because of his anti british crown stance

:D, no I dont think hes running.

[DaveSZ]

15. It turns me off too

But, this will be decided by the courts, and gays would be worse off with a chief justice Scalia or Thomas.

[Iris]

25. Absolutely!

The only way to even begin to get this country to become more progressive is to get these neo-con freaks out of office before they throw us back to the dark ages quicker than you can say, "But I voted for Nadar!"

[JohnKleeb]

30. right change happens in steps not great big leaps

I'd rather a Kerry-Edwards adminstration that gets us in the right direction than an adminstration that takes us backward, maybe Kerry-Edwards wont implent it but maybe they will lay down the bricks for change, that is better than getting no bricks from Bush and Cheney. Third parties should be more viable but lets face it, they arent.

[Iris]

36. And third parties may eventually catch on

After all, both parties are trying the "big umbrella" approach with a lot of issues and, quite frankly, ain't no umbrella big enough for some of these factions.

[JohnKleeb]

38. right

but right now the chances of third parties winning is none. Personally, I think the indy parties should try at a local level which I know some do.

[Iris]

41. The local level is where people can really make a difference.

Sometimes I think national elections are a waste of my time b/c I live in such a conservative state (GA), but I vote in every single local and state election because I know it matters.

[JohnKleeb]

45. I live in a con state too (Va)

Yes, the local level matters, thats how the populists started and many of their ideas became mainstream democratic party ideas eventually, it works like that. What may have been considered radical 40 years ago now could be considered mainstream,=.

[ikojo]

178. STRONG third parties have traditionally moved the

two corporate parties in one or another direction. I said TRADITIONALLY because the presence of the Greens and other parties does not seem to have ANY affect on the Democrats. They are more conservative this time around than last and that was when JOE LIEBERMAN was on the VP ticket.

It was a STRONG socialist party that caused FDR to pursue New Deal legislation. Socialists were strong, particularly in the industrial midwest at the time and they were a force to be reckoned with.

I do get tired of people saying that "now is not the time for "issue x" because it will upset the "swing voter." People's civil rights should not be put up to a vote as was done in MO this past Tuesday because for the most part people vote their fears (as many of us will do in November) rather than what they know is what is truly just.

A LEADER says and does things that are not universally popular at the time, such as granting voting rights to blacks in the 1960s. A LEADER shows people why something is the right and just thing to do even when it feels uncomfortable at the moment. Sadly we lack such leadership these days.

This is why it's important for people to be in the streets. Nothing changes in the suites if the people are not out on the streets. Most of the time the so called leaders have to be shown the error of their ways by the people.

[George_Bonanza]

188. Kerry's more liberal than Gore

If by conservative you mean all this military brouhaha, well, what do you expect? McGovern II, or Dukakis: The sequel? The Dems HAVE to be hard-hitting, aggressive, and unflinching. They have to capitalize on Kerry's war experience to beat Bush.

And if what you say IS true, that the Dems are further to the right than 2000, then Nader's quest to pull the Dems to the left by hurting them as clearly failed.

[JohnKleeb]

189. Gore actually was somewhat of a hawk in the senate

Kerry actually isnt much of one. Amazing that people would think that Gore, a cofounder of everyone's favorite boogieman the DLC would be regarded as more to the left than Kerry, of course hes gonna seem that way because he's not in office and he has been critical of the Bush admin. I like Gore and Kerry both but I prefer Kerry. On the military service thing, its not a matter of left or right but more so about John Kerry's values and that includes enlisting in the Navy despite the fact he didnt have to and receiving high delcarations. I wish Gore had emphaised his military service more honestly.

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. Single-issue voters are morons. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

69. The war in Iraq is a single issue as is abortion rights

What was that you were saying about single-issue people being morons?

[kiahzero]

163. And voting solely on those issues would be dumb.

The previous poster is right: single-issue people are morons.

[rpannier]

170. But...

for people like me who make the environment, civil liberties, civil rights and choice their main reasons for choosing a candidate then it's not a single issue. It's a series of issues put together that I user to decide who I'll vote for.

[Selwynn]

185. I would phrase it more delicately, but I strongly agree.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Cut your nose off to spite your face.

Let me know how great things will be for us under the 2nd Bush administration, because every Nader vote in a swing state is a vote for Bush, and we know what a great record on GLBT issues Bush-Cheney has.



:eyes:

[JI7]

49. they care about gay rights so much

that they are willing to vote in a way to help keep bush in office. never mind the democratic ticket supports expanding gay rights to give them all the rights of married couples. the only reason they don't call it marriage is because the country is mostly opposed to it. they ARE trying to get elected after all.

it doesn't matter to those who claim to care about it so much that bush would push to get the FEDERAL constitutional ban on same sex marriage and appoint justices who would not only uphold bans on same sex marriage but would vote to allow gays to be arrested for engaging in consensual adult sexual relations like scalia.

never mind the fact that the democrats are likely to appoint justices who would strike down bans on same sex marriage. it doesn't matter they would oppose federal constitutional bans.

clinton signed the defense of marriage act, but the fact is that under bill clinton as president there was much more acceptance of gays overall than would be the case if a republican had been in office. how many people in 1992 would have been supportive of even civil unions ? surely, not as many as today. and much of it is because we had a person in the top office who preached tolerance and acceptance even though he did a few things for political gain. he was able to change the overall mood in the country towards more acceptance.

[Bertha Venation]

18. You're a one-issue voter?

In this election, I am already subsuming my rights in order to get a decent administration in place.

We already know John Kerry does not support our right to marry.

This is disheartening news but for christ's sake, it's not going to make me throw my weight indirectly behind the Bush administration.

I'm not voting with the DNC. A vote for Kerry/Edwards is a potent vote against the Bush administration. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney.

So, you'd sooner piss away your vote than try to oust Bush. Just because of further news that NO ONE is yet ready to support our right to marry. That your vote is lost is far more disheartening to me than this word from Edwards.

[Walt Starr]

20. It's a blatant move to the center

After Missouri if they didn't, we would lose.

[DaveSZ]

23. Yeah

They basically have to run as if every state were Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Ohio.

Only Sharpton and Kucinich were for gay marriage I believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[JohnKleeb]

27. no youre right, only Kucinich and Sharpton

[Kipepeo]

59. And Carol Moseley-Braun

supported Gay Marriage

[JohnKleeb]

83. woops, thank you

[mdguss]

37. Delete

I put this in the wrong place.

[mongo]

26. I really don't blame you.

and I see your point. I really wish I knew what to say to Keep you in the Kerry camp without diss'ing you or demeaning your views.

I am with you 100% - but I would rather see civil unions for EVERYONE (with the same rights today as marriage) as I see marriage as a religious ceremony that should not be recognized at all by the gov't.

Want to get married? Go to a church. Want to be recognized as a couple? Get a civil union. Then the individual churches can argue over who can marry whom. But that marriage wouldn't mean squat in the eyes of the gov't.

Back to the subject at hand. I hope that you re-consider your position as there is so much at stake in this election. You WILL have your civil rights. I will stand by your side to fight for them. But I think that your position will get much more response if Kerry is in office.

[DaveSZ]

33. My position is the same as Mongo's

Marriage should be left to the church, and civil unions for same sex and opposite sex couples to the state.

Again, we need fair-minded judges to work out these complex issues.

[Not Me]

31. If it bothers you that much...take a time out in Canada for a while, but

don't help Bush get re-elected...because the ramifications of that are far more serious than the current snit you are in now.

I want the right to marry, and soon; but I realize that the best chance for progress is with Kerry/Edwards--and deep down you know that too.

[beyurslf]

34. Putting BUsh back in office almost guarantees that when a SC nomination

comes up, that a Justice will be put in who opposed gay marriage also. If we have Kerry, we have a chance of beating these Amendments in the SCOTUS. Please reconsider.

[seventhson]

35. Since I generally oppose the "Institution" of marriage...

it is hard to get too worked up about this.

On the other hand voting for Nader assures that Bush has a better chance of banning even civil unions and equal rights.

I believe that anyone should be able to engage in a relationship which secures their partnership rights to health care, etc.. But the alleged rights people seek through marriage can be guaranteed in many other ways - whether homosexual or hetero.

Marriage, in my opinion, is a bogus and oppressive institution when regulated by the government.

Marry whoever you want - jst don't get a "license" to do it.

Advocate for partnership rights as family rights and secure your inheritance and other rights by lawful means (powers of attorney, wills, trusts, etc.)

bottom line is: voting for Nader is a vote against Gay rights.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stopbush]

42. I threw my vote away in 1980 when I voted for John Anderson.

I voted my principles...and we ended up with Reagan...which led to bush. In a very real way, I share the blame for the fucking Reagan revolution that led quite naturally to the pseudo-fascism of bush.

People who voted their principles for Nader in 2000 handed the election to bush. Maybe they can be excused because most of the country (most, not all) had no idea how horrible bush would be.

Well, they know now, and YOU know now. What will it take for you to cast a *meaningful* vote against bush? A presidential order sending gays to interment camps? It will be too late then.

At this point in American history, a third-party vote is a total cop out. So, cop out if you wish, but you'll be as much to blame for bush's second term as Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum.

[mzmolly]

72. Well, hey ... as long as it's not their kid getting bombed, going without

food, going without medical care, who gives a rip. :eyes:

People who voted their principles for Nader in 2000 handed the election to bush. Maybe they can be excused because most of the country (most, not all) had no idea how horrible bush would be.

I belive that Gays should have the right to marry, so I prefer the two guys running who don't want to ammend the constitution to prevent if from EVER happening at all.

KERRY/EDWARDS 04!

[Kazak]

43. If you must vote for someone else (which I do not recommend),...

for sanity's sake, please consider Cobb over Nader. At least that vote will forward something other than Bush*.

[mdmc]

65. Yes. Please vote for Cobb in 2004

Then , if Kerry wins, you can work towards getting him in the right.

[blm]

44. Nader never did anything to further gay issues. Kerry HAS.

If you would so easily dump on one of the few Senators to further gay issues then I would submit you are either purposely contrary or you have no clue what he has done for the gay community.

Did Nader present the first gay friendly legislation on the floor of the Senate in 85 or was it Kerry?

Was it Nader advocating for gays to serve openly in the military or was it Kerry?

Was it Nader who crafted the Hate Crimes bill or was it Kerry?

Let Kerry do his job which is TO WIN IN NOVEMBER. You don't light matches under the feet of the only guy walking the tiightrope with Bush.

[JohnKleeb]

46. I was gonna mention that blm but you know the facts better than I do

So I yielded.

[JI7]

50. Kerry would also preach acceptance , not just tolerance

he would appoint gay people to positions he would speak about the gays in the military he knew who defended the country and who deserve their rights. there would be a lot more support for gay rights(including marriage) not just in terms of getting laws passed but among the people if he is allowed to serve as president.

[George_Bonanza]

55. Bravo

Nader is all talk compared to Kerry when it comes to gay rights.

[nightperson]

102. What talk? "Not interested in gonadal politics".

What a track record. Nader doesn't "do" cultural issues. Of all issues for people to go to Nader for!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. kerry was the only senator upfor re election in 1996

who voted against DOMA.


and gay marriage is not a popular concept to a lot of voters. and personally i dont expect them to sacrifice all the votes for my rights. its partly why i am a liberal...i can empathize with people and the situations they are in.

[JohnKleeb]

57. I did not know that, I knew he voted against it

and remember he was up against popular governor Bill Weld, and he still pulled it off.

[wellstone dem]

96. I believe even Wellstone voted for the bill

although he stated later that he regretted that vote.

[DaveinMD]

97. he did

vote for the bill. Everyone makes mistakes. Paul was such a great guy. I miss him greatly.

[wellstone dem]

100. me too,

me too.

[JohnKleeb]

140. yes Wellstone did vote for it and yes he did regret

[mdguss]

48. Gay Rights Movement is Overreaching:

The gay rights movement is being too aggressive. If it had focused its efforts on getting the right for partners to be with each other on their death beds, they would've had a better case.

The gay movement rightly spent a lot of time trying to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick. The Supremes overturned Bowers, but Scalia dared the gay rights movement to push for gay marriage in his dissent. The gay rights folks took his bait, and are trying to get marriage legalized. They're also making reckless charges comparing the fact that they can't marry to segregation (as far as I know, gay couples can go out to resturants, there are no water fountains for "heterosexuals only," gays don't have to ride in the back of the bus, and they aren't banned from the best hotels and motels). It turns people off, and it's why SEVENTY percent of Missouri voters voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Is the lack of rights to be with an ill partner on their death bed a problem? Absolutely. I'd imagine 70 percent of Missourians and Americans would be for allowing people that love each other to spend life's last moments together. But instead of rightly pursuing this issue and educating the public, the gay rights movement and some naive progressives have decided to go all out for gay marriage.

It's a losing issue. The gay rights movement has it framed totally wrong by saying, "We're being persecuted as badly as blacks were during segregation because we are not allowed to marry." In the minds of many--perhaps most--Americans homosexuality is a choice (I don't share this view), so that argument falls on deaf ears. The gay rights movement should focus on the compelling arguments of their perdicament: the right not to be with your partner in times of health crisis. Marriage is too much, too soon.

If an amendment banning gay marriage ever makes it to the ballot in my state, I will vote for it because: a. I believe that there is some validity to the traditional family b. I believe gay marriage has the potential to infringe on the free practice of religion. c. I am turned off by reckless comparisons to segregation (and even slavery) by some in the gay rights movement. d. I think the problems--the lack of access to dying partners can be solved without gay marriage.

[blm]

51. Most in the gay rights movement DON'T want extra pressure on JK for this.

It's only a few activists who are clamoring to make it an issue at this time. They don't care how it plays right into Rove's hands.

Kerry needs a Supreme Court majority before he can address this issue for the gay community in the way it realistically needs to be handled.

[DaveinMD]

54. thank you

Kerry OPPOSES a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, believing the issue should be left to the states to decide. If you want a constitutional amendment, vote for Nader. That will help Bush win and he can stack the court and fight to pass the hate amendment. Those are you choices. If you vote for Nader, you are a Bush supporter. Its that simple.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. I think you're mixing some good points with some badly informed ones...

Although I'm perfectly in favor of gay marriage rights (there's really no logical reason against them -- it always comes down to "tradition" or "religion"), I also agree that expecting immediate change is short-sighted. The country isn't yet ready -- which doesn't mean that the fight should stop, but it does mean those who expect all politicians to agree on the issue now are kidding themselves. And if they won't vote for Kerry on the basis of this, then they're harming their cause, too.

On the other hand, the push for full gay rights is about more than death-bed benefits. There are other, very important issues that could and should be addressed: adoption for one... I imagine that some progess might be made piece by piece, issue by issue.

By and large, I don't think the American public is inherently unfair or bigoted. I think hitting at the "marriage" thing is just hitting them before they're ready to deal with it.

[DaveinMD]

64. in poll after poll

the public is very open to the idea of civil unions. They just don't want to call it marriage.

Kerry's position is perfectly appropriate. He is for letting the states decide the issue and doesn't want hate written into the US Constitution.

[JerseygirlCT]

86. I understand that

Although it could be pointed out that polls supported segregation, too, in its time. I wouldn't judge only based on polls.

My point is that I think in time this will cease to be the hot-button issue it's been made now. People are, I think, inherently fair, and will come around to equal rights.

In the meantime, those concerned about gay rights would do far better to support Kerry -- who has been very supportive of gay rights -- than throw away a vote on Nader.

I think, were all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to be allowed gay couples under the name of "civil union", that eventually the common parlance would call both unions "marriage" and the big fight would be moot.

[DaveinMD]

87. I'm a believer in gay marriage

I am a consultant for the candidate running against Marilyn Musgrave who is the author of the hate amendment.

www.stan2004.com

However, under Kerry you will have a President who believes that civil unions and the legal protections that come with them should be legalized and that states should be free to legalize gay marriage. He will promote equality. I'm sure we'll also see him push the employment non-discrimination act, which has been dead throughout the last 4 years. Kerry has a very good record on this issue.

[JerseygirlCT]

91. That's what I thought

I personally don't really have a "dog in this fight" as the expression goes. A middle-aged, married, hetero woman...

But the idea that all adult citizens aren't given the same rights just riles me, big time. I've always felt that way, I think. I certainly remember a heated discussion with my husband about it nearly 20 years ago!

But throwing out Kerry b/c he doesn't wholeheartedly support gay marriage seems a very silly way to proceed. As you said, he's going to do more on that count, by far. And the alternative is too damn scary to think too much about!

[mdguss]

134. Fair Points, but

My reference is from seeing the gay rights movement continually overreach. When I went to college at a major state-backed university, the gay rights movement engaged in a big same-sex benefits push. Culturally conservative (both Republican and Democrat) members of the state legislature fought back: there would be no state funding going to universities if they implemented same-sex benefits. An unsuccessful lawsuit, a City Council ordinance, many demonstrations that called the president of the university a "bigot" later, there are still no same-sex benefits at the school I graduated from.

My point is that the gay rights movement needs to pick its battles wisely. They're fighting on the wrong turf with marriage and same-sex benefits. They have a clearly compelling case when it comes to death bed rights. If they pursued that, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and half the Republican party would oppose it too. But their opposition would be seen as extreme and it would further discredit the far-right of the Republican Party. It'd put them in a weaker position when it comes to things like same-sex benefits.

But the "mainstream" gay rights movement insists on promoting marriage. The legal funds responsible for the gay marriage suits are (generally) mainstream organizations.

I've yet to hear a good argument for gay marriage. In my view, it has the potential to needlessly infringe on religious freedom. Other means (death bed rights, etc.) could effectively deal with real problems without imposing one definition of marriage on the faithful.

[JerseygirlCT]

174. I don't understand how you thing marriage rights infringe on

religious freedom.

Specific religions are under no compulsion to marry anyone they don't wish to marry. That would not change. What would change are civic rights and responsibilities.

Religion is a red herring here -- it has no place in the argument at all. Within a particular faith, the rules are made by that faith -- in fact, a few are already "marrying" gay couples. Others probably never will.

That shouldn't change the legal rights available to gay couples. And if a religious person is affronted by a gay marriage -- then he or she shouldn't enter into such a marriage. Another person's marriage is absolutely none of the religious person's business, nor does it affect their own marriage.

[Kipepeo]

Too "aggressive!?"

I find some of your statements a little incredible.

The gay rights movement is being too aggressive?! What are you talking about? Advocating for equal rights is too aggressive? I guess if everyone just sits down and shuts up our country will find some kind of equality? Maybe it will fall out of the sky? Is that how ANY civil rights movement has succeeded in this country?

Your post is riddled with Right Wing spins of the gay rights movement. No one is saying discrimination against gays is just like segregation or slavery (please!). That's what the right wingers SAY the gay rights movement is advocating. Thanks for repeating it. It's a purposeful misrepresentation of the VERY REAL comparison to all civil rights struggles. A more apt comparison is to laws preventing interracial marriage. But that doesn't negate the fact that discrimination still exists in this country against gays and lesbians and I have no problem comparing the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement and the women's movement in this country. In broad terms, they are all struggles to gain equal rights for a "minority" population. To take that comparison though, and twist it and say 'but but but you don't have to sit on the back of any bus' is to set up a false argument and then strike it down...as if that were ever the argument in the first place. Give me a break.

As an aside, you want to see what the effect of living in a country that's still riddled with prejudice against gays and lesbians? Do a quick google search for Scottie Weaver, a gay Alabama teen who was beaten, murdered, burned and nearly decapitated this past month in an apparent hate crime. And there's not much talk about that on the news despite it being so recent.

"...the gay rights movement and some naive progressives have decided to go all out for gay marriage."

Wow. Are you saying that some people should just learn their place? Why push for true equality? Is that what this means?

"It's a losing issue."

I don't think it's a losing issue at all. I think full equal marriage rights will come sooner than ever expected and I think we'll all be looking back on this one day like "What was the big deal?" Our grandkids will wonder if their grandparents were out there fighting for equal rights for all or if they were sitting at home quietly and not participating or if they were part of the fight against those equal rights. Santorum will be the Strom Thurmond of our day.

"If an amendment banning gay marriage ever makes it to the ballot in my state, I will vote for it."

Glad to know where you stand and where you'll be telling your grandkids you stood.

"I believe that there is some validity to the traditional family"

And so your beliefs should supersede a gay or lesbian family's beliefs when it comes to law and equal rights within the law?

"I believe gay marriage has the potential to infringe on the free practice of religion."

Why? Legal marriage rights have NOTHING to do with marriages in the church. there are two parts to marriage: the civil marriage rights that the government gives married couples and the religious ceremony that many (but not all) choose to participate in. There's still this thing called separation of church and state. Your church never has to allow Jane and Sue down the street to have a marriage ceremony. But our government should not be allowed to deprive them of the same civil marriage rights Joan and Phil get.

In fact, the way it stands right now it's religion that is infringing on the rights of Americans. Because there are people out there who believe that their religious beliefs should be able to dictate the law...that because in their religion gay marriage is not allowed that it should not be allowed by the government. That's some serious infringing.

As far as the original topic goes, voting for Nader is giving a vote to Bush and will allow Bush to fill the Supreme Court with homophobic and anti-choice and anti-affirmative action zealots. Kerry is the right step for the gay rights movement to take and I think that's pretty well known. Hell, there are gay republicans jumping ship like crazy right now and lining up for Kerry. I think it's pretty obvious what 4 more years of Bush will do the country, gay rights included.

[QC]

105. Excellent post! You're quite right that the one you're responding to is

nothing but regurgitated right wing spin. It's bad enough that we have to get that shit crammed down our throats every time we turn on the news or pick up the paper--now we have "Democrats" dragging it in here.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

114. Good post, but dont expect much from the 'phobes.

There are homophobic Democrats, probably alot, and it looks like we just ran into one here.

Yeah, it was pretty much right wing spin. Goes to show how deep these ideas have entrenched themselves in society.

[mdguss]

138. In my defense,

I'm a moderate to conservative Democrat. I tend to be conservative on some social issues, and moderate on economic issues. I am a Democrat because I believe in the fundamental principle of fairness (people should have a chance through well-funded schools, access to college, small business loans, etc), and that government can be used as a tool--not the solution, but a tool in assisting people to improve their lives.

Go to any church, and ask parishioners what they think about gay marriage. What are the legal implications for churches (do they, despite the fact that its against their teachings, have to allow a gay married couple the "marriage membership," will they lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to extend benefits to the spouses of gay employees? The question isn't whether they will have to give ceremonies to gay couples, the question is whether they will have to materially support a practice that is against the teachings of their religion). The free practice of religion is essential to American democracy, and I'm not sure that gay marriage is the solution to what I see as real problems that many gay couples face.

I agree that the lack of death bed visitation rights is a real problem. That is an issue that they gay rights community could make a big gain on. Generally, people think that they should be able to spend their last moments on this earth with the person they love. It humanizes something that's been demonized. The Robertsons, Fallwells, Limbaughs, and Bushs of the world would probably oppose death bed rights too. But it wouldn't threaten moderate religious voters the way gay marriage does. In fact, it'd probably discredit the far right.

That would be a great first step for the gay rights movement to take. Fight on that issue, and that issue only. They should've funded ballot questions and/or state constitutional amendments that allow people to designate who can make medical decisions for them and who can be at their side when they are dying. Those questions would've won with 70 percent. The extreme right would've fought it, but they would've lost credibility on other issues.

But the gay rights community insisted on going forward with lawsuits aimed at marriage laws. They thought everyone would understand why they feel so oppressed (and if they didn't, with reckless comparisons to the civil rights movements, people would be reminded of it). It's too much, too soon, too quickly.

The problems--death bed rights, joint loans at mortgaging institutions, etc. could be solved with simple legislation that would obtain popular support. It wouldn't be a struggle to get that passed in most state houses, but in my view, progressives tend to be looking for a struggle. I think that's a bit naive, and that's why I said, "Naive progressives." Ralph Nader is exhibit number 1 of a naive progressive.

The fact is fighting for gay marriage is framing the issue wrongly. The word marriage carries a lot of meaning, and it blurs out the legitimate issues of death bed rights and loans. It's a loser issue. Fighting for death bed rights might actually be something that most people--this moderate Democrat included--could fight for. Gay marriage simply isn't because it has too much potential to interfere with others exercising their first amendment (religious) rights.

[DaveinMD]

139. gay marriage

will not force churches to marry gays. It will become legal for them to do so.

[mdguss]

147. That's not what I was saying:

I was saying it has the potential to impede on the free practice of religion: will the law force churches to give the same membership discounts to gay couples who were married at the courthouse? Will they be forced to provide health benefits to same-sex spouses of their employees? If they don't do these things will they lose their tax exempt status? If that's the case, then churches are being forced to materially support something that is against the teachings of their religion. It's the same as asking the Jovah's Witnesses to recit the pledge--event though that is strictly against their religion, or the Quakers to build machine guns even though that is strictly against their religion.

[TankLV]

182. Thank you. You said it a lot better than I could.

But, as I said to the original poster, they are aparently quite comfortable in their bigotry.

---

Now back to the back of the bus, and sit down and shut up! for "gods" sake.

Can't we stop your "religious persecution"?!

How dare we ask for equal rights NOW?!

How dare we question anyone's special rights that we all don't have?!

---

"Overreaching?!" - NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

Are there more pressing issues to contend with in this cycle without resorting to bigotry but all remain "on the bus" - MOST DEFINITELY!

Besides, didn't I read somewhere that Nader is actually OPPOSED to Gay Rights? I wish someone could google this. Methinks he's a "johnny come lately" to this topic - VERY lately - as well as hypocritical.

Can you say "pandering"?!

[IndianaGreen]

71. Some Southern white folks said that Black folks overreached

when they tried to integrate the buses and the lunch counters.

All I am hearing is the same arguments for states rights that Southern white Democrats used to use to justify segregation. Instead of "GAWD wants the races to be separate" or the "White must marry White" anti-miscegenation bullshit, we now hear "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman" or "GAWD created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

America has always been a bigoted, racist country, and will continue to be that way for as long as politicians of both major parties continue to cater to the darkest impulses in the American psyche.

Now, what's that I heard about women needing to stand quietly behind their men. Teresa, Elizabeth?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

111. Nice to see the homophobes coming out of the closet.

If an amendment banning gay marriage ever makes it to the ballot in my state,

You disgust me.

[ulysses]

116. well, hell.

If an amendment banning gay marriage ever makes it to the ballot in my state, I will vote for it because: a. I believe that there is some validity to the traditional family b. I believe gay marriage has the potential to infringe on the free practice of religion. c. I am turned off by reckless comparisons to segregation (and even slavery) by some in the gay rights movement. d. I think the problems--the lack of access to dying partners can be solved without gay marriage.

You could've put this up front and saved me a lot of reading.

Feh. "Infringe on the free practice of religion". How? Tell me how. I truly want to know.

[flaminbats]

119. these arguments only lack logic..

If an amendment banning gay marriage ever makes it to the ballot in my state, I will vote for it because: a. I believe that there is some validity to the traditional family b. I believe gay marriage has the potential to infringe on the free practice of religion. c. I am turned off by reckless comparisons to segregation (and even slavery) by some in the gay rights movement. d. I think the problems--the lack of access to dying partners can be solved without gay marriage.

You believe that gay marriage has the potential to infringe on free practice of religion? Every church has standards for marriage, only a church that excepts gay marriage would provide this ceremony. But gay marriage is not legal in Missouri, so by not allowing these churches to marry people who they believe should be married..the government is infringing on free practice of religion. This constitutional amendment only makes this infringement institutionalized.

I can see why you might have problems with your church being forced to marry gay people, but I cannot see this as a justification for using the government to force all churches to except your church's standard for marriage.

And this is what you are advocating by voting for this amendment! :thumbsdown:

[mdguss]

142. See above:

See my post above: my point is marriage law is complex, so is the tax law exempting churches. In a sentence will churces be forced to recognize, and materially support, marriages that are against their teachings? It's a legitimate issue.

[DaveinMD]

143. no they won't

Churches will be free to marry gays, but they won't be required to.

[flaminbats]

144. I don't buy this...

the Christian Church is not required to marry two Jews who are not even members. Two atheists can't just walk in and demand a marriage in the Mormon temple. Three Muslims can't demand getting married in a Baptist Church.

This has nothing to do with exempting Churches from taxes, that is an entirely different issue. No church can or would be forced to recognize any marriage. If gays are denied a ceremony by your Church, they could always be married by a judge.

[mdguss]

146. Re-read my post:

My point isn't whether they will have to marry people in ceremonies, my point is: will churches be forced to materially support relationships they teach against through membership discounts and benefits to spouses? If they don't provide equal membership discounts to gay couple and equal benefits to gay couples will they lose their tax-exempt status?

Most of them would probably stop providing health insurance to their employees if that were the case.

[flaminbats]

148. marriage discounts?

sounds like Wal-Church, or K-Preach...

Get married now and get a new BMW and a trip to Paris! Sacrifice even more for God, and we'll give you a toll-free hotline to Jesus! O8)

[mdguss]

150. Read the context of my post:

Marriage discounts as in: membership dues 25 dollars for an individual, 40 dollars for a married couple--or a ten dollar discount for the married couple.

[flaminbats]

151. Churches don't have membership dues for anyone...

again...they are nonprofit. They take tithes, or donations...but cannot make a financial contribution a requirement for being a member.

If your church did do this, it would not be treated as a nonprofit organization. It might not be allowed to even marry people, it could go corporate..and sell holy shares of stock on Wall Street. :eyes:

[ulysses]

129. an invite

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2177078

[TankLV]

181. We are all glad you are comfortable in your bigotry.

I guess the concept of equal rights is just too much for some.

Nice try tho!

[Chelsea Patriot]

190. Agreed!

The argument comparing Same Sex Unions to The Civil Rights Movement is utter Bullshit!

If someone tries to tell me that my life, with my partner, for the past decade, has been analogous to what African-Americans experienced in the Pre Civil Rights Era, I would laugh in their face!

"Queen, Please...."

No laws exist forbidding us from having our relationship. My partner and I are able to vote; and, we have yet to see any segregation by sexuality. 2004 Chelsea= 1920 Alabama? Yeah, Right!

I completely understand how African-Americans would be deeply offended by such a comparison.

I don't believe that there is a real consensus on Gay Marriage, even within the Gay community. We, like most of the other couples we know, have no interest in appropriating the concept of "Marriage".

We do want the same rights as other Americans. Having been registered "Domestic Partners" for eight years, we believe "Civil Unions" are the best means of achieving these rights.

We support Senators John Kerry, John Edwards, Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton. We do not believe their views on "Gay Marriage" in anyway threaten us.

If anything, I am pissed at the self-appointed marriage activists, who with their bizarre monomania over a word, now jeopardize the already existing rights, same sex couples possess under civil unions/domestic partnerships.

This "marriage" issue is media driven, by both Corporate and Gay Media (if there's a difference), with the sole intent to inflame and, thereby, distract the People from Bush's assault on America.

[George_Bonanza]

53. This is totally consistent with the DNC platform

That is to oppose a federal law deciding whether to allow or ban gay marriage, and leave it to the states. When Massachussetts decided to allow gay marriage, Kerry said that was contrary to his personal beliefs but since it was up to the states, it was okay. Now in Missouri, where they have done the opposite and banned gay marriage, he believes it okay because it's up to the states. This is the mainstream Democratic stance from guys like Clark to Kerry to Dean. More liberal candidates like Kucinich and Sharpton have fully advocated for gay marriage in America but they're not the ones running for president anymore. Gay marriage is a pointless issue that a president has no control over, and time will ultimately yield to gay marriage. Kerry is treading very dangerous waters, since a lot of people support the idea of gay couples having the legal benefits of a hetero couple, but are hesitant to give up the ancient notion of marriage being between a man and a woman.

Keep in mind that this is a political campaign. Kerry can't come out and tell Missouri that they're stupid and backwards or he can kiss the election good-bye, and every state except for maybe Massachussetts.

[IndianaGreen]

74. But they "lead the region in dumbness," as Bill Maher has said!

Kerry can't come out and tell Missouri that they're stupid and backwards...

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview with Bill Maher

Aired July 22, 2004 - 21:00 ET

KING: Do you think it's an issue? you think gay marriage is going to be an issue in the election?

MAHER: They're making it an issue. That's another perfect example of religion making something that makes absolutely no sense into an issue. To a rational person, anyone with eyes can see God, and I believe in God, or a higher being, I just don't believe in the people who pretend they're talking for him. They can see that God or nature created, nature, even in the animal world, a gay minority. It's just a fact. For some reason, God wanted a gay minority among us. Maybe it's because we're too aggressive and gays are less aggressive. Although not at the Ramrod on Saturday night. Not that I would know that.

But I don't know. That's what the rational mind says. The rational mind takes it as the given. There are gay people in the world. The irrational mind...

KING: They're not saying there aren't. They're just saying they shouldn't get married. Marriage is a man and a woman. They acknowledge that there are gays in the world.

MAHER: What they acknowledge is that there are gays because it's a choice. They believe it is a choice. They believe, as the Bible says, it is an abomination. And it's not a choice. It's obviously not a choice. So they're working From this ridiculous premise. They think that if people get married, if gay people get married, it will lead to more homosexuality. As if guys like you and me, Larry, are just looking for a little legal cover to get together with each other.

<snip>

KING: You think in modern-day America you could still claim a whole region is dumber than another region?

MAHER: They lead the region in dumbness, yes, they do. Because there's just too many people who think that every problem can be solved by either more guns or more Jesus. And like I said, I'm with the people who are following the compass. Not the people who are reading the entrails of the chicken. They're the people who are reading the entrails of the chicken.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/22/lkl.00.html

[George_Bonanza]

155. Maher's not running for prez

If he flamebaits 90 million people down south, who cares? Kerry can't say what we all know is true, or he will bomb in the election.

[Protected]

56. Why do so many people on this board expect to be pandered to?

Look, there are some things that I like about Kerry/Edwards and some things I don't like. The fact is that they're infinitely better than the garbage currently in the White house.

[Maddy McCall]

60. because single-issue ideological purity is more important to them...

than winning and removing Bush.

[DaveinMD]

61. these nader

voters should be truthful with themselves. They are really Bush voters. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Its that simple.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moloch]

66. Has Edwards not ALWAYS said that he thinks it should be..

up to the states to decide on gay marriage? I'm gay and I think there isn't a valid reason in the world to ban gay marriage, but guess what.... Nader doesn't have a chance in hell to win, our only hope is John Kerry. If you will look at his record and Edwards' they both have strongly supported gay rights in the past. It is my right to marry, but the peace and dignity of America and the rest of the world depend on the outcome of this election and I will not vote selfishly and symbolically for anyone.

[JohnKleeb]

68. yes hes said that

[union_maid]

67. All the gay and lesbian people I know want gay marriage...

....and not one wanted it to be an issue right now. Admittedly, the ones I know are a bit older. The youngest of my friends is 40ish. But they're very political and very activist. One has really been groundbreaking in these parts when it comes to getting domestic partnerships recognized - to the point where actual medical benefits are involved. Not just lip service. They believe that in the longterm they'd be far better off to let the public get used to civil unions first. A lot of the anti-gay marriage referendums that are being put on ballots to energize the RW base end up disallowing rights that might have accrued to civil unions unchallenged if not for the marriage issue. I hope it works out better than some are afraid it will, but remember that Kerry and Edwards have to get a majority of the electoral votes to win and it's the Republicans that are wanting this to be an issue. You don't want to play into their hands to the point that the Supreme Court becomes totally dominated by the RW view. If Bush had had a chance to nominate a couple the Texas decision might have gone the other way. That was very recent, too.

[doctorbombeigh]

70. Karl Rove thanks you for your support. n/t

[NMDemDist2]

73. Ted lives in Los Angeles

where there are more same sex protections than in most other states in the union

Nader won't be on the ballot in California anyway

Ted's vote in California won't tip the state to Bush, but I'm sad to see such a knee jerk reaction against Kerry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x734665

[IndianaGreen]

75. Kerry didn't say anything, it was Edwards!

This is the same Edwards that said something even more stupid a few days ago when he went to Florida to pander to the anti-Semitic and racist anti-Castro Cubans.

Edwards is beginning to show his political immaturity and lack of experience when he says ignorant things like the ones he said about gay marriage and Cuba. Edwards better think twice before he opens his mouth before some of us begin to see him as a Dan Quayle with a brain.

[NMDemDist2]

77. it still had tedthebear voting for Nader n/t

[IndianaGreen]

78. Nader does not have the record that Kerry has on GLBT rights

Kerry voted against DOMA, one of the worst failings of the Clinton Administration. Clinton was more interested in his sexual gratification than he was in defending our rights.

[athena]

152. Kerry supports gay rights

I am absolutely convinced that Kerry personally supports gay rights. It's just not politically wise for him to say so right now. Most of the country is still against gay marriage rights.

[Democat]

76. Kerry needs to get elected, whatever it takes - he will govern better

Wake up and look at what's really going on. We are trying to get rid of one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. It will take some pandering to do it.

Bush says a lot of things to get elected, but once he's in office, he does whatever he wants, regardless of what he said previously.

It's about time our side started playing the game.

Kerry and other in the Democratic Party need to get elected. I don't agree with some of the bullshit they say either, but I'm not voting for Bush because Kerry isn't perfect.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. Don't Let The Door Hit Ya Where The Good Lord Split Ya

NT

[The Commie]

80. I like the Greens...

... but as long as we have the electoral collegeand no run-off elections we will be stuck with 2 parties because of the Nader Effect (TM).

It has to be remenbered that parties in a 2-party systems are really equivalent to governing coalitions in Multi-party Democracies (as we saw in '68). If we had an election system like that in Canada or many european countires, our 2 parties would split in to 4 or 5 parties. The Democrats would split into Greens, Moralist (William Jennings Bryan-type) Liberals, Secular Liberals, and Greens. The Republicans would split into Libertarians (like John McCain), and Conservatives.

[JohnKleeb]

82. McCain isnt a libertarian republican at all

Hes more of a maverick, hes quite conservative like many republicans on the issues but hes a maverick which makes him different.

[mike1963]

81. I hope you will reconsider. We MUST get Chimpy out of the WH.

JK is, like every other person on the planet, imperfect but he's all we have to work with at this time. A vote for Nader may as well be one for Shrub. Please don't do this.

[Tarheelhombre]

84. The biggest enemy of good is the quest for perfection

Kerry is not perfect on gay rights, but the reality is that he is the better candidate. Nader cannot, win not win, so there will either be a President Kerry or President Bush in January. Not Nader. It is foolish to squander your vote on someone who will not win, when it will only help elect someone who is WORSE than Kerry on gay equality. Use your brain, not your impetuous emotions to vote.

[Padraig18]

85. That is the most ridiculous statement I've *ever* seen on DU!

For the love of all that's holy, how in the HELL do you think that voting for someone who has NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER OF WINNING will do any good for GLBT causes? There are precisely TWO candidates who can win in November--- Kerry and Bush. Only a brain-dead FOOL would fail to understand which one is more likely to advance GLBT issues.

:wtf:

[Onlooker]

88. We need the Supreme Court

As a gay man, and one of the first to get legally married, I too am disappointed in Kerry, but obviously the Republicans are trying to use gay marriage as a wedge issue. The more important need for gays and other members of minorities is to save the Supreme Court.

We do not have the time to educate the public on the issue of gay marriage in this election cycle. If the truth be known, in general, the large gay organizations were fighting for civil unions, not gay marriage, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued its ruling. It will take time to win full equality, but it will take much, much longer with a religious nutcase like Bush appointing the Supreme Court justices.

[Lex]

89. Thanks for helping Bush put 2 on the Supreme Court

and thus making sure that the RELIGIOUS RIGHT see to it that GLBTs will NEVER EVER make any strides.

Good move.

[Bluebear]

90. Enjoy concentration camp!

Which is where the fundies would love to put us anyhow.

[archineas]

94. lurker moved to speak

hello

i'm finally speaking up after being an anonymous reader for quite some time.

i'm gay. i live in ohio, with my partner, underneath a DOMA. i'm not happy with that. i'd love to be able to move to MA, but while my partner is in school, we just can't do that.

kerry/edwards not offering support for gay marriage doesn't bother me. kerry/edwards not speaking out against the missouri constitutional amendment doesn't bother me.

their support, however, is much better than anything we'd ever see from another bush/cheney term. that is sufficient for me. i'd rather make progress in small steps, then spend my time fighting the regressive policies of a prejudiced administration.

in my mind, voting for anyone other than kerry amounts to a vote for bush. it's saying "i don't want kerry to lead", which in a 2-party system is the equivalent of saying "i want bush to lead".

it is unfortunate that it boils down to such a "black-and-white" choice, but our system has yet to recognize the various shades of grey in-between.

j

[DaveinMD]

95. if you are for gay marriage

then get involved to defeat the author of the hate amendment. Marilyn Musgrave must be defeated. Stan Matsunaka is running against her and he is a great guy. Here is his website.

www.stan2004.com

Please help him out.

[JohnKleeb]

99. hes run against her before and got within 13%

[DaveinMD]

101. he ran against her

and got hurt at the end by some bad mudslinging and didn't have the money to respond. It was also a very Republican year. We can win this race if we raise the money to compete. Independent polling shows this race is a dead heat. We need to send a message that hate does not pay. Support Stan.

www.stan2004.com

[Bluebear]

98. Archineas , glad to have you!

Don't lurk, we need your voice!

[wellstone dem]

103. WElcome to DU

from a fellow lurker.

[drumwolf]

106. I'm sorry, but I can't hold my tongue or be polite about this.

Awwww, poor baby.... Santa's not bringing you ALL the toys you wanted for Christmas so you're going to stamp your feet, grab your ball, and go home!

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flaminbats]

107. Nader won't be an option in California...

but you could support David Cobb, who is on the ballot in 22 states. But what about the others?

At least with Kerry individual gays would not be discriminated against when they seek health insurance or a government job.

I agree we have a long way to go, but slavery was not abolished overnight. And Jim Crow didn't vanish with a single election. Like the battle for universal healthcare, the fight for equality cannot be won overnight. There will be brutal defeats and some victories like in Vermont, but the objective will only be won with a longterm commitment from activists like us.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Kerry and Edwards can't do anything for anyone if they don't WIN.

And, unfortunate as it is, the electoral college means that they can't win the election without carrying at least a few of the states between NYC and San Francisco. Unfortunately (and this debate is identical to the one I have with my Naderite friends, on pretty much every issue) you have to recognize where the majority of the country is. Is it right? No. I agree that there is no "good time" for civil rights-- it's always a good time. I thought Gavin Newsom was a blow-dried yuppie prick until he bravely came out for gay marriage in San Francisco. I fully believe it's a civil rights issue. But I also believe that four more years of Bush isn't going to help anyone's civil rights. However asinine Kerry and Edwards may have to be to win over voters in the fartland, er, heartland, I guarantee you that a couple Bush appointed SCOTUS judges, headed by Chief Justice Scalia, will be far more hostile to the rights of people's privacy in the bedroom. Think not being able to get married is bad? If the religious right kooks who run the GOP have their way, gays might end up with a far worse fate than just not being able to get married. Roy "The 10 Commandments Judge" Moore stated he believes the death penalty is appropriate for "crimes" like being gay.

So, look.. I was irritated by that quote, too. But the American Public has come a long way in a short period of time on this issue. I agree, not far enough-- but, 10 years ago no one was even talking about gay marriage. Now, at least, most people are okay with civil unions. In another decade, it's quite possible that the public will have grown up, even in the bumblef*ck states, enough to be able to handle it. As it is, yeah, the position Kerry & Edwards have taken on this-- sure, it sucks, but it's also a nod to electoral reality. And again, none of this is worth a damn if they don't WIN.

Oh- and as for "bigotry against my particular minority".. there was a thread here about whether or not atheists and agnostics (of which I am one) resented all the "God Talk" at the Convention. I said I felt it was unfortunate that our convention can't be, like a baseball game, a secular event where religion is left at the door, but the Dem. party's handling of the issue was and is far and away preferable to the way the republicans deal with it. I recongize that I am in the minority, but I hope that one day we will have a wide public understanding that the first amendment means we don't need to excessively bandy about words like "God" when dealing with our secular government-- the place for that is church.... But I recognize that we, as a society, aren't there yet.

So, if you really don't think there's any difference between the party of Barney Frank and the party of Rick Santorum, go ahead and vote for Nader.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

109. I think the gay rights movement has reached its limits....

...as least as to whats politically possible.

I guess its still marginally OK to vote for Kerry as he opposes a Federal amendment, but I dont expect much from the Democrats.

I sort of regret my contribution to the Kerry campaign after this....

[archineas]

115. i must politely disagree

one eats the elephant but one bite at a time.

much time has passed since stonewall. the gay rights movement, while not achieving all it's goals, has come far in many years. i live in an area where i do not fear retribution for my partner and i sharing an apartment. i do not fear speaking of him, or having him at my place of work. our families are both quite supportive of us.

however, the steps to achieving all the goals take time. patience is required of us all. we cannot have all that we want overnight. to do so would make us *gasp* neocons.

each person we sway, each voice we convince to join in our search for civil equality is the success. kerry/edwards will be much easier to convince to listen. the other choice won't listen. have they ever? do they care to?

bush likes to use the phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations". while i question whether or not he has the capacity to explain what he means by it, i suggest that the expectation that a kerry administration won't listen, or take up just causes in due course is bigotry.

i'm sorry if that seems extreme. it's just the way i feel.

--free thought--free speech--free ideas--

j

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

118. I think this is beyong just Kerry/Edwards.

Whats happening now with these marriage amendments is pretty permanent in the states where these are happening...gay marriage, or even domestic partnernship, are now "off the table" as far as a political issue.

The fact that these referendums are so sucessfull (70% in Missouri, probably similar elsewhere), could very well embolden the conservatives to put similar amenedments on table re "gay rights"..the civil rights protection...or to have state legislatures pass laws voiding local gay rights laws (as is bein considered in Kentucky).

Gay rights has been pretty much a local issue, and occasionally a state issue.

Its never really been a Federal issue, until recently.

[JI7]

124. the supreme court has a chance to strike down the bans

and that's what we need to do. get a mostly liberal court so they can strike down any bans on same sex marriage. they could do that if it's in state constitutions but they can't if it's in the federal constitution. this is why we need to keep it a state issue and try to get a supreme court that will strike down any bans and uphold any legalizations.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

125. Im not sure about that.

If a gay marriage case comes up through state courts the Feds can touch it.

And, if this judicial stripping act becomes law, these cases would have no standing in federal court.

[flaminbats]

122. it is not extreme..

but neither is it to point out that both Nader and Cobb are not on the ballot in Missouri. So the only choice for progress now in that state is Kerry/Edwards..

http://web.greens.org/statestatus/

[soggy]

117. don't miss the big picture

this is an election for WAY more than the next four years...there's at least 2 supreme court seats to appoint this next term. if bush wins, we're one giant step closer to making homosexuality illegal.

In a perfect world, OUR politician would agree with us wholeheartedly on every position, regardless of the price at the polls. This isn't a perfect world however, and it's political suicide for Kerry to pick up this fight right now. I do think he cares about gay rights though.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

120. Could this be spun as another Kerry/Edwards weasel word flipflop?

I notice that they dont come out and say they support the Missouri amendement, they just say its a states-rights thing, that its up to the states.

So this could be spun that they didnt really take a stand on the issue, and may actually support gay marriage.

I think this is sort of risky buisness. I would be a bit more comfortable Kerry/Edwards would just be done with it and say they support the states amending their constitutions banning gay marriage, though they oppose a Federal amendment.

[DaveinMD]

121. not a flip flop at all

its what Kerry has always said. He has always said it should be left up to the states, but he supports the idea of civil unions.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

123. Then he needs to SAY he opposes gay marriage.

...and that he supports the state level intiatives to ban gay marriage.

Whats in that Moveon article sounds like equivocation.

" Vice presidential candidate John Edwards, campaigning Thursday in Cape Girardeau, said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage."

"No Objection" doesnt mean they support, or oppose it. It means they have no objection to the process.

[DaveinMD]

126. he has said

he supports civil unions. His position is clear. He opposed a federal constitutional amendment and is in favor of the states deciding the issue.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

127. No its not clear.

Does he or does he not oppose gay marraiges?

Doe he or des he not support state level attempts to outlaw gay marriage?

Thats the question.

Can Kerry or Edwards provide answers to these questions. Yes or No answers?

[moobu2]

137. Bottom line is, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Bush wouldnt be president right now if not for Nader in 2000.

[zulchzulu]

128. Dear Myopic Single Issue Voter,

Vote for Bush by voting for Nader.

See what great plans Bush has for the gay community in the next four years. Add the fact that Bush could appoint 2 Supreme Court judges and totally take chances for reform on all levels for 30 years!

So you can't imagine a good first step of getting civil unions available? Would you rather have no chance of that happening? Are you that uninformed about the full impact of this election?

Think it through and figure out reality. If you think throwing your vote to a candidate that takes money from anti-gay groups is a solution you're comfortable with is good enough for you, then I can only offer you pity.

[DaveSZ]

132. Kerry has a 100% lifetime rating from the Human Rights Campaign:

http://www.globalstewards.org/democrats.htm#why


1. On the Environment: Kerry has a 96% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters based on his congressional voting record.
2. On Civil Rights: The NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign gave Kerry a 100% rating.
3. On Education: For the past 8 years, John Kerry has received a 100% rating from the National Education Association.
4. On a Woman's Right to Choose: Planned Parenthood and NARAL gave Kerry a 100% rating.
5. On Labor Rights: The AFL-CIO has given John Kerry a 91% lifetime rating, including a 100% rating in 2003.
6. On Animal Rights: The Humane Society and Fund for Animals reports that Kerry supported eight out of the nine most recent bills promoting animal welfare.
7. Kerry has a long record of public service to this country. He has extensive experience in both domestic and international affairs. He worked as a prosecutor for one of the country's largest counties, served as Lieutenant Governor for two years, and has served as a U.S. Senator since 1984. As Senator, he has served for 18 years on the Foreign Relations Committee, 6 years on the Intelligence Committee, and is the Ranking Democrat on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee.
8. Kerry and Edward's new book, Our Plan for America, offers a clear and practical vision for a more hopeful future.
9. John Edwards will also be a great leader. He has championed causes that really matter to American families such as quality health care, a Patients' Bill of Rights, middle-class tax cuts, better schools and higher teacher pay, and a strong national defense.
10. Kerry supports:
* Aggressively promoting conservation, renewable energy sources, and increased energy efficiency to reduce both global warming emissions and our dependence on foreign oil
* Reducing toxics in our communities
* Reinvigorating the Superfund cleanup program
* Improving our parks and protecting our public lands
* Protecting low income communities from environmental hazards
* Strengthening and enforcing our Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
* Addressing global warming emissions through a combination of innovative programs that will drive technology change and create jobs
* Addressing the exploitation of marine resources around the globe
* Addressing the growing crisis of fresh water shortages around the globe
* Reducing traffic congestion and sprawl
* Strong job creation including creating 500,000 jobs by investing in renewable energy sources, such as ethanol, solar, and wind
* Rejoining the international community
* Programs that promote democracy and respect for human rights
* Comprehensive election reform
* Arms control and non-proliferation measures
* Defining a global security strategy on terrorism that is "collective, not imperial, inclusive not exclusive, and cooperative not unilateralist"
* Rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and re-investing in education and healthcare.
* Expanding health care coverage to nearly 95 percent of Americans – including nearly all children
* Assuring high quality health care by including a strong enforceable patients' bill of rights, reducing medical errors, and ensuring safe staffing levels for nurses
* Protecting Medicare and Social Security
* Fully funding our public education system
* Creating programs to increase access to a college education for more Americans
* Providing services to children such as Head Start and child care
* Improving child abuse prevention and treatment programs
* Expanding our nation's hate crime law
* The Employment Nondiscrimination Act
* Affirmative Action
* The Equal Rights Amendment
* Closing the pay gap between men and women
* Title IX
* Protecting workers' rights to organize and join a union
* Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation
* Improving workplace health and safety
* Ending the practice of racial profiling
* Creating immigration policies that are fair and safe
* The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act
* Expanding funding for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs
* Partnering with Native American tribes to improve access to health care, provide more educational opportunities, and strengthen economic development efforts
* Improving opportunities for small businesses
* A strong agricultural economy based on family-owned producers and sustainable practices
* Making sure that farmers have the support they need and that rural communities have the capital, infrastructure, and technology they need to be safe and prosperous
* Truth in labeling and country of origin labeling to give consumers the information they need to support American farmers
* Renewable fuels, such as ethanol, grown on America's farms and produced in producer-owned facilities
* Limiting the proliferation of animal confinements
* Expanding the Community Oriented Policing program (COPS)
* Strengthening Homeland Security
* Strongly enforcing federal gun laws and improving and expanding the background check program
* Providing sufficient funding for drug prevention and treatment programs

[DaveSZ]

133. HRC ENDORSES SENATOR JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=19947&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm


Watch the video of Kerry at the end.

:)

[JohnKleeb]

135. Some wishy washy moderate

I like this man more i read.

[flaminbats]

141. I agree...

most wishy washy white men have a soul mate in the White House.

[JohnKleeb]

145. and Kerry and Bush are polar opposites

Lemme be honest here, if Kerry were a conservative democrat and up against Bush, I'd still support Kerry with ethausism because Kerry's personal values are great.

[ikojo]

179. I trust you feel the same about those who only vote

for pro choice or anti choice people? Talk about single issue voters!

[autorank]

131. With all due respect...

...people like you are THE REASON Democrats lose elections. You either sit home or vote for a vanity candidate, i.e., Nader. I am a total supporter of gay rights; but I'm not willing to sacrifice the whole country, our future, and what would be left of the rest of the world should Bushco win, just to punish Kerry for not falling on his sword. Please, a little common sense.

[DaveSZ]

136. I had forgotten about that...

Nader is getting sigs and funding from anti-gay Fundie groups.

Did you know that?

If you have to vote for a third party and are not in a battleground state, at least vote for Cobb.

[athena]

149. What are Kerry and Edwards supposed to do?

Are you saying that to get your vote they should publicly announce that they're for gay marriage? That's exactly what Bush & Co. want them to do. Bringing up the gay marriage issue was a clever trap -- Bush and his buddies wanted Kerry to say something pro-gay to protect his base, so that they could jump on him for being "too liberal for the American people". It would be a win-win situation for them: if Kerry said he was for gay marriage, he would lose the center, and if he said he was against gay marriage, he would lose his base. By saying that they want to leave the issue to the states, Kerry and Edwards are using the very tactic that the Republicans use when arguing for small government. They are, in effect, refusing to answer the question. If they were really against gay marriage, wouldn't they just come right out and say that they support a constitutional ban? Their answer, in fact, suggests that they're for gay marriage rights. By voting for Nader, you are falling right into the Republicans' trap.

Four years ago, feminists voted in large numbers for Nader, because they thought that Gore and Bush weren't all that different. After all, Bush promised he would leave abortion rights alone. So they voted for Nader, Bush won, and he did enormous damage to reproductive rights around the world. Do you want them to win again and do the same thing with gay rights?

The sad truth is, the Democratic party will not openly support gay rights until the center supports gay rights. And the only way to make the center support gay rights is by grassroots activism and local politics.

[NEDem]

157. A voice of reason. I completely agree.

[George_Bonanza]

156. Nader accepts support from "family groups" aka anti-gay religious zealots

Like in Oregon. Why should you overlook that and scrutinize Kerry-Edwards? I'm not trying to trash Nader, but since you're thinking of bolting Kerry-Edwards for Nader, I have to bring this up.

[JohnKleeb]

158. right

and I really think this is being blown out of proportion, look I want gay marriage but even Kerry being for it wont make it happen, I think we all gotta realize, we dont just get what we want because we want it, its not a monarchy where the leader can be like I want so and so and he gets it, we live in a democratic republic where you need to pass legislation,
Kerry had the best record on gay rights of any candiate in this race, he was an early support of gay rights as a senator, one of the few, one of the brave who voted against DOMA not only that but in an election year where he faced an uphill battle against a popular governor William Weld. Kerry doesnt want a national ban on gay marriages and I know I dont see him outraged by the decision of the Massachuetts judges, Kerry unlike Bush will take gay rights and put it in the right direction, he may not get gay marriage but he may get gay couples equal benefits, and then eventually people will realize this isnt so bad, and our courts will recongize the rights of gay couples to marry, to be honest we have a hard road ahead of us, correct me if I am wrong but I read a Canadian poll with as high as 50% of Canadians being opposed to gay marriage. We need to do things in steps and as an idealist and pragmatist I hate to say that but we do, and I can tell you that Nader wont win and a protest vote wont make it any better.

[DaveSZ]

159. True

Even if Kerry were for gay marriage, it still wouldn't happen.

It would either have to pass Congress, and be signed into law by Kerry, or DOMA would have to be challenged in the federal courts.

The second is the more likely scanario.

[JohnKleeb]

160. people act like getting things passed is like poof

I hate to be a cynical asshole but I thikn even if the democrats had a majority in congress, it wouldnt pass. Some day it will. I also trutfully think Kerry cares about the people of this country, he's willing to go after the Bushes as we've seen in the past.

[NEDem]

161. You've got to be kidding me

People that are thinking about voting for N* over this phony wedge issue need to get a clue.

Think rationally for a minute.....Which administration is going to be more friendly to the GBLT community? Come on! Is there any question? Get real, and get over it. Kerry has no choice but to say what he did.

Do you REALLY think Kerry gives a shit about what you do in the privacy of your own home? Do you really think Kerry cares who, or for what reason, you are living with? B* does! And B* will make your lives miserable if not illegal if he gets the chance.

Get real, there is NO WAY you can really think that voting for N* is going to do you any good. Hold your nose and do what you damn well know is right.

[kiahzero]

162. The Missouri ban is MEANINGLESS

You're going to vote for Nader because Kerry/Edwards refuse to tilt at windmills?

SSM is already banned in Missouri. The constitutional amendment would only be relevant if DOMA were struck down by the USSC, not because of the gender discrimination inherant in the statute, but because the federal government didn't have the power to enact it. Also, the Court would have to endorse a narrow view of the public policy exception.

If all of that were to happen, the difference between situations with and without the amendment is still narrow: without the amendment, if a legally married couple moved from Massachussets to Missouri, the state might be obliged to honor the marriage, whereas, with the amendment, they would not.

This amendment is just conservatives doing what they do best: distract voters from real issues with meaningless legislation. Aren't you glad you're playing right into their hands?

[Behind the Aegis]

165. Look at the bigger picture

I agree with you in that I am disappointed with the statements made about gay marriage, but I look at it this way...after talking to my partner...IF Shrub wins (shudder) will he advocate GLBT issues...HELL NO!!! IF Nader wins (is that EVEN possible?!?), will he follow through with his promises? I doubt it, since he has no idea what the Hell is happening on this plane of existence. If Kerry wins (by all that is holy..please let this be the option), will he actively crusade against GLBT issues? Unless he turns into a shrub, his RECORD shows, we as GLBT Americans will do better under him as our leader!

Again, I hate that we, as gay people, have to hold our tongues, but another 4 years of Bush could destroy us!!

TedtheBear..please, please...as a fellow gay man...think about what you are saying!! Also, ask yourself this....will we stand a better chance of equality under Kerry or Bush? I am sure you will agree, we will do better under Kerry. Therefore, if you fail to vote (as an American, you should always vote..personal opinion) or you vote for Nader (supported by Republican funds in some states) are you truly making a statement to the Democratic party or sealing our own undoing?

Anger is not a bad thing, in of itself, but direct it at the correct focus...those who would rather see us in jail or dead. I doubt you can say that Democrats would support either of those stances, but Repugs would gladly cart us off!!!

Brightest Blessings!

[athena]

167. Bush won FL by 0.01%. 1.6% voted for Nader.

He also won NH by 1.27%, where 3.9% voted for Nader.

In the next four years, as many as four Supreme Court justices may be replaced.

If people had not voted for Nader in 2000, we would be in a very different world now. Gay rights would also be in much better shape. Instead, Bush has pushed the country back 50 years. You want to let him push it back 50 years more?

[Gore1FL]

171. They have no say -- what difference does it make?

I along with aboput 50% of Democrats voted against the MO amendment. The other 50% and the gOP voted for it.

There is nothing Kerry or Edwards can do to change MO law either as president/Vice President or Senators.

The whole thing is moot anyways -- marry in a state that allows it and come back to MO and enjoy Article 4 of the US Constitution.

[LynneSin]

172. Yeah, you got a good point there Ted

I mean, the war and our economy and women's choice and civil rights in general just don't mean crap when you think about it.

After reading the highlights of this thread I'm glad to know our GLBT community is a hell of alot smarter than what your thread makes you out to be!!

[Bertha Venation]

176. Didn't realize what a shitstorm this idiocy would start, did you, Ted?

Has any of this made you rethink casting your vote for Nader?

[Selwynn]

184. Vote for Nader if its worth it for you to directly help Bush win.

It's not idiotic. It's just straight fact.

If its more important for you to stand in a place of ideological purity and help Bush, the worst and most destructive president of a lifetime, be helped to four more years of misery and abuse for ALL people - including GLTB, then I guess you should be ok with voting for Nader.

However, I suggest that this election is not about which candidate is ideologically "pure" or perfect, but rather the fact that we have a choice between a candidate that is not perfect but so clearly better than Bush, and the fact that the given a choice between Bush as president or Kerry as president, even GLTBs will be BETTER off under Kerry than under Bush.

Voting for Kerry is not the end of our opportunities for involvement. It is the beginning! We vote Bush out by voting Kerry in, then we continue to lobby and campaign to CHANGE MINDS on some of these issues like that which I don't agree with.

Still though, given the choice between a candidate who says I want to amend the constitution to ban gays from marrying at a federal level, and a a candidate who says, while I personally oppose gay marriage I believe it should be a state decided issue, I'll take the second guy who would still support states passing and upholding same sex decisions.

It's not complicated, nor is it idiotic. It is right, however.

[tedzbear]

187. Actually, I'm more likely to vote Green Party...

...because Nader is too old AND he won't be on the CA ballot anyway.

Don't worry folks, there is a good chance I will vote Kerry in Nov. since my best friend "Kati" in San Francisco said she won't ever speak to me again if I vote Green. And on top of that she will KILL me.

:kick:

[demwing]

177. Vote for Nader. Get Bush. Be happy?

Nader will NOT win, as a result - you will lose.

But damn, you'll have your self respect.

Or will you?

[Selwynn]

183. The most ignorant and illogial argument in the history of humanity

Ok, well maybe not but...:)

Every vote for Nader is a vote which directly - not indirectly, directly - helps George Bush, the worst president of my lifetime, probalby the last 100 years, maybe the worst ever, get reelected. Do you think your life is going to be better under Bush than under Kerry. Period. Like it or not, this election is about the fact that Kerry is better than Bush, not that Kerry is the best.

Please people, tell your friends, spread the word: IT IS NOT ABOUT "BEST" - ITS ABOUT "BETTER."

Sure wecan wait around for the perefect candidate with a perfect stance on every issue - or we can KEEP supporting BETTER candidates and then CONTINUE to work to change hearts and minds and push for even better candidates next time.

GLTB rights will be more safe under Kerry than under Bush. It's not Kerry who's pushing a federal marriage amendment or making it a wedge issue. It's Bush. It's Bush who doesn't just feel that separate but equal civil unions are the right way to go, but rather feels Homosexuality is an abomination and sin, and if he had his way, he would round every gay up and throw them in prison.

I'm trying very hard not to write in an angry tone against you. But this kind of short-sighted, emotional, irrational kind of knee-jerk reaction to the fact that Kerry isn't the perfect candidate - ignoring the fact that Bush is the worst candidate in the history of history, and we should all support a pet dog for president before doing anything that comes even CLOSE to helping him - is just the stupidest thing I have heard this election year. It is so stupid in fact, that it just almost leave me in a state of stunned disgust. Yeah, not a nice post I know. But that's the way it is.