Should Democratic Party come out in support of gay-marriage ?

[kentuck]

Personally, I do not think so. I think it would give the opposition Party the ammunition to possibly retain control. This is purely political opinion on my part. I think the smartest strategy would be to continue letting the Republican Party show their true colors, that they are pro-discrimination and they are hypocrites, and let them do the work for our side. They suffer the political consequences, but in the end, we attain the political reward.

Once we gain control of the House and/or Senate, then we have the power to pass whatever legislation we wish. We do not presently have the power to pass a proposal on gay marriage or anything else. That is the political reality. However, if the Republicans continue in their present form, and there is little doubt that they won't, then they may make it more feasible to pass legislation that benefits all. Understanding the law of instant gratification, I'm sure this opinion will not set well with some. But, in my opinion, they are not looking at the issue from a political reality, but rather, from a personal biased viewpoint, which is understandable.

In my opinion, because of this most recent display of discrimination against other Americans by the Republican Party, it is now more politically possible for the Democratic Party to support "civil unions". "Civil unions" are the first step in attaining equal rights for gays and will lead to the acceptance of "gay marriage" at a much quicker pace than to fall for the Republican trick of sucking the Party into a debate over "gay-marriage".

I understand the volatility of this issue, but I would ask DUers to look at it with clear eyes. Yes, we know that we cannot support delay of human rights to anyone. But, that is a false argument, in my opinion. That argument is one that will lead to a longer delay of equality, and may lead to no "equality" at all. I would ask that we study the issue very closely.

[rucky]

1. Boldly and unapologetically.

Being confident that we are right will win people over. The hemming and hawing is where we lose support from all sides of the issue. It may provoke the people who are provoking the issue, but that's how they win support from THEIR base (and here we are talking about it).

In business, you'd never abandon the loyal customers you do have in pursuit of new (maybe) customers.

[abluelady]

2. I Understand What You Are Saying

But, imho, marriage should not be an issue PERIOD. I believe the Dems should not even deign to discuss it. Everytime it is the Dem's opportunity to speak, I think they should speak about Iraq, healthcare, education, etc. We need to bring the discussion back to what is really important for the majority of this country.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Would you feel the same about Jim Crow?

You know, separate but "equal" schools, hotels, train cars and drinking fountains "for coloreds only?" Would you feel that "every time it is the Dem's opportunity to speak" they should speak only about "what is really important for the (white) majority of this country"?

[kentuck]

13. That is the anticipated response..

and I think is short-sighted. But, understandable.

[LostinVA]

38. It was anticipated because it's apt n/t

[abluelady]

20. Where did you come up with "White"

I can't wrap my head around marriage=discrimination. Sure stopping gays from marrying is discriminatiion and that should be what is discussed--not the value of marriage.

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. When you wrote about "a majority of Americans"...

I saw a subtext of "a majority of Americans (who are heterosexual and don't care about marriage because they already have it.)" That shortened to, "a majority of (heterosexual) Americans," which I changed to "a majority of (white) Americans" in my paraphrase. But yes, a better paraphrase would have been "a majority of Americans (who are white and don't care about Jim Crow because they can already have access to good schools, fine hotels, nice restaurants, convenient water fountains, comfortable train coaches, and so forth.)"

[abluelady]

29. Well your subtext was wrong

I look at people as individuals, not white, not black, not gay, not straight. It is my opinion that war is bad for all individuals; and, therefore, it should be a major focus of our government. It is my opinion that healthcare should be available for all individuals; therefore, it should be a focus of our government. It is my opinion that educating all individuals is good for all individuals; therefore, education should be a focus. What is good for individuals is good for our country.

Marriage is not good for all individuals. It does not make a country better, imho. I know lots of very happy, productive single people.

I am certainly not a libertarian and I believe government should be there for the good of all individuals. Discrimination is bad for all individuals, whether the individual realizes it or not. So yes, let's focus on doing away with discrimination of every sort, but stop the nonsense about marriage.

[WA98296]

32. Perfectly put. Thanks.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. So you support institutionalized bigotry?

Should Democratic Party come out in support of gay-marriage? Personally, I do not think so.

You say that, since the Repugs hate us, that you should refuse to support us so that your support can not be used as a weapon. Sorry, but as a gay man I find your argument very weak. If you believe in equal rights for all, there can be no excuse for refusing to openly support equal rights.

[kentuck]

6. Did you read my entire post?

I do not support their bigotry.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. You refuse to stand in support of equality. That means you support bigotry

End of story, it doesn't matter how much you rationalize your excuses.

[Cocoa]

11. lol

"end of story." :rofl:

[Cocoa]

10. perfect example of what we should NOT do

you're demanding dogmatism.

Thankfully, the dems don't do dogma.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. It is dogmatic to fight for fundamental civil rights?

How stupid and selfish of me to ask for a place at the front of the bus.

[Cocoa]

18. demanding people to think and act like you do is not fighting

Rosa Parks didn't do that.

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. Rosa Parks didn't demand that people think and act like her

That didn't stop her from fighting for equal rights.

Frankly, I don't care if you are a bigot. I don't care if the Democratic Party endorses my fundamental civil rights or not. But don't you dare demand that I support you when it comes to elections or any other part of the party's agenda. That road runs in both directions, and I'm tired of bigots trying to steamroll me out of the way.

[Cocoa]

34. no one is demanding you vote for them

unlike you, politicians are in the persuasion business. They can't declare themselves "right" and fuck anyone who disagrees with them. Well they can do that, but they lose if they do that.

[theHandpuppet]

74. A-FUCKING-MEN!!

Thanks!

[kentuck]

19. I want my seat !

Throw the women and children from the bus! Is that what you are really saying? Just asking?? Because that may be what you are doing? It is more important for you to get married than if all the social proograms are dismantled by this present group in the White House? I think that is the way many people, including Democrats, look at the present demands of a small group within the Democratic Party. Screw all of you. We want our rights now! The rest of you can go to hell! I'm sorry, but that is the impression some people give. No matter if we cause the Democratic Party to lose, we will stand up for our equal rights. That is very admirable but hardly comparable to Jim Crow or slavery. Sorry.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. You make it sound like an either/or choice

How the bloody hell will my wanting equal marriage dismantle other social programs? How in bloody hell will a statement that openly and unequivocably support the fundamental civil rights of all Americans with regards to marriage throw away everything else?

Please, explain yourself.

[kentuck]

25. Because you are acting like a selfish child....

You do not seem to care what consequences may follow - you want the right to marry now. You don't seem to care about anyone else. You want your right to marry. It doesn't seem to matter to you if the Democrats lose the next election or if the Republicans continue their assault upon everything the Democratic Party has worked for in the last 75 years. I want to fucking marry! Let them do away with child nutrition programs. Let them do away with Social Security. Let them maintain control of the government. The majority of people are on "our" side, you keep telling yourself. Maybe they are and they aren't. Personally, I'm not willing to gamble so some child can get their selfish wish to marry. Sorry to be so blunt. You may call it what you wish but you seriously need a good dose of the truth.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. And you are acting like a privileged bigot

You do not seem to care what effect denial of fundamental civil rights has on the people being denied -- you have the right to marry, so other people's right to marry is totally irrelevant. You don't seem to care about anyone else. You don't care about anyone else's right to marry.

Everything else that follows in your post is standard issue bigotry disguised as fearmongering. I get the impression you are working out a tact that will make the gay community in to the next Green Party in case the Dems lose yet again in the elections.

[kentuck]

39. You have the same rights as I...

You can marry a woman. That is the only right I have. :)

[transeo]

42. So did African Americans before interracial marriage was legal

They could marry someone of the same race, just like whites. That does not make it right. I really hope that was just a misguided joke because it is really disheartening to see this kind of attitude from people and a party who I thought were supportive of my rights as I am for theirs. How disappointing to be so wrong.

[kentuck]

44. Contrary to what you think....

this is not the most important issue of the day. It is not even about "equal rights" from a historical perspective. On the average, gays in this country have a higher or perhaps the highest standard of living of any group in our society. It is about gay marriage - simple and period. Gays are a small part of a large Party and it is debatable whether or not the Party would be stronger with or without their support. I am expressing my opinion. But I beleive the gays are shooting themselves in the foot with their strident demand for marriage. Let me let you in on a little secret. Marriage is not all it's cooked up to be. Be careful what you wish for. :)

[transeo]

53. Ummm, what does any of that have to do with my point?

Having to work for corporate America sucks too, but does that mean women should have just been happy to stay home and take care of the house? I don't care if you like marriage or not. Every taxpaying citizen should have the right to make the same choices and mistakes as everyone else.

And yes, this is about equal rights. There are over 1,000 federal legal privileges/protections couples enjoy that go along with legal marriage. Lesbian/gay couples do not have access to those. Thus we are not equal in the eyes of the law. You don't have to fight for basic things like visiting each other in the hospital or basic inheritance rights or being recognized as a legal family in all manner of day-to-day issues that you get to take for granted. The amount of legal wrangling LGBT families have to go through to ensure their family is protected from disapproving family members or bigoted staff at any number of places is completely insane. No one should have to deal with that crap.

[kentuck]

54. And I think those are the areas that should be addressed...

Not gay-marriage.

[TechBear_Seattle]

43. And both Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter had the same rights as you

That is, the right to marry someone of their own race; therefore it was perfectly acceptable to make it a felony for them to marry one another. Correct?

You use the exact same argument presented by the Commonwealth of Virginia when it argued before the Supreme Court on the case of Loving v. Virginia The Court found the argument spurious. The Court went further and stated:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

So I'm sorry: you will have to come up with something better than, "You can marry if you want to." That argument is irrelevant; it didn't fly in 1967, and it still hasn't any wings.

[kentuck]

46. We disagree.

It is not on a parallel with race discrimination.

[TechBear_Seattle]

50. And why not?

Please explain, without using the stupid argument that homosexuality is somehow a choice. If that is your only case, please explain 1) when you made a conscious and deliberate choice to be heterosexual and 2) why equal rights laws apply to religion (ie the "If you don't like being bashed because you are Jewish, stop being Jewish" argument.)

[LostinVA]

80. It is exactly on a parallel with race discrimination

Saying it isn't is just mind blowing to me. Civil rights are civil rights -- they are ALL of equal importance.

[LostinVA]

79. Beat me to it -- I was going to post this last night

[kentuck]

51. I was being facetious...

for those that cannot distinguish.

[kentuck]

41. Thank you.

For proving my point.

[transeo]

35. It isn't just about marriage!!!

For crying out loud! It's about equality and being treated as equal citizens under the law. It is not just about wanting to get married. How dare you tell us that defending our rights as taxpaying citizens is selfish and childish? I cannot tell you how angry your attitude - and the attitude of the party as a whole - makes me. Oh, give us your money so we can stab you in the back with it. Well f*** the lot of them.

[LostinVA]

37. Nail on the head -- it makes me sick, too

This IS the real slippery slope -- taking away our rights one at a time, demonizing us. And, to have other liberals telling us to, basically, just get over it???

[ComerPerro]

4. We may as well. The Republicans say we are, the sheep believe it

[porphyrian]

5. We should support separating the religious concept of marriage...

...from the legal one once and for all. Then, we should support legal gay marriage and let people believe whatever they want for their religion.

[Johonny]

14. I'm for this

This is exactly what I was thinking. The Dems official line should be " We believe strongly in the first Amendment and separation of church and state. We will not tell your church which marriages it has to accept. However we believe in equality in matters of the state. Since legal binding civil unions are part of our legal system we support equality among those civil unions.”

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. That separation already exists

Marriage in the United States is and always has been a secular, civil institution. At most, clergy (NOT churches or religious institutions) have been given authority by state law to perform a very specialized, limited notary act: taking a jurat for two people who wish to be married and countersigning their signatures on the civil paperwork. Without that notary act, there is no legal marriage. Judges have the power to perform that very same notary act, as do regular notaries public in Florida, Maine and South Carolina.

The problem is that so many people are ignorant of what marriage really is in this country.

[porphyrian]

17. We aren't disagreeing here. - n/t

[LostinVA]

81. I argue this with people ALL the time

That, religious people don't marry people -- the State does. They always say, uh-uh, my minster did. I'm like, no they didn't -- the State gave them the authority to act on THEIR behalf.

Crazy. People are so ignorant in this country!

[bryant69]

9. I agree

I think the other benefit is that it lets us be the big tent party, particularly as the REpublican point of view hardens.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bdamomma]

12. why don't they just leave this to the state's

what BS this is, leave the gays alone.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. You mean like interracial marriage was left to the states?

This isn't a matter of states' rights: this is a matter of equal standing before the law. This is a matter of our Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.

[EFerrari]

24. Of course it should. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh. n/t

[Sensitivity]

26. And thus allow Repug to acheive their goal of distracting from National

crises -- War, global warming, economic collapse, deficit doom for our children?

[Marnieworld]

27. Yes

Gay Marriage? Civil Unions? Tomato Tomatah. The base that Bush and Frist is pandering to are their base no matter what. We will never get their votes so why even bother trying to please them. The Democratic Party, and America needs leadership. The time for political calculations and triangulation is over. It's ineffective and really not necessary. America is fed up with this president and this GOP congress and will not be fooled by this shameless attempt to politicize a non-issue to distract from real ones. The base that are pandering to will back-fire because ultimately nothing will happen. So there is nothing to lose by being completely 100% against any legislation of hate, codifying it in our most precious document The Constitution.

If they must say civil unions and leave the word marriage up to individual religions that would make most sense. I can't imagine it being about words. It's about rights.

I think that standing up for all Americans civil rights, saying that we are all equal according to the law is the only moral choice. Consider the fight of making inter-racial marriage legal? Would it be defensible then to even suggest compromise? Hate is hate, oppression is oppression and you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

I have clear eyes. Voters gravitate towards a clear principled message. We need to stand apart not mimick the opposition.

[kentuck]

30. A very strong response...

Although not a winner, from a purely political perspective, in my opinion. Clearly a winner in the long run, but as Harry Hopkins said during the Depression, the "people eat every day".

[Marnieworld]

36. They should say something like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1363444

A Shameful Political Ploy
by Senator Russ Feingold
Tue Jun 06, 2006

The federal marriage amendment, which would write discrimination into the Constitution, is an obvious attempt to change the subject from topics that the Congress should be addressing to a hot button social issue intended to appeal to certain factions. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Frist plans to hold a vote on this mean-spirited proposal. It has no chance of receiving the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments. The only thing bringing it up now will accomplish is to push Congress further away from the issues it should be addressing and engage the Senate of the United States in a shameful political ploy.

Senator Russ Feingold's diary :: ::
The last thing we should be doing right now is playing politics with the Constitution, or with the lives of gay and lesbian Americans, who see this proposal for what it is - discrimination, pure and simple. Gay and lesbian Americans are our friends, our family members, our neighbors, and our colleagues. They should not be used as pawns in a political exercise.

Backers of the proposal say they want to support marriage. But this debate is not about supporting marriage. Everyone agrees that good and strong marriages should be supported and celebrated. The debate in the Senate is also not about whether states should permit same sex marriage. I happen to believe that two adults who love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment to each other with all of the responsibilities that commitment entails should be able to do so. Others may disagree. But the Senate debate is about whether we should amend the Constitution of the United States to try to define marriage, and restrict, rather than expand, the rights of our citizens. The answer to that question has to be "no."

Now that is leadership. :patriot:

[dogday]

59. Russ Feingold tells it like it is

and some see this as bad, I can't understand that... Equal rights for all citizens is part of the Democratic mandate is it not? Well then that is the platform we stand on. That simple...

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. Marriage is and always has been a civil, secular institution in the US

More, marriage comes with almost three centuries of judicial precedent and common law THAT DO NOT AND CAN NOT APPLY TO CIVIL UNIONS because "civil union" is not the same as "marriage."

If the religious bigots don't want to share, let THEM be the ones to come up with a separate and unequal institution that lacks all of the legal protections of marriage. Why the hell should we have to do that?

[Marnieworld]

55. Well then that should be the point then

Civil marriage vs. religious marriage. I sit corrected at least semantically. Overall I'm assuming we agree. Ironically by stressing this they focus more attention on the inherent inequality of things as they are. Am I being too optimistic by wondering if this will actually help? I got a lot from that 3 percent president piece on the home page.

[TechBear_Seattle]

61. Legally, religious marriage does not exist

In the United States, it is either civil marriage or no marriage at all. Whether or not a religious ritual has been done in conjunction with the filing of papers is irrelevant under the law, and any attempt to make it relevant would be a violation of the First Amendment. So I disagree that there is any point to be made between "civil marriage" and "religious marriage", at least as far as the law is concerned. :toast:

And I do think you are being overly optimistic. With regards to marriage, I have heard a sickeningly huge load of garbage about how "only church marriages are legal" and how equal marriage "will force churches to conduct ceremonies they disagree with." The overall ignorance of First Amendment protections is astounding, and not something that can be easily overcome by a public service announcement.

[RedStateShame]

28. Such tolerance is intolerable

When you weaken your morals and integrity in an effort to not rock the boat or to keep from being possibly bad-mouthed, you weaken every other thing you claim to stand for. It's called "Liebermanning."

[sweetheart]

31. political reframing

What is the gay marriage thing really about? Equal rights for all people.
Its just another issue in a litany of rights, from medicinal cannabis, to
womens equality and racial equality. So i'd hope the party steer the
momentum behind a focus on equal rights for all persons under the law,
and a separation of church and state where the law endorses contracts that
allow people to have community property and childrearing aggreeements.

So, i'd say the party *should* come out for the first principals behind
"gay marriage", that is equal rights, and a fair shake to make it in our
eroded economic future where rights are increasingly meaningless without
a living wage.

Then it puts gay rights in a unity-frame, with the rest of us who want our
equal rights, and in framing it as a greater endeavour, not divisive.
But as you say, as Hillary says, indeed, the gay adgenda must take its
place in line with all the agenda's for equal rights to show we have
some coherency.

[LeftHander]

40. Some ways yes but becasue of Repukes we cannot.....

Because the Republicans have written into the Marriage Amendments language that also BANs any other union that is identical to marriage we must support marriage equity.

Personally I believe that the word "marriage" shoudl be reserved for use by the religious community and can be defined in what ever ways that religious commnity expresses it. But I don;t think people can wrap thier heads around the concept. Marriage, to many is a secular term. I for one do not see as that.

The state should recognize a couple's life partnership contract as the secular legal entity.

Keep marriage and the wedding in the church. But that is not going to happen.

But as long as the right wing politically continues to define marriage between a man and a woman and seeks to ban all other unions that are on identical terms in making that definition then we must support same sex marriage to achive equity for all people who wish to benefit from being a "married" couple.

The simple fact is the right wing fundies want to prevent LGBT people from living and being recognized as human beings the same as they are.

[LeftHander]

60. Oops....We MUST support...

I read OP subject line incorrectly....

[Odin2005]

45. No, We MUST concentrate on economic issues.

bringing out the social issue litmus tests will just drive socially conservative blue collar voters back in the hands of the Pukes. By the responses of a couple of the posters, I too will be bashed for saying this, but we can do nothing about gay rights unless we take back Congress, and we can't take back Congress if we piss off working class people who only vote for the Pukes because of God, Gays, and Guns.

[kentuck]

48. You probably said it better than I, Odin2005...

If we don't have the Congress, we are at their mercy.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

56. The harsh reality is the working class would abandon the party in mass.

[Bandit]

58. I don't think that is at all true.

They didn't abandon the party in droves when we went for civil rights for minorities. Gays are Americans also.

[jaysunb]

52. NO !

They should come out in support of:
1)pulling out of Iraq
2)health care 4 all
3)balanced budget
4)election reform
5)impeachment/censure of the Bush Administration

These are for starters......

[LostinVA]

82. Yeah, because who the hell cares about basic civil rights for Americans?

Especially those icky gays?

[Bandit]

57. No

They should come out in support of all Americans receiving the same rights and privileges. When you specify like this they say you are asking for "special rights"

[TechBear_Seattle]

62. So implicitly endorse special rights for heterosexuals only?

That is the current state of legal marriage in the United States (except for Massachusetts): marriage exists as a special right for heterosexual couples only. People who genuinely support equal rights for all Americans should not be afraid to openly work for changing the status quo.

[Duncan Grant]

63. As a gay man, I must strongly disagree.

If this were about your civil rights, I would not qualify my political temerity with an argument that promotes "pragmatism". My contention is that this is about far more than 'gay marriage'. This is also about the reluctance of America to lend LGBT people political and societal legitimacy.

You ask DUers to look at this issue with clear eyes. I would ask the same of LGBT people. Where is the political vision and leadership that addresses our civil rights, cultural power, and simple human dignity? How much longer should we wait for these pragmatic Democrats to have the political courage to create legislation which will defend and protect us?

I'm tired of waiting: I will not compromise myself any longer for the sake of "pragmatism" or straight people's political comfort. We all know what the right position is on this issue, it's about time we starting acting like it.

[arwalden]

68. !!!

:applause: :loveya: :applause: :loveya:

[TechBear_Seattle]

71. Well said

:toast:

[Upfront]

64. Hmmm

I don't give a fuck!

[TechBear_Seattle]

72. Thus, summing up the actual Dem position on GLBT issues

While our allies are Democrats, it has become quite clear that Democrats, on the whole, are not our allies. Thank you for your honesty.

[LostinVA]

84. Gosh, thanks

[iconoclastNYC]

65. Defending equal rights is the Democratic thing to do

I don't think this issue is as good for the Republicans as the press thinks. If our leaders were united and talked only in terms of equal rights I think we'd be in better position.

WE shouldn't fall for the right-wings framing of the issue. This is about enshrining hatred and discrimination into the constitution.

[Fleshdancer]

66. I strongly support any and all steps that lead to equal rights.

If people are more comfortable calling it civil unions at first then so be it. If the first step is to strike down DOMA, so be it. Any step that leads to equality is a step I will support and fight for.

[arwalden]

67. "Damn Those Uppity Homos!! They Just Need To Sit Down, Shut Up...

... and take one for the team. They're ruining everything! Go back in the closet and trust us. Half a loaf is better than no loaf. Separate but equal really is equal."

<< I understand the volatility of this issue, but I would ask DUers to look at it with clear eyes. >>

In other words... you ask DUers to turn a blind eye. Fuck that shit!

[Duncan Grant]

70. "Uppity Homos" is exactly what came to my mind, too.

Three years at DU and I still haven't tired of this argument. :sarcasm:

:*

[SidDithers]

75. Damn you uppity homos...

Well said, Allen.

:toast:

Sid

[alarimer]

69. I think that is the right thing to do

But it would require guts and compassion, which the party as a whole seems to lack. Or at least many of its leaders lack the spine to come out in favor of gay marriage. Many may favor a more incremental approach which is okay I suppose, just a little to cautious to me.

But it should be in the party platform. No equivocating. I guess I won't hold my breath for that to happen.

[theHandpuppet]

73. No, they should just keep soliciting us for donations...

...and taking our votes for granted. Oh, and don't forget to volunteer your time this election cycle! Now, get your gay self to the back of the bus.

:sarcasm:

[TechBear_Seattle]

77. Except in Mass. and Vermont, we're not even allowed ON the bus n/t

[SidDithers]

76. Unequivocally yes...

because it's the right thing to do.

Sid

[greekspeak]

78. Are you gay?

May I ask that?

[kentuck]

83. No, but if I were....

...does that mean I would automatically get in line and support gay marriage? I don't think so. This should not be on the top of the Democratic agenda, in my opinion. It is divisive, within our own Party, and could harm millions of Americans if it permits the Repubs to continue in power for 2 or 6 more years. I think it is selfish to put gay marriage above the interests of the rest of the Democratic Party. Just my opinion.

[greekspeak]

86. I think it is selfish of you to expect us to just play nice while being

shat on by legislators who use us to pander to their base. Have you ever had terrorism blamed on you because of the way you were born? What about a hurricane? Earthquakes? Are there a lot of programs set up to "fix" you because of your "perverted lifestyle?" How many times have you had a person look at you with burning disdain and spit "fag" in your face?

We are not a wedge, or just some plank in a platform or item on page 5 of an agenda. We are living, breathing human beings who are being actively discriminated against, goddammit. Standing up for what is right is what Democrats should be doing. Not telling us to keep hushed until some democratic "rapture" happens. We have been hushed for long enough. We have been ignored and marginalized and exploited by too many democrats who want political points. This country is full of bigots who hate for no logical reason. By giving into them for political clout is not going to do anything but make them stronger.

[LostinVA]

88. It is basic Civil Rights, right Greek?

If the Dems cannot stand up for EVERYONE'S civil rights, then they might as well start calling themselves something else.

And, that also goes for self-described Dems.

There is no wiggle room on Civil Rights. We are PEOPLE, not a convenience.

[greekspeak]

89. Absolutely

N/t

[BeeBee]

92. Very well said. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

95. Very well stated

I'm going to stea... er, I mean borrow some of that rhetoric if you don't mind. :hi:

[greekspeak]

100. if it helps you, please do!

:hi:

[LostinVA]

85. I'm betting the answer is a big NO

And before anyone asks: yeah, that does matter. It's easy to be wishy washy and/or complacent about SOMEONE else's civil rights.

[greekspeak]

87. Thank you...

:hi:

[LostinVA]

91. You're welcome!

[themaguffin]

90. Please, this is POLITICAL, don't walk into their trap

The Democrats should do as some are doing now, call the GOP on their shameless antics and distrations politics. Call them on their hate and fear mongoring and again and again call them on it and bring up the issues that they REFUSE to address.

[Perky]

93. Absolutely, Spot on!!!! There is no upside to fight a battle we just won

Don't take the GOP bait.

It changes the subject from Iraq and the abysmal failure of this administration on every front. It stirs their base because a fight gives them smething to latch on to. Keep the focuse on ineptitude and pandering rather than substance.

They could not even muster a majority. If we do not bring it up...the subject dies.

There is no upside to fighting a battle we just won.

[TechBear_Seattle]

96. What battle, won where?

In Alabama, which just passed a constitutional amendment forbidding gay couples equal access under the law?

[2bfree]

94. I think the party should support civil unions.

To me that is a basic civil right that GLBT deserve. I just don't understand why some people seem to care so much above everything else that is going on in the country and in the world if two people who love each other want to have the same legal rights that are afforded to the rest of us. I just don't get it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

97. For the last time, people: CIVIL UNIONS = JIM CROW

For crying out loud, how many times do I have to explain this? Anything less than full, equal marriage, will all the attendant judicial precedents and common law, is injustice. If you are going to support "civil unions" why not return to the days of segregated schools, antimiscegenation laws and "whites only" hotels?

[theHandpuppet]

102. Most people don't really know the difference between them

As many times as I have posted on this subject people still don't seem to "get it".

For those who STILL DON'T KNOW the very real, legal differences between civil unions and legal marriage (not the religious ceremony), here's a good link where you can study up!

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

[TechBear_Seattle]

104. Very good info, and it gives me an idea

I will work on setting up a few pages on my website explaining why civil unions are an injustice. Then, all I have to do is provide a link and urge people to read it. Thanks :hi:

[donco6]

98. I think the gov't should get out of "marriage" altogether.

All contracts between couples should be civil unions. If someone wants to get married - they can go to a church.

Funny thing is, we have just the opposite right now. Heck, I can find any number of churches that WILL marry me and my partner - but it's not legally binding. Go figger.

[Hubert Flottz]

99. We should worry about jobs, food, fuel, privacy, freedom and liberty

and leave Gods and Sex out of politics!

[Recursion]

101. Yes. Loudly.

Same reason we should have nominated Dean in '04. People think Clinton won because he triangulated; I think he won because he was Bill Clinton and enough people liked Bill Clinton to vote for him.

Do away with the "no message", "wishy-washy", and "flip-flop" nonsense. Be liberal and stand up for it.

[Xenotime]

103. Yes...

if they want the votes.