When Is It "The Right Time" For Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Etc?

[mudesi]

I'm just wondering when the right time will come for the Democrats to actually start implementing policies demanded by their base. Every single time we have a Democrat in the white house or a Democratic majority in congress, we hear the same old bullshit. "Now is not the time to squander our political capital, let's focus on X, Y, and Z instead".

Obama is popular, he is charismatic, and he has a way of convincing people unlike I have ever seen since Ronald Reagan. He is a leader, shouldn't the time for him to lead be NOW, when he has the people on his side?

Things like gay marriage, gun control, socialism, capital punishment, abortion, environmentalism, and universal health care similar to Canada, France, and the UK. Things that the Europeans are light years ahead in. They have the highest standard of living, the lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest crime rates, the best education, a greener economy.

A few examples:

Gay marriage in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

Capital punishment in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg

I'm tired of putting liberal policies off to some unknown future date. If not now, when we have the president and the congress, then when? As Obama himself would say: The time is NOW.

[NJmaverick]

1. I figure the first 1-2 years will be devoted to our most pressing issues

these include the economy, the wars we are in, energy, education and health care. Once those are resolved I think those issues you mention are good to address. In fact if Obama is successful with the critical issues, he should have even more capital to push through controversial issues.

[Rhythm]

3. 2 years from now, the 'endless campaign' for 2012 will be cranking up

and controversial issues will be a 3rd-rail for the Obama re-election machine.

Same old - same old.

And meanwhile, there are millions of us who are treated as second-class citizens, without benefit of the Constitutional protections for ourselves and our families that should be OURS by law.

[NJmaverick]

7. Not sure how you can say "same old" when this is a new situation

for the past 8 years were were under Republican rule. Before that we had a Democratic President and a Republican congress.

[Rhythm]

26. It's the same argument we here everywhere, even from our own when they have power

"This'll have to be tabled for later" -- "We have other matters that are more urgent" -- ect, etc, etc...
Then it's election time again, they say that it's 'too controversial', but that they 'NEED our support' (read: money), and they 'haven't forgotten about' us. After the election, there's always something 'more important' again.

Meanwhile, we have millions of people in this country--many of them with children--who are not afforded the same basic rights to protect themselves, their assets, and their loved ones that heterosexual married couples have as a given. The 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment is a cruel joke, when them as the punchline.

It disgusts me.

And yes, this is personal to me. I am in a decade-long same-sex relationship, and we have a child under 10. Due to an assortment of health complications, i am the primary 'breadwinner' in our household. Though we have wills and assorted 'Powers of Attorney' in place (which would have cost thousands of dollars if not for the kindness of a family friend), these do not even come close to the array of rights and protections that are given to opposite-sex married couples for the price of a simple marriage license. Moreover, there are certain safety-net programs that would not be available to my loved ones should something unfortunate happen; for example, survivor's or spousal retirement benefits through the Social Security Administration, because biologically, he is not my child, and even if we were married in a state that allowed it, the federal government at this time wouldn't recognize it. My partner would be more highly taxed for the value of the items left to her in my 'estate' than she would be if we could be married and have it federally recognized. My mother--a poster-child for the Religious Right--could step in and contest my will, and take me to be buried 1000 miles away without my partner having much of a way to fight her, because despite the fact that i don't talk to my mother more than twice a year (because we simply don't get along), in the eyes of the law, SHE is my 'next of kin,' not my loving domestic partner, beside whom i have awakened every day for the last 10 years.

We and our families shouldn't have to wait any longer to be treated equal under the laws.

[Tesha]

28. Not in 92-94 we didn't. But nothing happened then either. (NT)

[Romulox]

16. "our most pressing issues" = trillions to Wall Street and escalation of war?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Not everyone agrees some of the policies you enumerate are a demand from "their base"

Gun control is very controversial, even within the party. Death penalty as well.

[mudesi]

10. How Would You Define The "Base" Then?

OK so maybe you're not a member of the base. But like it or not, social liberals are the base.

[dmallind]

12. Assuming the base are the most involved and deidcated

That would probably be the volunteers who show up for all the meetings and go through all the tedious preliminaries to go to the conventions and work on the official party platform statements.

The party platform that is that supports individual ownership of guns.

[spin]

24. Perhaps where you live, social liberals are the base...

When my state level Democratic representative's campaign called my house during the last election, they said, "Be sure to show up at the polls and vote for our candidate because he supports gun rights and you know how important that is!"

This is a big country and the Democratic Party is a big tent.

If we allow the gun control advocates to run the party, the Democrats will have control of Congress up to the midterm and Obama will be a one term President.

[NeedleCast]

4. I'll take a pass on "gun control" and socialism

[NightWatcher]

5. which is more important, universal healthcare or being seen as a gun-grabber

ANY efforts to control guns will be seen as rigid "gun-grabbing" and will align EVERYONE on the right against him and the Dems. We will lose the WH and Majority if we even appear open to gun control. I dont think that modest reform is worth losing everything for another generation. We can focus on much more helpful things like healthcare reform, environmental repair, civil rights....

[spin]

25. Universal health-care is FAR more important than "feel good"...

gun laws such as another Assault Weapons Ban.

[BeFree]

6. Special interest issues...backburner

The issues that effect the most number of people have to be tackled first.

Contrary to popular opinion, congress has a hard time walking and chewing gum.

[Bigmack]

8. Go slow... go slow...

That was the motto for FDR when he came into office. His first 100 days were just a time for relaxing and reflecting.

After all, it's not like Obama has enormous popularity or anything! It's not like he's CinC and could integrate gays into the military with a fucking memo or anything!

It's not as if he's bright enough to juggle more than two balls at once.

It's not as if the Repubs are in disarray... as well as unpopular.

Go Slow!

Deep, dark, :sarcasm: intended.

[spin]

9. Plenty of Democrats are gun owners...

and since many states allow concealed carry and none that have passed that law have repealed it, I would suggest that the real "base" of the Democratic Party is not in favor of gun control. You can be a liberal and still believe in the Second Amendment. In fact, allowing citizens to own firearms is a very liberal concept.

[mudesi]

11. Stop Spinning, Spin

No, that's not socially liberal at all. Concealed carry is a strictly libertarian stance. Social liberals favor government restrictions on things for the good of society as a whole.

[spin]

18. Explain that to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader...

He supports gun owners rights. Check out:

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Harry_Reid_Gun_Control.htm

Or Howard Dean:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

Or Bill Richardson:

http://www.ontheissues.org/bill_richardson.htm

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic Party, long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/17/democrats_recast_gun_control_image/

WASHINGTON --- U.S. Representative Mike Ross (AR-04) led a group of 65 pro-gun Democrats in denouncing recent comments made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s on February 25 that the Obama administration intended to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

The group of 65 pro-gun Democrats, led by Ross, sent a letter to the Attorney General on March 18, 2009, urging him to abandon any effort to reinstate the assault weapons ban and to focus instead on effective law enforcement strategies to enforce the nation’s current laws against violent criminals and drug traffickers.

“Firearms are an important means of self defense and, as an avid hunter and outdoorsmen, an important part of our way of life,” said Ross. “I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and will continue to fight any efforts in Washington that restrict our right to own and bear arms.”
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-republican-enlists-65-pro-gun-dems-to-oppose-assault-weapon-ban

[mudesi]

21. Yeah, Because That Means Anything....

:eyes:

I already knew that Democrats are huge blubbering wussies when it comes to standing up for actual principles. That's the entire substance of the OP.

[MercutioATC]

20. Since when are hardline "social liberals" the base of the party?

Just as Fundie birthers are the far right fringe, not the base of the Republican Party, hardline "social liberals" are the far left fringe of the Democratic Party.

The "base" of the Democratic Party doesn't want to pursue the gun issue.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. never. honestly, unless we become a menace never. now its the economy

in the next year it will be, the midterm election, the year after that the presidential elections

[Political Tiger]

14. Yeah, it's not we've not had enough time to change everything

I mean, we've had a whole two months! What's taking so long?

[Statistical]

15. When is it the right time to restrict rights protected by the Bill of Rights.....

how about on the 29th of Never?

The rest of it....
I don't think Obama will be able to get any of it done until the economic crisis is in the past.

Unless he can tie it into the economy it will be spun as he is more concerned in "special interest" than the economic survival of this country.

[Kansas Wyatt]

17. Enjoy a Republican Congress & White House in 2012...

If you want to place gay marriage and gun control above Working Americans. You are putting the cart ahead of the donkey.

How does the Democratic Party defeat itself in the election booth? By failing to represent Working Americans first, while focusing on special chic interests and deferring to Corporate America. Universal Health Care and Socialism will take a tremendous effort alone, and without that, the Europeans would not be light years ahead. Again, remember which end of the cart the donkey is suppose to be on.

[mainegreen]

19. How on earth do gay marriage and gun control equate? Gay Marriage and Gun Ownership are RIGHTS.

[Raskolnik]

22. When do *you* think would be a good time to start restricting portions of the Bill of Rights?

Just curious.

[FLAprogressive]

23. Gay Marriage = NOW, Gun Control = NEVER

[Tesha]

27. How's the 5th of Never? Is your calendar free then?

'Cause that's when the national Democrats will actually do anything like
supporting gay rights, creating economic equality, or taking affirmative
steps to end America's obsession with guns.

Tesha

[fascisthunter]

29. people don't want their hobby infringed upon

so any control or regulation to them is considered gun grabbing or banning. But in reality, they just want to play with as many types of guns as possible. Making guns harder to buy is an inconvenience even if it saves lives.

[liberalsince1968]

30. I agree with you 100%. Watch out for the gun nuts!