GLBT marriages: Real issue or partisan gambit by *

[Deja Q]

I have the feeling the repukes are contriving to get this to be a legitimate issue for people to vote for them on because they'd outright lose on everything other issue out there, with the possible exception of abortion, except that issue seems to have been quietly buried for the moment...

I'm gay. I can wait. I can't even get a date!

More importantly, the world runs on politics. Bush is using this as a means to boost support for himself.

Given that Nader was the judas goat despite a slew of other issues in Election 2000, will gays become the next victims by the vanquished Democrats after Election 2004 is over? It's just a thought...

Couldn't this rush to marriages have waited until 2005 or so? I don't know who started all this, but the repukes are chiming in because they now have a topical issue that they can use because the majority of people still agree with them on that. Even centrist Dems who aren't fond of GLBT folk might turn puke...

I didn't know we were that powerful; how "gay marriage/civil unions/any positive recognition of any kind to show we're not just the promiscuous, AIDS carrying scum stereotype" is far more risky than all of the problems that Bushbastard* has created. x(

We have to pick our fights. This is a good fight but is being done at just the wrong time.

I hope I'm wrong.

[mojo2004]

1. How do you stop now...

the fight is underway. Shrub and the far-right are talking Constutional Amendment, if that happens it's over. It is a crappy time for this fight to happen. We need more leaders to defend gay marriages and to stop this movement from gaining momentum.

[Bertha Venation]

2. I'm confused:

"We need more leaders to defend gay marriages and to stop this movement from gaining momentum."

Eh? How do those two things go together? Defending gay marriages would keep the movement going -- which is as it should be!

[mojo2004]

3. I was talking about the...

movement for the Constitutional Amendment, not for gay marriages. Sorry.

[Bertha Venation]

11. no apology necessary --

I just misunderstood you. Makes perfect sense now. :hi:

[Deja Q]

6. So how do we fight? Witness:

A state allows civil unions.

Then another ponders and eventually allows civil unions.

Then * chimes in with augmenting the Constitution with something that is the antithesis of the Constitution for multiple reasons (things should be left up to the states, this discrimination is also the antithesis of the Constution, although such hypocrisy has been around since day 1 if you weren't a caucasian heterosexual male...).

That's when San Francisco has a mass-gay-marriage ceremony, marrying bunches of people at once. And while a lot of people would protest that, how many of them know that KQRS, a radio station in MN, used to do "multiple matrimony" sweeps week stunts every Feb 14? (More amusing, how many HAVEN'T divorced by now?! It's been ~10 years, I think somebody eventually got on their case and told them to stop and rightly so...)

* started it.

We're fighting back by openly promoting mass 'marriages' as some sort of shock jock stunt?! That's nuts and will only add gasoline to the fire.

[sallyseven]

8. It would take 10 years for an amendment to

the Constitution of the US. This is all nonsense. Denying marriage to a group is unconstitutional unless they have syphilis.

[arewethereyet]

4. issue ? used to be a small one. not anymore.

thanks to four guys in Mass and one in San Francicso.

Now its become a large one and one with so much potential backlash as to set this movement back to the stone age.

Too bad people didn't think these actions out.

[MsUnderstood]

7. Here is the sadness of it all

All of you are democrats (I am assumming since you post on this board) so it is logical that all of you are in support of civil rights.

The issue of gay marriage is not an issue of sex, frivolity or religion. It is a civil rights issue. Does a state (or the united states for that matter) have the right to deny 2 consenting adults the rights and privledges granted to couple 1 while granting these rights to couple 2? We said no in 1967 in California when we stopped banning interracial marriage. We need to say no again.

I found inspiration for this event in the HBO movie "Iron Jawed Angels" which retold the woman's sufferage movement. Alice Paul became famouse trying to gain for women the right to vote (during the 1916 election and then again during WWI). So many (even in her own womans organization) told her not to make waves and to support the Democrat Woodrow Wilson wo did not support her civil rights. Then she was told not to cause problems during a war year.

How ironic so many in the democratic party are turning a blind eye to civil rights again by telling gays, lebians, and those supportive of equal rights "Leave it alone--it will be there when you get back." I tink a quote by Alice Paul is appropriate here "When you put your hand to the plow, you can't put it down until you get to the end of the row."

[whirlygigspin]

5. the republicans want to fight over gay rights

cause they ain't got nottin' else going on...

(personally I think that's why dems stayed away from Dean, hoping the issue would "magically" go away)--try again Dorothy!

And once again an election with no real issues will be fought over absurd personal issues the government should have no business dealing with in the first place.

divide and conquor, makes sense to the status quo.

[lovedems]

9. Somebody help me out here.

In order to get a constitutional amendment to "define marriage between a man and woman" :puke: the chimp would have to get 2/3 votes in house and senate and 36-38 (can't remember the exact number) states to approve it. Given the fact that a majority of the population while they are against gay marriages are also against a constitutional amendment, I don't see how there would be enough support to get this accomplished.

Isn't this akin to the immigration bill, he will pay it lip service knowing that it will never pass? I think this is one the rights disgusting fear tactics to draw in their uniformed, uneducated, intolerant base.

Help me, am I wrong? Can this idiot really get something of this nature accomplished?

[MsUnderstood]

10. Constitutional Amendment will not happen before Nov 2004

A Constitutional Amendment will not happen before Nov 2004, but it will buy a lot of votes on the 700 club.

All of the democratic candidates CAN defend a position AGAINST the amendment with 2 words "STATES RIGHT".

All of the democratic candidates CAN defend a position FOR gay marriages with 2 words "CIVIL RIGHTS".

To back away from the issue as too controversial is disappointing and wrong. We are democrats because we believe in a freedom not suppression (except on gun rights). They are republicans because they believe in suppression not freedom (except on gun rights).

[lovedems]

12. The question in the post was real issue or partisan gambit

and the effort and support that will be required for a constitutional amendment leads me down the path of partisan gambit. I am not using the situation to offer an excuse to the democratic nominees not to take a stand on the issue, I just think the administration has disgustingly taken an entire community to be the target of hatred for his own political gain knowing that it is highly unlikely to get an amendment passed. The legal way, anyway.

The dems should take a stand against it and I am not at all suggessting that we back away from this issue. Surely my last post didn't imply that.

[Lisaben2619]

13. Dems continue to say that they support full civil rights for lgbt and

then come up with most ridiculous ideas to counteract that. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", DOMA, supporting civil unions but not marriage. Then wonder why more gay people don't vote or vote Independent or even Republican? What the hell's the difference? Wisconsin became the first state in the country to have a statewide anti-discrimintaion law under a Republican governor, not a Democrat.
I understand political expediency, but enough's enough! Do Democrats support our equal rights or not? I'm tired of hearing John Kerry say "I oppose gay marriage" and I am extrememly tired of being told to sit in the back of the bus because it just isn't the right "time."

[lovedems]

14. Like I said,

I am in 100% agreement that the dems should make a strong case for being against FMA. They should make a strong case for supporting GLBT right to marry. Did something I say imply otherwise? I think this is an important issue have repeatedly stated on this board that I will support the GLBT community in this fight with all of my heart and soul.

I have never, ever implied this is not the right time to engage in this dialogue. I have never implied that we "wait" until after the election. Granting a community the same rights as everyone else isn't something that you put on hold until it is convienient and I don't think I have ever suggested that.