I have problems with "Plaid's Eight Points." I do! But, I just don't

[KoKo]

know how to express it and be PC here. I wish I could. But, I felt Plaid's post had a certain "arrogance." I did......

Can't get it together as to why I felt that. But, felt "Plaid" didn't get that not every Dem might agree with the "Eight Points." Maybe that irritated me more than the "points" themselves?????

Questions........

[joeybee12]

1. I didn't read it because on the home page summary she wrote "I have

been a lesbian for 15 years..."

Sorry, but unless your 15 years of age, you've been a lesbian a lot longer than that.

You're born that way, and you're gay or lesbian from that point on.

Am I being picky????????????

I don't think so, because I think what she said--not intentionally--implies a choice, and sexual preference is not a choice.

[saline]

2. you're being picky

Acknowledging something that has the potential to make you a social pariah is a choice. Are we going to hold all kids who, at some point, say they don't like girls or boys to their word? No, of course not, at some point they realize hey that boy/girl is looking kinda good, and we let them make that change. We let them because it's their lives and we have to let them live it. Same thing here, if fifteen years ago she realized she was a lesbian it's fair to say sixteen years ago, when she didn't identify as a lesbian, she wasen't. Please note, I'm not trying to put words in anyones mouth, but it's how I would justify it if in the same position.

The article is worth reading, it got me fired up at least.

[KoKo]

3. What fired you up in the "points." I'm serious here. Looking to see

what might have been important to you in Plaid's post?

[Hamlette]

4. it fired me up too

I loved #5, that we must frame the issue and we should tell those who have been screaming about gays being pedophiles and perverts "this kind of bigotry has no place in a civil society devoted to liberty and justice for all, and anyone spouting it is not to be given a place at the negotiating table."

Also, that we should forget trying to argue this as a religious issue. We can never win on those grounds. My line is always: "the bible was used to justify slavery up to and throughout the civil war. Using the bible has no credibility with me." Then walk away. We'll never win with those types so give it up.

This is OUR issue and we can win on it. Read David Brooks editorial in the NYTimes last Sat. Any Mary Matlin said on one of the Sunday talk shows that she doesn't agree with her party on the issue. I've NEVER agreed with either one of them. Brooks gives great arguments to use with moderate republicans.

This is the same issue as interracial marriage. The very same arguments were used then too. No thinking person believes that clap trap anymore.

And when they start telling us the courts shouldn't decide these issues, that it should be legislatures because legislatures are voted into office not appointed. Just say: "Uh, like in Bush v Gore?" (sheesh)

She's right about most Americans not knowing the agenda of the religious right. This is what "family values" really means: "hate gays". If we phrase it like Brooks did, we can win. Let's drive this wedge between those of us who believe in marriage and equal rights and thoswe who don't.

[saline]

5. A fair question

A fair question deserves a good response. Let me say that what excites me doesn't necessarily do it for the next person. The things about this article that get me going is what I see as the hopefully more agressive stance democrats will be taking in the coming election.

For instance I think this is beautiful:

" If we don't act like we believe in ourselves, nobody else is going to believe in us either. So please, guys, either show up ready to fight, or don't show up at all. Commitment is always going to beat cowardice. If we want to win on this, we have to be as passionate and powerful in our defense of our position as the religious right is in theirs. We have to get as fired up about equality and justice as they are about hellfire and damnation. It can be done. And indeed, it must."

In addition to that she touches on points that I agree with but seem to be rarely discussed:

"In my humble opinion, the major reason that most religious right-wing groups are so frightened by the prospect of same-sex marriage is that it will weaken the Christian church's power in this country by separating civil marriage from religious marriage. Once we do that, the Christian right no longer gets to dictate the structure and shape of the basic American family unit. When the Christian right talks about trying to keep marriage sacred, what they are really talking about is keeping marriage under their jurisdiction. After all, if sanctity was what they really cared about, shouldn't they all be picketing the set of The Bachelor?

... A lot of the right's anti-same-sex marriage propaganda is just as offensive to a single parent as it is to a gay couple. ... that rhetoric ought to make a lot of hardworking divorced and single parents pretty fucking angry. Why doesn't it? Because they don't know it's out there."

This is a personal thing, I have it out for religion, or at least the overarching institution of "the church".

I liked Rule #4 because it's a fresh argument for me and it seems powerful. People will always believe their neighbors over their television.

Anyway to keep from re-posting the whole article, my over all point is it's good to see people getting fired up. She's right, failure is not an option, it's like my signature. The speech given by Winston Churchill after a narrow military escape for the British ends on an incredible note:

"We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."

The point being that there's no turning back now. As liberals it's time for us to find our spines and stake our territory. I'm finished with wondering and arguing if what we're doing is right, it is, period, end of story. Helping people will never be wrong and I'm tired of justifying it to conservatives so I'm not going to do it anymore. What I'm going to do now is help the needy and annihilate the greedy so conservatives better be on their toes.

So... thats why I liked the article.

[KoKo]

7. I understand that Plaid was posting her vision for the New Millenium, but

Plaid lumps Relgious Fundies with the rest of America.....that was the flaw in her post, to me....but, as I said, I don't know quite how to be PC on DU about her argument that it's only the Religions RW/Fundies who have a problem with "Marriages."

[saline]

10. Now I'm confused

I might have read wrong, but I got the exact opposite out of her article.

Look at the title for rule #3:

"Rule #3. The mainstream doesn't know how extreme the religious right really is, and we can do ourselves a huge favor by helping them find out."

I interpret mainsteam as meaning "the rest of America" especially since she singles out "religions right" (Fundies) as the other group. Notice she says that the American public is not opposed to us like the religious right they just don't know the other side of the story, our side. She's not bashing them for being ignorant on this issue she's saying it's our fault, our responsibility to get out there and tell them.

If this isn't where you're talking about then I'm a little lost care to explain a little more where you take issue with the article? I want to point out that nothing I've said is meant to be taken in anger. I'm actually pleasantly surprised this much discussion is going into a DU article. Your turn. :)

[KoKo]

20. I read "Plaid's" article as addressing Fundies and thinking Fundies were

the only folks who had problems with Gay "Marriage." I may have misinterpreted her article, but that's what I felt she was addressing. My feeling was she felt they were a "small" group and that Dems didn't need to worry about them because in the total "Big Picture" there was much to be "upbeat" about for Gay/Lesbians with the legislation.

I am simplifying this...but that was what my impression was. So, that was a point I was concerned about in her post. It's not only Fundies, that have some problems.....and I felt her article was "upbeat and hopeful" but that she missed that it will be much harder politically than what she is hopeful of.

I hope that clarifies what my post is about. I understood her post and appreciated it from her hopeful point of view, but there are more problems with "Gay Marriage" in the Christian Churches than I felt she knew from what I read in her article. She mentions much else, but the "Marriage" in the general view of what "Marriage" means was what I focused on as her being too directed to the Fundies, and not realizing it's a HUGE issue out there for "mainstream" American Regligious. And, Dems will have to deal with it as we always have to do with social issues which are controversial.

[KoKo]

11. But, Plaid doesn't understand that it's not just "Fundies" that have

problems with what constitutues "Marriage." There are other "non-fundies" who separate "civil" and "religious" but worry about where this will lead us to. It's an issue.....Plaid focuses on Fundie Christians...it just aint Fundies......really!

[Cheswick2.0]

12. you are worried that gay marriage will somehow have and effect on you?

come on, you can put your finger on what your concerns are. Just spit it out.

[saline]

13. ok I think I see it now...

I think I understand where you're coming from now, you seem to have less faith in the "Average American" than Adder does that these "Average Americans" will be accepting of gay marriage. Point well taken. I felt she answered this in her example with her brother. But I also think I can see where you would still have concerns. I would think that those who don't characterize themselves as fundamentalists but still recognize a slippery slope argument about the sanctity of marriage will fall into one of two catagories. Either they are in fact fundamentalists and just aren't admitting it or they can likely be disuaded from their slippery slope argument with moderate effort. Moderate effort like the ones outlined in rule 4.

Maybe I'm just being idealistic but I think most people are willing to accept gay marriage if only they can have it explained to them why they should. I hope I understood and haven't mis-characterized your statement.

[KoKo]

18. It's a problem for some of us.....as to how far it goes. My church is

struggling with it. It's not the civil rights......it's the sanctity.......it's a problem that goes beyond the Fundies.

It's a reality.....It rocks the foundations of what some feel "Marriage is." And, I separate the issue from "Survivor Rights" to inheritance or medical waivers for treatment.

[Kenneth ken]

14. try this

Plaid focuses on the RW fundies because they are the driving force behind opposition to gay marriage. If you want to know where RW fundie vision will lead, it is very simple. Every religious marriage ceremony I've ever attened ends on this note:
"what God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

That is where RW fundie views will lead. An end to divorce for ANY reason, for ALL people.

Your husband is physically abusive? Suck it up, eventally he'll kill you and then you'll be out of the marriage. Till then, God wants you to stay with him.

It's always good to keep in mind that RW fundamentalists want to live in a religious thocracy, not a democratic republic.

IMO too many more moderate Christians hear fundie ideas, and think that because Christianity is linked to it that it would probably be a good idea.

So one question to ask of any one opposing gay marriage, or supporting a Constitutional Amendment regarding marriage is this:

How would the phrase "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder" affect you, your family and friends, if it were treated literally?

For me, just one example, I have a brother and a sister who would never have been born, because my parents divorced, and they were born of one parent's second marriage. They're nice people, I like them.

[KoKo]

19. Even Gay Alliances can be put "Asunder." Marriage of whatever Gender

should be taken seriously, so that only as a "last resort" is divorce the option. That's what many Christians believe. What you are trying to say is that we should change "Marriage" and not take it that seriously. In case something goes wrong it should be easier to dissolve, that their should be no moral repercussions? No Guilt, no Pain, no Remorse? No attempt to keep the marriage together? No attempt to look at marriage as so sacred a bond that one doesn't enter into it unless one assumes the terrible repercussions of "Asunder?"

I'm an Episcopalian, btw. Hardly a Fundie......but I'm religious enough, that I took my marriage as a solemn bond....and would do everything I could to preserve it.

[Kenneth ken]

22. No

I am saying that RW fundies would take marriage to a place where no one could divorce for any reason.

While you take your marriage as a solemn bond, and would do everything you could to preserve it, do you accept that there are legitimate reasons for people to divorce?

Does your church allow divorced people to remarry? If I were a divorced man who wanted to marry a woman who had never married before, would your church allow that?

Would it not be hypocrisy for them to do so? After all, in my first marriage, if it were presided over by a church, I would have promised to love, honor and cherish forsaking all others and then divorced a woman - forsaking her for another.

Look at ALL the parts of a religious ceremony, consider the literal meaning of the words, and decide if you would like to live in a nation that treated them as "sacred." That is the goal of RW fundies.

For all Christians, I would urge a close look at the marriage vows, and what the nation would look like if they were treated literally in all circumstances. If you like that, fine, oppose gay marriage. If you don't like it, you need to oppose the RW fundie viewpoint. Where will opposing RWs take this nation? To a nation where ALL people are treated equally under the law, perhaps.

[Schmendrick54]

16. I am going to take a stab at this - hope I don't offend anyone.

The first thing I want to say is I loved the essay by Paid Adder. I recommend her other writings, too. Especially her guidance on how to avoid inadvertently offending gays and lesbians, directed to the heterosexual community. As a flaming heterosexual, I found it to be an eye-opener. If you are reading this, Plaid, congratulations on the Massachusetts court decision. We all need to find the bright spots wherever we can. Your joy in this does not (IMHO) imply insensitivity to those who are suffering from all of the disasters which have been visited on us by the usurper.

Koko01 can of course speak for his/her self, but I agree that there are many people who are not fundamentalists who nonetheless may find the concept of gay marriage one that makes them uncomfortable. But I did not interpret her Plaidness's essay to imply that this was not the case. I interpreted her remarks to be that the "Fundies" are a lost cause with respect to this issue, not that they are the only ones who might have a problem.

My own take on this is that we should do whatever we can to publicize extremely repugnant ideas of fundamentalists like Fred Phelps. Make sure people realize that Bush deliberately declared "Defense of Marriage Week" to coincide with the anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's brutal slaying while Phelps and his ilk were trying to put up their hateful monument to bigotry. The people who are somewhat uncomfortable with voting for a candidate who supports gay marriage will be even more uncomfortable with supporting someone they perceive to be supporting this kind of hatred.

Another talking point which I think is useful is to remind people that many churches (for example the Catholic Church) have their own rules about who can marry and who cannot. Just because the government might consider a divorced person is eligible to be married, the Catholic Church will usually not sanction such a union. Every church will still have the ability to recognize whatever relationships they choose to and not recognize others. That will not change, whatever the courts and legislatures do with regard to gay marriages.

Thanks for listening.

[KoKo]

17. A nice post about this.....thanks.... N/T

n/t

[joeybee12]

6. Sorry, but I really can't agree with you, and I think that's a big problem

when people equate acknowledging one's sexuality the same as becoming one.

Fifteen year's ago she realized she was a lesbian, or she came out. It does not mean she suddenly became one.

As a gay person, I see that as a big difference, and it sets back the cause if people don't realize there is a difference.

[KoKo]

8. I think what you are saying....is some of why I'm asking joeybee 12.

There are "missing pieces" in "Plaids" beautiful post about what Democrats need to do...and in the scenario. Plaid has missed some people in that post.

[saline]

9. hmmmm....

I'll admit it's tricky, but I think my final point is still valid. The final point being that the comment has little to do with the rest of an other wise good article.

I understand what you're saying because I believe that sexuality is a birth trait, it's not something you can truly choose. You can delude yourself as to what you are but that hardly counts. Still, I have the strong inclination to want to say that personal choice to identify as gay or straight has certain significance. What that significance is or should be I won't venture to guess. I'm clearly not very well set in my views on this issue.

[KoKo]

15. Plaid spoke of "Great Promise" to her "audience." But, her conclusions

were so "all encompassing" that she missed that it isn't just the "RW Fundies" who have problems. And, the Democratic Party needs to understand that.....

But, I understand her wish for her vision to be true.....

[Arianrhod]

21. What I saw goes beyond the gay issue.

I've been an outspoken, unbridled progressive since I saw the damage Reagan-Bush were doing. I have never backed down from a right-winger of any stripe, be they Fundamentalist or "neo"Con or "neo"Nazi. I believe strongly in throwing their tactics right back in their faces, pointing out to them their lies and propaganda and downright inhumanity. This is where I think the Democratic Party is extremely weak, and ultimately wrong. Politics is about people's lives, and if we aren't fighting for people's lives, what are we fighting for?

So I liked Plaidder's essay, as it shows a little bit of fire that I wish the Dems would bring to every issue. It's also why I like Dean, even though Kucinich is more in touch with my beliefs. (Let's put the two together and enlist Clark as Sec of Defense. Killer ticket!)

I say, more power to her.