One more "Fuck You". FUCK YOU GAVIN NEWSOM.

[UdoKier]

Our millionair mayor here in San Francisco, he of the slicked-back hair and skinny wife living in New York, who gives business any concession to get them to come into town, who kowtows to the real estate industry over the will of the citizens, and who chose an election year to highlight the GOP's favorite wedge issue with his gay marriage stunt.

I believe him to be a RINO and a pig.

You couldn't have waited until next year, huh Gavin?

[ContinentalOp]

1. Wow, I was just talking about this same thing a little while ago.

I remember at the time thinking "Why now? Why this year? Why not wait until after the election?". We handed them their wedge on a platter.

[UdoKier]

2. Kick.

And another F-U to the Armani "democrat".

[American Tragedy]

15. Hey not every Dem has to be working-class

[Taylor Mason Powell]

3. I agree.

I live in SF. And I'm gay. I was always nervous about his whole stunt, and now I think with good reason. Another lawyer in the office I work at expressed the exact same thing to me today, too.

FUCK YOU GAVIN NEWSOM and your egomaniacal publicity stunt. You set gay rights back 30 years with that shit!

But, just to nitpick, he's a DINO, not a RINO. :-)

[UdoKier]

4. OMG What have I done! My cover as a freeper is blown!

I'm a freeper operative and I didn't even know it!

How embarrassing.

I hope Gonzalez runs again. I will be full-on behind him next time around.

BTW, I wouldn't be against a gay-marriage challenge, but timing is crucial, and Newsom is clearly smart enough to know that. He has sold the people out so many times in so little time. I don't see how anybody but the Nob Hill millionaires and maybe some very crystal-addled gays ;) could be pleased with him.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

19. He's very smart, very hands-on...

I have been generally impressed with his tenure as mayor, although I admit I'm not paying extremely close attention.

But the gay marriage thing just makes me sick. Especially because the gay community here thinks he's such a hero.

I don't claim to know what Newsom's motivations are... but I don't trust him, and I think it's a valid argument that his stunt went a long way towards getting Bush elected.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[UdoKier]

52. It was a riff on a stereotype - notice the wink?

What I really mean (rather obviously) is the subset of gays who are one-issue voters, and beyond that aren't interested in anything but fun and fashion. They will support the likes of Newsom without ever examining his motivations, or the many other anti-democratic actions he's taken as mayor. I'm betting that they are the minority, and that the gay community here will realize that Newsom is NOT behind them. Unfortunately, there are an incresing number of greedhead log cabin repugs, who would jump at the chance to vote for a republican, if only they would run one who wasn't a gay-basher.

I'm happy for you and your husband and I hope you have a long and joyful marriage, but don't be so naive as to think there's no way that you were USED and EXPLOITED.

I was disappointed over Gonzalez' non-endorsement, but it didn't really matter her in SF, did it?

I'm not the only person on DU or in SF who thinks Newsom is a big phony, and no distorting a joke on my part will change that.

My apologies for being late in getting back to your post. This post apparently started some debate without my noticing it.

[Corkey Mineola]

98. 94114's Husband Speaks

Hi
Save your accolades and empty congrats.

It's clear that you are not a supporter of Mayor Newsom. But don't dress yourself up in this issue -- that he started some shit storm by allowing the City to issue marriage licenses.

Hang your complaint on some other hook. This hook is bent. Just like me and my husband.

phn

[UdoKier]

118. I respect your opinion on this and everybody who disagrees with the OP.

I don't agree, but I understand where you're coming from, and time will tell who is right in the long run. There are a bunch of posts being deleted - posts by people who disagreed with me, and I don't understand it. Not one post on either side of this issue has been offensive or unreasonable.

It's a divisive issue that deserves to be hashed out, but everybody has been reasonable and respectable IMO.

[Kipepeo]

71. Thank you 94114_San _Francisco

There are a lot of people here putting blame where it should not be.

You should realize that when you blame Newsome you are also blaming gays and lesbians who only wanted equal rights. You are blaming all of the thousands of couples who got married that day. Who saw and opportunity for equality and took it.

Shame on you for being so callous.

The enemy here is the same enemy that has always been: injustice, stupidity, prejudice, hatred, bigotry, ignorance, arrogance, greed, etc.

Equality is NOT the enemy. Equality is NOT a spoiler.

[UdoKier]

85. Oh, silly me. I forgot about how Newsom achieved "equality"

Thanks to him, gays now have the right to marry in California, right?

[Kipepeo]

92. I can't tell if you honestly mean to be divisive

right now or if if it's naivety.

[UdoKier]

102. Now I'm naive?

To be honest, this was posted right after the election in a fit of anger, so yes, amybe it could've been better constructed, but I am not creating the division on where to go with these issues. It's here already, and as a party we damn well better get it sorted out before 2006.

I will never allow my party to embrace a pro-theocracy or anti-gay platform. However, I would like to see the party all on the same page on these issues, and working for these issues in a concerted, methodical way, without the meaningless showboating. Whhethher we like it or not, the evangelicals are a parmanent fixture in this country, and we need to somehow co-opt some of them and defuse some of their issues to win.

[Kipepeo]

105. I don't know. Are you?

I said I don't know if you're intending to be divisive or if you don't realize that you are.

Only you know.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[tedzbear]

114. Right on, 94114! The Kerryites are now burning GLBTs at the stake...

...for "costing them the election." Let's get this "straight," Newsom is not the asshole. It is the bigoted 51% of the voters who supported * and the 11 bigoted amendments.

BTW, I visited the San Francisco court house in March to watch the weddings and it was one of the most life affirming, wonderful moments in my life. It was our American history in the making and I salute you and your husband for having the courage to go through with it. I am NOT going back in the closet just to win some fucking election. We are not going back!


:mad:

[UdoKier]

132. I'm no Kerryite. I was a Deanie, then a Clarkie.

I had to grudgingly accept Kerry.

[Pastiche423]

5. OT

Love your name!

The only hill I ever had to back down in a stick shift was Taylor Street (Cross street - California.)

[Taylor Mason Powell]

18. Thanks!

Taylor and California - that's a horrible hill! But when people come visit I love to drive them down Jones street. After California St. it looks like the road just drops out from underneath you! :-)

[LTRS]

6. Like they wouldn't have chosen some other wedge

issue instead? That tactic is Rove's bread and butter. In 2002 it was the Iraq war vote and the flip flop on Homeland Security by the Bushies. They fought it for 9 mths then said, wait, we can make this into a wedge issue if we use it to union bust. Then of course they showed Cleland in pics next to OBL and called him a traitor because he said the union folks should be protected with the planned merger of all the various govt agencies. And what merger when it all came down to it? Never happened. Just a big made up BS thing to use as a wedge.

See, they can create them at will, and if it wasn't gay marriage they would have created another one instead.

So why blame the guy who stood up for his sincere principles instead of the hatemongering bigots who used it to stomp us?

[UdoKier]

7. I don't believe he did do it out of sincere belief in principles.

He has not been a very progressive mayor, and as I said, he was highly aware of the timing of his stunt.

He thinks he can get away with it because SF is so gay-friendly.

Sorry, but I think he was just using gays to help his REAL masters.

[LTRS]

9. Well you would know better than me - I live in Seattle

.. but like I said, Rove would have dreamed up something anyway. He always does. Gore is a liar worked well in 2000, remember?

[UdoKier]

10. On the surface, Newsom is a "good dem" of the DLC mold.

But he just strikes me as so slick and fake. Everything about him creeps me out. If for no other reason, he reeks of MONEY. Anyway, I put out my theory, and I believe Matt Gonzalez would be a much better and more progressive mayor. He would support gay rights too, but he would keep his eye on the big picture rather than pulling publicity stunts with dubious motivation and timing.

[LTRS]

11. Thought he was a Greenie - isn't he? (eom)

[UdoKier]

12. Matt Gonzalez is a green. Newsom is a "democrat"

Also, according to newsmeat, Newsom gave donations to Kucinich in 2003, and in the past has given to Boxer and Shriver, other dems. But he has more money than God, so that could be keeping up appearances...

[no name no slogan]

39. He's very Norm Coleman-esque to me

Norm Coleman, Republican Senator from MN, is the former Dem-turned-Republican who ran against Paul Wellstone in 2002, after giving a keynote speech at the 1996 MN DFL convention supporting both Wellstone and Clinton. He has done nothing for this state, and is an embarrassment to the state (and BTW, his 'wife' lives in LA, and the kids are being raised by grandma and grandpa).

Newsom seems like he's in the Gavin Newsom party-- just looking out for his career more than anything else.

[TheWebHead]

16. you can't get Gore's a liar as an intiative on the ballot

in 11 states... But this was Newsom AND the Mass Supreme Court that combined to create this bigoted backlash that Rove & co. salivated over.

[MagickMuffin]

8. Rove did that to Gov. Ann Richards

when BOOOOOSHit ran against her. Started a whisper campaign that she was surrounded by homo's and that Ann was a lesbian. Those are his exact words.

[American Tragedy]

13. I remember my dad shaking his head over the gay marriages

He's very progressive, so I asked him why he cared. He said, "They don't realize how much this will hurt the Democrats". Only now do I realize how true that was.

[MrChupon]

14. Too bad

civil rights for black people lost us a lot of southern votes too, but we stood up for humanity.

[davepc]

17. yeah look at all these southern votes we lost post 1964

nice scapegoat, too bad it doesn't hold any water.

Dixiecrat was dead by 1976 and Jimmy Carter carried the south.

Rural poor and Christians identified with him, and trusted him. They voted for him.

Come up with a better straw man.

[MrChupon]

20. Not intending on a scapegoat.

Bad example then

We stood up for women's rights, then, and fought for abortion rights, and that has cost us dearly throughout the country. But we dont just sweep it under the rug because it is an important issue.

As is gay rights.
As are civil rights for all.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

21. Yes, but

there's a right way and a wrong way to go about advancing the cause of civil rights. I think Newsom picked the wrong way. At least this year. One step forward, about a gazillion steps backwards. This is not progress. And people tried to warn Newsom that this might not be a good idea. People like Barney Frank, the gay congressman from Massachusetts. But Gavin didn't listen.

Now gay rights are in danger of being set back thirty years, all because he "stood up for gay rights."

[Bluebear]

24. Newsom did not lose this election

Anyone who thinks gay rights were the only bee in the bonnet of the Talibornagains is sadly mistaken. They are against all abortion (Bush already announced "Maternity hoomes" for unwed mothers, stem cell research ("it stops a beating heart!"), made a bigger fuss over Janet Jackson than needed to be made, think the 100,000 civilian deaths in Eyeraq were justified because they were all "terrorists" and godless Muslims. This is a total culture war by the Christian reconstructionists, plain and simple. Gays are only one of their early targets.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

34. I don't disagree

with the idea that gays are one element of a multi-faceted culture war. Abortion is probably as big or bigger, when one looks at the long-term picture.

But this year, I really think it was the gay issue that predominantly motivated a lot of people to the polls, especially in Ohio and other states that had marriage amendments on the ballot.

[davepc]

27. theres a time and place to pick the battles

and BEFORE the election was not the time or place.

We won a small battle and they killed us in the big battle.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

61. I got news for you.

We didn't even win the small battle! All those marriages were invalidated by the California Supreme Court, entirely predictably.

The way to get the ball rolling in fighting for marriage equality is to bring a court challenge to the denial of a marriage license, as was the case in Massachusetts. The way Newsom did it just added a year or two of litigation before the "main event," the Equal Protection argument.

[davepc]

91. And when that gets to George Bush's supreme court (and it will)

THEN WHAT?

[Taylor Mason Powell]

116. Yep.

I'm not hopeful.

[President Kerry]

158. it's not about any one issue.. Rove would've found something

to get the fundies going.. If not gays, Janet Jackson baring her breast... there's a million other ordinary things we urbanites don't even think about that fundies flame over. Why do you think they're so scared of NYC. It's not Newsom's fault. Not a particularly smart move, but i'm not pinning this election on him. no way

[AZCat]

23. I read a good book a couple of years back...

I don't have it in front of me (it's out on loan) so I might get the title wrong, but I think it was "With God On Their Side", written by a professor from Rice University. He covers Carter's election and subsequent presidency in the book, and addresses exactly what you pointed out - that Carter was elected by the nascent Christian Right. He even got an endorsement from Billy Graham (who had never endorsed a candidate before). Phyllis Schafly (of the Eagle Forum) was one of his backers too, IIRC.

All that changed when Carter got into office, though. The right didn't like how he ran things and pulled their support over to Reagan in 1980, with the exception of Graham who was disgusted with politics and didn't endorse anybody.

[UdoKier]

55. There are more than enough states there to have won it for Kerry.

OK, AZ, CO, OK, KS, NE, VA, etc.

[AP]

32. Civil Rights was framed the right way. JFK made great speeches about it.

Gay marriage is framed ALL WRONG and Newsom must be smart enough to know that he could have framed it in a way that would have helped Kerry. He didn't.

[Corkey Mineola]

104. ATTENTION ALL FAGGOTS: RETURN TO THE BACK OF THE BUS

Your time has NOT come. We will let you know when you can have equal protection and equal rights. But in the meantime you need to stay in the closet and keep your traps shut.

Well guess what? I for one, am NOT going to view myself as some FUCKING LIABILITY to the Democratic party.

You will have to get some dynamite to blow me from my seat in the front of the bus. This fag stays put.

And furthermore, The critique here is about right-wing assholes who use hatred to divide us. Not allies like Newsom who help us to move the ball down the field.

Your dad was wrong.

[foreigncorrespondent]

22. Oh for fuck sake!!!!

When are people going to realize, it wasn't the gay marriages in SF that gave Bush* the election yesterday. It wasn't the gay marriages in Mass, that gave Bush* the election yesterday. Remember the fucking repukes began their attacks on gay relationships long before any of this happened.

What gave Bush* the election yesterday was the fucking diebold machines.

Want to attack for it, then fucking attack where it is needed, not against any one person, or group of people, or issue that you think caused it.

The fucking election was stolen. The numbers are not adding up!

Don't you think the gay community has enough to worry about right now without having to see this shit as well?

[Bluebear]

26. Brightest blessings to you.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

36. I'm also a member of the gay community.

And I'm just calling it like I see it. The gay issue was a huge motivator, and there's sadly no evidence other than suspicion that the Diebold machines were responsible for Bush's win.

Ohio didn't even use touchscreens. And Bush did WORSE in the Florida counties that used them than he did in 2000.

I would LOVE to believe this election was stolen. So far, I've seen no evidence other than some eyebrow-raising exit poll numbers... certainly nothing that one could go to the media with or bring a lawsuit about. Nothing yet, anyway.

[UdoKier]

56. Wasn't gay marriages in Mass?

I believe several of the judges who ruled in favor of it were REPUBLICANS...

[Corkey Mineola]

124. thanks foreign

I'm still going to Canada cause this country is, left and right, hateful of difference. And ain't no worse difference than being a man who likes to get some sweet loving with another man.

I'm not safe here.

I'm buying a gun.

Diebold stole it just like you said, btw.

[President Kerry]

159. we can't win with a 50% vote. we can't win with a 55% vote

we need a landslide... pure and simple. The deck is stacked, and that's how we gotta play. There's nothing we can do.

[kevinhnc]

28. Er thanks DU, I guess...

For making me feel unwelcome for the first time. Gay americans get the brunt of everything....

[UdoKier]

57. Umm.. This is about Newsom. He EXPLOITED gays.

I'm all for what he did. But not when he did it. It was a very deliberate publicity stunt by an egomaniacal mayor.

[Kipepeo]

72. It is not just about Newsom

blaming him is blaming gays and lesbians who dare to want equal rights.

Why would anyone start a divisive flame-war thread like this anyway?? What has newsom got on George Bush? What have gays and lesbians got on the assholes who voted for Bush?

What is the REAL problem and what is not?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Kipepeo]

81. please inform me what the point of the entire thread is

because it looks to me like it's to divide and start a flame-war and to scapegoat gays and lesbians and the gay marriage issue instead of placing blame where it belongs.

I don't think I'm the one who is illinformed but thanks for your two cents.

:bounce:

[hiphopnation]

93. if advancing the idea

that Gavin approached the issue the wrong way, LEGALLY and the fact that he had advisors telling him there might be a negative backlash TO YOU means "scapegoat gays and lesbians and the gay marriage issue instead of placing blame where it belongs." then I'm just not sure what to say to you.

Maybe you need to re-read some of the OP points? :shrug: Good luck. :thumbsup:

[Kipepeo]

97. Maybe you need to open your mind to the possibility

that the way the original post is constructed is highly offensive to many people who celebrated and cried and still revere the day Newsom started marrying people. The ultimate act of civil disobedience.

I am not saying there is no discussion to have here. Just that this thread is going about it in entirely the wrong way.


:shrug: Good luck. :thumbsup:

[hiphopnation]

112. My mind is open to that possibility.

I empathize with them and don't envy the position in which they find themselves. After all, the marriges that took place that day now mean absolutely NOTHING legally.

Some are actually trying to have the discussion you think is possible the OP aside. You don't seem to be interested in having that discussion but rather attacking anyone who would agree with the sentiments expressed in the OP. Again, not sure what to say to that.

[Kipepeo]

113. I don't know what to say either, other than that this whole thread

feels like an attack and betrayal and I'm crying all over again.

This is not why we lost the election. This is not why we lost the election. This is not why we lost the election.

That is my only point. I have to leave this thread. It is not good for me or my faith in my party right now.

:cry:

[hiphopnation]

125. You're right.

This is not why we lost the election. I didn't mean to make you cry.

I just don't find it unreasonable that it might be one SMALL reason why we lost.

Best to you and to progressives everywhere. Peace.

[UdoKier]

82. For you maybe, outside SF Newsom=gays.

He is our mayor, and there is a lot more to it than that.

Do you really want equal rights, or do you want a series of futile gestures that get a lot of media attention?


I'm simply saying that on a local level, I would like to see a true progressive mayor for our city who is willing to support gyas on a local level for the long haul rather than sabotage them with high-profile stunts.

Since when have mayors been the arbiters of civil rights?

The work needs to be done at the legislative and judicial levels. NO mayor can grant gays equal rights. Sorry, but it's a fact.

[Kipepeo]

89. All I am saying is that your thread is poorly constructed if you

really want to have that kind of discussion.

It is causing emotions I don't think you intended.

[UdoKier]

99. I've yet to see ANYONE attacking gays

or saying we shouldn't pursue gay rights.

So what are the unintended emotions?

Besides, everybody feels like shit today. I'm not thinking about emotions. I want people to THINK not FEEL about what will WORK in REAL LIFE, not what will make them feel good symbolically.

[Kipepeo]

101. You are not HELPING

[UdoKier]

108. And what would help?

Perhaps I should buy a cruise ship, and as captain, marry a bunch of gay couples on board, then insist that the states honorr the marriages? Maybe THAT would cement the right to marriage into law. Face it, although you SHOULD be entitled to equal rights, you are not being granted them. We agree on that, I think. But in order to get them it will take hard work. Stunts like what Gavin pulled are the lazy way out, and they seldom work. You take that as divisive, but I'm sorry, that's the way it is, and your calling me and anyone who agrees with me names won't change that.

[Kipepeo]

110. Perhaps it would help

not to alienate part of the party.

Perhaps it would help to put a little more thought and sensitivity into posts that deal with such complex issues.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

115. Um, this is the "Fighting and Acrimony" forum.

I think you want the "Help and Support" forum.

[UdoKier]

117. I've read all your responses to the OP

And I understand your emotions, but I've yet to see anything that will help achieve what you want in the real world.

I realize that there are still court challenges going on, and that they may eventually turn out with the state recognizing gay marriages. And in turn, the psychopaths in the red states will try to revive the Protection of Marriage Amendment or whatever they call it. Are you confident that there are not enough votes in the red states to eventually make that happen?

Also, Bush's election will hurt EVERYONE, not just gays. Working people will become destitute, and many of the poor will become homeless as a direct result of this man's policies. How will we rally an increasingly starving populace around gay rights? They'll just do anything to get a lousy job.

[Justice]

29. Completely Agree

The cause of gay and lesbian people has now been set back at least 30 years. What really upsets me is the timing - what where the mayors of New Palz and SF thinking - what were the plaintiffs in MA thinking? Only about themselves, not about the larger public. My take on the situation is that these particular people were selfish - they sought to advance their own situation -- without enough reflection on what was at stake.

I ask you what are they doing for others? Who will look out for the poor, the homeless, the veterans? Did these people support Kerry?

I am one that frankly, will benefit from Bush's tax policy. I didn't support Kerry because it was in my financial interest -- I supported him because it was in our nations interest, and in the interest of those less fortunate. I cannot tell you how upset I am about the way in which these lawsuits and mayoral actions decided our election.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Taylor Mason Powell]

40. Hey, hey now.

I take umbrage. I'm a gay man in your very zip code who believes that this argument has merit - that Rove was able to use the gay marriage thing to play on the ignorance and bigotry of the masses for votes, and that Newsom helped this along.

I'm not saying that Newsom is the reason we lost, but that he is ONE reason, and maybe even a significant one, given how many people in Ohio turned out to vote on the "Values" issues. No values issues, no Ohio, Kerry would be president. I think this is a valid point but you can call me a gay-basher if it makes you feel better.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Duncan Grant]

51. Unhinged? Thanks friend.

Where were you 10 days ago with the arguement you're supporting now? I'm sorry we seem to be on opposite sides of this blame game. Maybe we should bounce the ideas around again in a few weeks?

[Taylor Mason Powell]

53. I have always been nervous about the Newsom thing.

Ten days ago, I would have said that Newsom's actions didn't help the gay community much. I decided this when the CA Supreme Court handed down its decision. I felt that Newsom had gone about it the wrong way even then, even though (and for some reason I feel I need to clarify this) I fully support full equality and marriage rights for gays and lesbians. (Sorry for calling you unhinged, but I don't like being told that I'm supporting my own oppression simply because I disagree on methodology).

Ten days ago, I didn't think our countrymen's disgusting homophobia would be such a big factor in the presidential election. I think it was a big factor. And it's made me feel unwelcome in my own country. So much so that I'm strongly considering expatriating.

[UdoKier]

59. DON'T YOU DARE characterize it as gay-bashing.

I'm bashing NEWSOM, who USED gays for his own benefit, and to the eventual detriment of gays, democrats and all working people.

You keep following the likes of pretend democrats like Newsom and you will be following them into a gas chamber. He will "support" gay rights in such a way to see that they are completely destroyed.

[Kipepeo]

87. DON"T YOU DARE pretend you can't see

the complexities of your post.

You're stirring up bullshit resentment and scapegoating of the marriage equality issue, whether you intend to or not.

[UdoKier]

95. It is a complex issue, and so are the ramifications of it. Deal with it.

Being simplistic and thinking that every stunt like this is going to move things forward is unbelievable naive.

If anybody here blamed the couples who got marrried, I'd be as pissed at them as you are. They are just ordinary people who want to have a life together. I don't expect them tro consider every angle of these things. The mayor on the other hand, with his very pricey education and big-money backers in Pacific Heights, should have enough savvy to consider the ramifications.

It is almost as though he set out to do a repeat of Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" decision at the beginning of his first term. If you'll recall, it enraged both religio-nuts AND gays and nearly derailed his agenda. Fortunately Clinton became the wiser for it. Hoopefully Newsom will too. He's got time before the next election to change my mind.

BTW, I agreed with him on "care not cash" as did most San Franciscans.

[Kipepeo]

103. No, I am saying YOU don't realize the Complexities of your very post

I know it's a complex issue and you're not addressing it in that way.

Thanks for helping a lot of people feel abandoned by the party my friend. Thanks for pretending to be clueless.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[sandersadu]

41. Big Picture

The issue isn't supporting gay rights (or civil rights, or women's rights). The issue is about tactics and strategy.

Take Civil Rights. You don't think Brown v. Board of Education just came out of the sky do you. No, there were "test cases" built up over decades that gradually chipped away at Segregation. A case called Sweatt v. Painter in 1944 Texas struck down discrimination in Texas law schools. Once that was done, this laid the foundation for striking down segregation in public schools, and desegregation in public schools laid the foundation for desegregation in "public accommodations" (Heart of Atlanta Motel case).

It didn't just happen overnight. It takes years, in the case of black folks (I'm black) hundreds of years to effect change. Most importantly, it takes strategy, well-thought out, opportunistic strategy. That obviously was not on display during the "gay marriage fight" b/c now gay rights have been set back 30 years, at least, and the rest of society will suffer.

We pay the price for being disorganized, non-strategic and balkanized. Simple as that.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

44. Thank you - very well said!

I'm not pissed at Newsom because he stood up for gay rights!! I'm pissed at him because I feel he did it in a very stupid and counterproductive way.

[Duncan Grant]

47. The Democratic party couldn't run away from this issue fast enough.

I just got back from Ohio last night after working my ass off for the ingrates here at DU. Imagine my 'joy' at seeing threads like this -

Funny that none of us were bashing Gavin Newsom 10 days ago. :grr:

[UdoKier]

64. A lot of us, myself included - were pissed at him this spring.

Bitching about it 10 days would have done nothing to change what was already done.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Kadie]

33. Um. It wasn't too long ago that there was thread after thread her at DU

in support of Gavin Newsom. People were posting how he was a true democrat. Gavin should be president someday. Way to go Gavin. It's about time someone stood up and took a stand.

Now you want to blame him? If we are going to blame him, then we also need to blame ourselves for supporting him when this was all happening.

Or maybe, we should blame the other democrats for not standing behind Gavin and standing up to this issue instead of tip toeing around it. Do we want equal rights for all or not?

[AP]

37. There were also some at DU who predicted this would happen when Newsom

did this.

They should be allowed to say "I told you so."

[Kadie]

49. I understand.

However, with the climate of the country, as we strive for equal rights for all and as we stand up for those rights, there will always be a backlash. So what do we do? Not fight for those rights? Or keep trying until we get there. Do we continue with itsy bitsy steps, or go out and make bold steps like Gavin did?

I am not going to say Gavin Newsom was right or wrong for what he did, I think it is too early to tell. This is one of those issues that takes time for people to get comfortable with. Maybe in the short term we will see it as the wrong thing to do, and maybe in the long term we will see it as the right thing to do.

I am not convinced that this is the reason we lost the election, but I admit, I could very well be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. ;)

[AP]

58. I like your post, but I want to emphasize something:

This wasn't a quesiton of WHETHER we stand up for people's rights. It was a question of HOW we stand up for people's rights.

There's a great book on this issue: The Twilight of Equality by Lisa Duggan.

Arguing that the rights issue with gay marriage was that we should expand the government's definition of the spiritual relationship of marriage to include people which very few churches -- actual spiritual institutions -- recognize was never the smart way to talk about this issue.

To talk about it in terms of making people more powerful and happy in the workplace and at home -- to talk about it in terms of purely the legal relationships -- is a winning way to talk about the rights involved.

Are we fighting for the right for two people to have a marriage in a church which the government will recognize? No. We're fighting for the right of two people to have health insurance which covers each other, to be able to pass property to each other tax free on death, and to have rights to visit each other in the hospital, and two have obligations to children you raise together when one of you abandons the family.

It's a workers rights issue. It an issue of protecting the welfare of children. It's an issue of not getting taxed to death. It's an issue of handling your private life and your work life with as little friction as possible.

But NONE of those discussions were a part of the debate. The debate was entirely about expanding the definition of one of the most conservative institutions in America: family. Notice that in '92 it was about being able to participate in another of the most conservative institutions in America: the military.

When are we going to talk about these issues in a way which highlights liberal issues? When are we going to talk about them in terms of worker's right, health care, and providing a functioning society for children to grow up into?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[bearfartinthewoods]

162. It wasn't Newsom's fault

Everyone expects San Francisco to be progressive in GLBT issues. It was when the Mass high court got into the act that the shit started hitting the fan. Kerry's home state went with it. That's what added weight to the issue.

[LisaM]

35. Excellent point.

I mean, I agree with his stance, but the timing was obnoxious. Of course, he may have meant it to highlight the hatred all Republicans carry in their hearts, but if so, he underestimated the deep-rootedeness of that hate.

[Duncan Grant]

43. Bullshit. It's not an excellent point - it's 'revisionist history'.

You didn't lose this election because I got married on 3/11/04. The RepubliCONS made this a campaign issue long before Newsom took the correct leadership position for the Democratic party.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

46. Correct position, yes. Correct action, no.

When your marriage was invalidated by the CA Supreme Court, that was VERY PREDICTABLE that that would happen. Gavin Newsom should have consulted with lawyers or legal experts who would have all told him that's what would happen. So we get a nice feel-good photo op for the mayor, thousands of gay couples get their hopes up but basically get a piece of paper conferring no legal rights whatsoever, and Karl Rove gets a campaign issue to whack the Democrats with on a silver platter. Regardless of the correctness of Newsom's POSITION, how did his ACTION help the gay community? It made us all feel nice and warm and fuzzy for a while, and yes I do think it brought images of happy gay couples into people's homes and humanized the issue... but I think ultimately his stunt hurt us more than it has helped us. I wish I felt otherwise.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. No, it's not revisionist history.

That's bullshit and you know. There were people here, myself being one of them, that urged pragmatism. We knew this was not the right time and we got labelled "homophobes" for it.

You look at the numbers and you tell me this issue didn't energize people. Oregon was the only state out of 11 that didn't vote against gay marriage with rates higher than 60%. Mississippi passed the 80% mark. You can't tell me this didn't motivate people to get to the ballot boxes when it was so clearly something people felt very strongly about. You're completely in denial to state otherwise.

Newsome had the correct POSITION, but it was a piss-poor tactic that is going to cost gay rights at least 6 years. It's looking more and more like the anti-gay marriage amendment will pass. If we can't even mound a cursory defense in a place like Oregon, we've got no chance of blocking it in 3/4ths of the country. People like myself TRIED to tell you that this would happen, but you simply called us "hatemongers" for doing it. I'm not the kind of guy to say "I told you so", but you still cannot see the reality of the situation, and so I am forced to.

[UdoKier]

67. NOBODY'S blaming you.

I was heartened by the sight of all the nice couples getting married. And very unsettled at Newsom's judgment in doing it.

94118 here, BTW.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

38. Fuck him for Care not Cash

I don't know if I agree with you on gay marriage. Maybe he did have evil intentions but it was still a good thing in the final analysis.

But fuck sleazy good-on-paper politicized homelessness policies. Urban campgrounds now!

[UdoKier]

68. The state eventually invalidated all the marriages anyway.

So exactly what was accomplished other than a memorable publicity stunt?

[tedzbear]

151. There is no way YOU would understand what was accomplished...

...unless you are gay and you were there being part of it. Some things in life transcend politics and strategy and just ARE. It was the right time and the right place and the right war. We will continue to fight our war and we are not going back in the closet for anyone.

Blaming our weddings is like blaming Rosa Parks for sitting at the front of the bus. At the time, I'm sure plenty of people said her "stunt" would set back black civil rights 30 years. Now we know different.

:kick:

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

160. I'm not gay and I wasn't there but I think I understand

I almost mentioned Rosa Parks in my reply to the same post, but it seemed too complicated.

Here's to the gays and lesbians of San Francisco! It would be a sad city and a sadder country without them.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

152. A few people were newly empowered

If only for a minute. They'll remember that, and they won't settle for less in the future.

AND, a local blue state leader stood up to the feds. A very important precedent for the next few years.

[rockydem]

42. It was the wrong way to go about it

It 'felt good', but it wasn't strategic.

[ShaneGR]

50. Kill the Queer lovers!!!

I guess, have fun with the green party.

[UdoKier]

70. Greens are queer lovers too.

And voting green on a local level in SF does no harm to the democrats. They ARE the democrats here, and the democrats are the republicans. SF is not the same as Dallas, okay?

[GreenPartyVoter]

84. True enough.

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Julien Sorel]

60. I am someone who was naive enough

to think gay rights was a winner for our side. I saw polls a couple of years ago that indicated a majority of Americans supported same-sex unions of some sort or another. I worked for a company in an extremely Republican industry where gay people have the same rights as straights when it came to partnership benefits, and we had several gay and lesbian couples in my building and no one ever raised an eyebrow.

What the hell happened? Instead of same-sex rights, the whole debate turned into a referendum on same-sex marriage. It's an example of Democrats -- the entire left, really -- doing a terrible job of framing the issue, and then managing it poorly once they lost control of the terms of the debate. These initiatives should have been kept the hell off of ballots once it became obvious they couldn't pass. It was a no win situation for everyone except the Republicans.

Blacks had to fight for civil rights for a century before the Civil Rights Act was passed, and even that was passed only under the cover of nascent unrest over Vietnam, and Kennedy's assassination. It's been what, 30 years since the Stonewall Inn thing launched the gay rights movement? My guess is, truly equal rights for gays will happen, but it's going to have to get done under the aegis of some greater upheaval, that shakes people out of their ignorance and apathy. Now clearly was not the time.

[AlCzervik]

63. I think he exposed the homophobia and bigotry of the 'Heartland"

imo, i've talked to so many people that were so upset when they found out about the gop putting gay marriage on the ballot in so many states, it turned many of them way off, these people are republicans. not everybody follows politics like we do so a lot weren't aware of what the GOP did this go round.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. He sure did expose it.

And its bigger than we could've expected. And it's bigger, obviously, than we can fight right now.

It's the right position. The country is just NOT ready yet. Period.

[Corkey Mineola]

126. Wow Chimp You are SMART

Are you sure you are in the right thread with all these dumbasses?

[AlCzervik]

130. it's gays this time and next time it will be another group

or it will be some aborition ballot issue. We have to anticpate their next "social Issue" and head it off at the pass. We have got to look out for each other of we are all done for.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Taylor Mason Powell]

74. I have friends who got married.

And I would have no fear of telling them that I think Newsom's action was ill-advised and ill-timed. Unlike you, apparently, they would be able to see the difference between bashing Newsom and bashing them.

[Kipepeo]

76. There is no difference.

This whole thread is a slap in the face to a dedicated base of the Democratic party.

I don't see the point.

The blame lies elsewhere, NOT with Newsom or with Lesbians and Gays or with the fight for equal rights.

Sorry, no easy scapegoat.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

79. The blame lies ultimately with the homophobes and bigots.

But there absolutely is a difference between questioning the strategic wisdom and timing of Gavin Newsom's actions and attacking gay people. A big difference!

And hey, I'm part of that "dedicated base" you speak of, and I don't feel slapped by this thread at all.

[Kipepeo]

90. Great, and others in the thread do

tell me how this is productive right now in the slightest.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Kipepeo]

107. that's funny...who am I slandering?

I am attacking what I fond to be counterproductive and divisive posts.

I have seen an overwhelming number of productive, positive threads here today. People sorting out their grief and anger, people talking about reframing the debate, people talking about strategy.

This is the first thread I've seen that made me feel like we are more than willing to eat our own.

It is not productive.

By the way, falsely accusing me of slander is slander isn't it?

[Taylor Mason Powell]

100. This is DU! You're looking for productivity? :-)

Maybe 1 percent of threads here are ever even remotely "productive." And I think that figure is probably on the high side.

Nevertheless, we all shoot our various mouths off about anything and everything. It's the beautiful thing about these internets, ya know.

But in my opinion, if there is something to be gained from a thread like this, it's hopefully to get people to carefully think through strategies, and consider whether a course of action may produce unintended negative consequences that outweigh the initial reason for taking that action.

I see NOBODY on this thread arguing against gay rights or gay marriage. We're talking about strategies here. But several posters have chosen to take it as a personal attack. Unfortunate.

[Shakespeare]

77. WRONG. Bashing Newsom is a sneaky way of marginalizing gays.

Just as saying that we need to back off on the issues of choice is a sneaky way of marginalizing women.

Fuck. That.

And fuck anybody who wants our party to do that. I will not sell out the civil rights of a group of Americans just to win a few more votes. We can find a different way, and we must.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

86. I couldn't disagree more.

There was a BETTER WAY for Newsom to advance the cause of gay rights - namely, to have a gay couple apply for a marriage license, deny it, and then let them challenge that in court, possibly with the help of the city. This is how we got gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Perhaps you could explain how pointing out the flaws in his strategy is "marginalizing" gays. The whole point is he HURT GAY RIGHTS with his little stunt. Even forgetting the election, he hurt gay rights in California because his action interposed a year or two of needless court challenges before even getting to the meat of the issue. It's not in any way anti-gay to point that out.

[Shakespeare]

109. I know you couldn't disagree more. That's why I'm shaking my head.

WAS there a better way? I don't think so. Sometimes rights issues have to be fought very, very in-your-face. This is usually done after years and years of "better ways" have resulted in no progress.

Flash back about 80 years to the suffragist movement--the "better way" group, long represented by people like Carrie Catt and the League of Women Voters, were outraged at the civil disobedience of Alice Paul and her NWP. But ya know what? After first horrifying the nation by their tactics (not unlike the marriages in San Francisco), the country turned around and finally supported the 19th amendment. That would not have happened had the suffragists stuck with the so-called "better way."

Those staid suffragists who didn't want to rock the boat didn't like to think they were hurting women's rights by resisting bold social statements. But they were. They marginalized themselves, and Alice Paul would have none of it, bless her revolutionary heart.

The marriages that have now been legally invalidated ARE going through the court system, so your "better way" is happening simultaneously, as I'm sure Newsom knew it would. At the same time, the most hysterical homophobes on the right are left looking a little silly, because the earth didn't cave in and armegeddon was not brought on by having gay couples marry. The earth kept turning, the sun still came up, and life went on as usual. That was an important "lightbulb moment" that will gradually be realized more and more.

One more thing. The initial post of this thread made no attempt to be even remotely constructive. It trashed Newsom (on a number of fronts, both personal and public, and completely ad hominem). That kind of hyperbolic bullshit is not indicative of somebody looking for a "better way."

[Taylor Mason Powell]

137. The point is certainly debatable.

The historical analogy you present is apt, but also quite likely distinguishable. I mean, they didn't have to deal with a George W. Bush administration, for example. History never repeats itself exactly.

Be that as it may, your original point that I was responding to was that my position "marginalized gays." Debating the best way to advance gay rights is not marginalizing gays. I happen to think it would have been better for Newsom to take the Massachusetts route. I also think if he had done that, it would have advanced gay rights more quickly, not less, and also that there's a chance that we'd be looking at a President-elect Kerry today -- although I'm not ready to say that with any great degree of certainty.

As for the original post, yeah it was harsh, but again, this is the "fighting and acrimony" forum.

[hiphopnation]

88. this is woefully misinformed

the OP and TMP are attempting to underscore the importance of nudging along civil issues that the country may not be ready for rather than taking the Newsom approach of throwing a huge party and garnering tons and tons of media attention thereby handing KARL ROVE AKA THE REAL ENEMY a silver ring of just enough of a wedge to throw the election for bush in a few key states, Ohio being one of them.

This point seems lost on you and, instead, you are intent on making the erroneous point that by calling Gavin out for approaching the issue in the wrong way legally this means that one is "bashing gays". Way off.

[Shakespeare]

111. Not way off, and absolutely not "misinformed."

Heh. That accusation strikes me as quite funny, though.

See my other post in this sub-thread for a fuller explanation.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

121. No, I agree with them completely. You are misinformed.

First of all, those years where you say there is no progress? Total bullshit. There are millions of small victories along the way that set the stage for a Martin Luther King. You have to chip away at the armor before you attack, or it will fail miserably, like it just did. Gay rights have now been set back at least 6 years because of actions like Newsome's. The anti-gay marriage amendment will likely pass, all because Newsome helped alert the bigots that a movement was occurring that needed to be snuffed before it was mature enough to fight back. Tuesday's results PROVE, beyond denial, that the country was not ready yet for gay marriage. And now there will be consequences to haste. If YOU don't get that, you have got your head completely in the sand.

[Shakespeare]

129. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them misinformed.

Nice little ad hominem, straw man try, though.

Who says Newsom's action failed? I think it was an enormous success. It got people to actually LOOK at gay couples in a context other than one of boogeyman. It also provided a conduit for a number of lawsuits to make their way through the court system, which they are now doing.

And I am stunned to see so many here continue to excuse bigotry by saying "we're not ready."

As I said before, fuck that.

p.s. The amendment won't pass, and probably won't even make it out of the House next time around, if there IS a next time. We have Georgie the Great now publicly proclaiming that plank of his party's platform to be wrong. And if you think Tuesday's election was primarily about gay marriage--good lord, that's just lame.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

133. "excuse for bigotry"?? Not exactly!

Who's excusing it?!? Did I excuse it? Hell no!

However, explain to me why the amendment passed by 7 points in Oregon. Explain to me why 80% of the people of Mississippi approved the proposition. Explain to me why red and blue states alike voted overwhelmingly for the ban on gay marriage if we're really ready for it. Explain away, if you can. All I'm betting you can do is stomp your feet like a fucking child and swear your head off. Like that's going to get you anywhere.

[Shakespeare]

135. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the connection.

If anything, the Massachusetts decision was used to rally the homophobes MUCH more than the SF marriages were. In fact, I can't even recall Bush or his minions mentioning anything BUT the Massachusetts decision, and that's the one that some posters are throwing around as the "better way." Can't have it both ways, you know.

Where have I "stomped my feet like a fucking child?" I'm not the one engaging in hyperbolic name-calling; the original poster did, however. I called the original poster out for his bogus complaint, and have backed up each successive post with thoughtful explanation.

And here's another clue for you: those states--even Oregon, which aside from Portland is NOT a liberal state--would have voted big for those ballot measures NO MATTER WHAT. I'll lay you overwhelming odds that the vote would be the same even if the SF marriages AND the Massachusetts decision never happened. Heck, liberal old California voted for one years before Newsom even took office, and by a wide margin. The connection you claim simply isn't there. And to attack Newsom for doing a good thing is just inexcusable.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

146. Okay, I'll agree with the Massachusetts decision.

And I urged pragmatism then too!

And the vote wouldn't have taken place is not for Massachusetts and San Francisco. The movement against gay marriage only gained steamed when those events occurred.

I apologize for the hyperbolic name-calling. It was uncalled for.

[hiphopnation]

123. I do agree

that the OP was rather inflammatory and I do see how some could take offense at reading it, especially if they happened to be one of the couples married that day.

That being said, what I believe the point being made here is how the marriages in SF fit into the larger rubric of the national election. In the long-term there's no doubt that this was a bold, gutsy political move that did much to humanize gays in the eyes of many an average american. What it did, or should I say, what it MAY HAVE DONE in the short term, however, seems at very stark odds with some of the possible long term positive effects it may have.

The overwhelmingly awful and sad reality that we all must now face as a progressive community is that fascists theocrats have taken over all three branches of the federal government and they hate gays and they hate arabs and they hate women. This clown will likely appoint two or three supreme court justices!! Pray tell, how does this bode well for progressives of ANY stripe in this country?

[Taylor Mason Powell]

131. But...but...Gavin Newsom's a HERO!!

Don't you see? He achieved equality for gay people! It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court's gonna look like in a few years, or the economy, or Iraq for that matter! What matters is, he let gay people get married. Even if it contributed in some way to the imminent nuclear war and economic collapse, at least my friends have a piece of paper saying they're equal! All thanks to Gavin!

AND, he's SUCH A CUTIE!

[Shakespeare]

138. Wow, you're as bad as the red-staters.

Gavin's now responsible for the downfall of western civilization? Amazing. :eyes:

[Taylor Mason Powell]

140. Read the post again.

"contributed." not "responsible."

[Taylor Mason Powell]

143. Seriously...

...of course I am aware that it is Bush and not Gavin Newsom who bears the blame for the downfall of western civilization.

But other things, events, people, have certainly contributed to Bush being in the position to do so. It's a LONG LONG LIST and Gavin is just ONE among many things on that list.

[Shakespeare]

145. I'm sorry. I'm just not with you on this.

Bush was going to fuck us either way, and to unleash this level of venom at Newsom for doing something brave and right is just completely misplaced. The net effect it had on the election is close to zero.

[hiphopnation]

153. Well then the whole argument

boils down to pure subjectivity as none of this can be proved. You state that the net effect is zero, which you can't prove. I, and others, believe it had some effect.

My argument: I think that it would be easier to argue my position especially when you look at the amount of voters who claim to have voted "values" issues. What is that? Gays marrying and abortion. Pick one American at random and ask them what the definitive moment for or against the gay marriage issue was in the last four years and you're likely to hear "San Francisco" or "Massachusetts".

I guess we'll both have to try and open our minds to the other's argument, ludicrous as that may sound.

The overarching point being, Bush is in for another four years. It's a black day for progressives everywhere.

[hiphopnation]

147. ...

It's a LONG LONG LIST and Gavin is just ONE among many things on that list.

Entirely plausible. What's the hub-ub? No one's saying it wasn't a good gesture. No one's saying it wasn't a beautiful thing to witness. Certainly no one is bashing gays. No one is even saying that the country wasn't ready. Just that it might not have been the best method.

Personally, I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that, given his background, this was a publicity stunt on his part to give his political career a boost and put him on the political map rather than some overwhelming endorsement of gay rights. If I call into question his motives am I bashing gays?

[hiphopnation]

73. here's a clue Gavin

next time listen to your staff, they just might have something usefull to offer! That's if we can pry you away from primping your hair in the great hall of the Getty mansion for long enough. blech

:puke:

[theboss]

75. This was an issue that just got completely away from us.

I have to admit I am usually very on top of civil rights issues, but when the dam on gay marraige broke, I was utterly unprepared. I figured we were at least a decade or so away from that become an important national issue. And when it happened, a lot of Democrats were left fumbling trying to figure out the proper way to frame it.

Gay rights are an extremely important issue and we as a party need to stand for it. And we are eventually going to win in every area; I have no doubt of that. I just think far too much happened too fast on this issue for the country to process.

One thing to realize. Brown v. Board of Ed was 1954. De-segregation of schools didn't really end until the 80s.

[sampsonblk]

80. Go in the closet by yourself

We shouldn't have to hide what we believe in just to win an election. If we lost because of that, then its time we make our case a little better. We are not wrong, THEY are.

[Corkey Mineola]

120. Right on sampson

How can they make us feel ashamed of loving freedom?

This democratic party is a fucking put-on in my opinion. If it stood for anything other than splintered interests, we'd be celebrating right now.

Instead they are bashing us fags cause we are on the bottom of the ladder.

I'm registering Green.

[sampsonblk]

161. Don't quit just yet

We all have to finish arguing about what went wrong. Then we'll know if its worth saving or not. I am leaning towards not. But I am trying hard to reserve judgment.

Side point: I am not gay. But I do believe that gays are people too. And if a Dem candidate can't say that in public, then he ain't worth a shit and neither is the party. Just my opinion.

[Mike L]

94. Fuck the Mass. Sup. Ct. too for deciding the gay marriage case before the

election. The bastards could have held off until AFTER the election to take up the case.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

122. No, but the people who filed the suit could've held off.

[Mike L]

156. Actually, the Mass. Sup Ct could have held off.

They have the power to put a case off as long as they want.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

127. No, it's you fucking YOURSELF.

You don't get it, do you? Pushing too soon is going to help get the anti-gay marriage amendment passed. And what in the fuck are you going to do then? Hmm? Do you have any idea how hard that will be to revoke?

Simply put, this country is NOT ready. Tuesday should've sent that message loud and clear. Oregon, of ALL states, passed the anti-gay marriage amendment by 7 points. Mississippi passed it with over 80%. Gavin Newsom might've fucked over the party, he might not have. What he did do was set back gay rights AT LEAST 6 years. Period.

[UdoKier]

128. There are millions in this country who would love to see you rounded up

and put in camps, subjected to shock therapy, etc. Are there enough to make it happen? I don't know, but we have seen what the mob can do in Nazi Germany, and I don't want to take a chance on that happening here by not being methodical and covering all bases.

I'm straight, by the way, but consider myself to be very pro-gay.

So if you are willing to pursue an agenda that will ruin the Party, and possibly the very gay community you claim to care about, well go right ahead. See how many people you win over with that F-U attitude.

Can you imagine if MLK had come up to and made his speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial - "We people of color want our rights, and we want them now, and if any person disagrees with any part of our tactics, well FUCK YOU!"

Yeah, that woulda been classy. And we would still have segregated drinking fountains today.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

134. Pragmatism falls on deaf ears in both parties, it seems.

At least Republicans aren't the only ones ignoring any kind of logic or reason.

[Corkey Mineola]

144. Apologies

I apologize for attacking you.

But if you are straight, shouldn't you (despite being pro-gay) listen more closely to we gay folks?

Put yourself in my position: I hear that it was wrong for Newsom to advocate for my rights cause it supposedly costed us the Presidency. That just baits me.

An alternative strategy that you might consider is this:

"As a straight man, I suspect that Newsom's move hurt the Dems. What do you gay folks think? Was it worth it?"

humbly...
phn1

[UdoKier]

149. Read my last couple posts.

You may be right, but I can't edit a day-old post.

I hope you're right.

I also hope some of you guys on the gay side of this think this through and make sure you're working a pragmatic strategy rather than just emotion and symbolism.

I'm sure over the next few weeks, we as a party will work out a consensus about where to go from here, as will your community.

And no apologies needed. I totally understood wherre you were coming from. Everyone is pissed today. Hell, I apologize too for any hard feelings. You didn't offend me personally, but I know a lot of other people are easily alienated by that kind of statement.

[UdoKier]

136. MY biggest mistake in this thread.

Well there are a few, but anyway...

Many of my gripes with Newsom are local in nature. I probably should have posted this in the Califorrnia forum.

I don't blame Newsom or any one thing for the loss on Tues. Hell, Kerry himselff deserves a lot of the blame, and those of us who spent too much time at our monitors and too little canvassing precincts share some blame as well.

Personally, I think our party should continue to support choice, as well as gay rights, allowing for differences of opinion RE civil unions/marriage.

But is there no way we can preserve that but also bring in the more moderate religious folks (is there such a thing) who have been swayed by the GOP's positions on these things?

I don't know. I'm a longtime atheist annd I truly am unable to understand the religious mindset and have NO idea how to reach these people.

I'm sorry to those who take this thread as a personal affront. It's my gripe about Newsom and Newsom alone. As I said before, I thought the marriages at city hall were a beautiful thing, and the fine people who were married deserve NONE of the blame for this. I've listened to those who disagreed with my OP, and I'm going to at least give Gavin the benefit of the doubt until thhe next election. But I have my misgivings. I hope you guys prove me wrong.

[Shakespeare]

150. Thanks for the amended argument.

However, let me try a different tack to explain why I still strongly disagree with your criticism of Newsom.

You say that we can't alienate religious moderates. I have mixed feelings on that--on one hand, I agree that we need to bring them to our side, but on the other, I'm not prepared to sacrifice the rights of one group to do so.

I'm not an atheist, so I may have a little more insight to why they do what they do (then again, I may not, but I think I do). Just as the right has hijacked the language of politics and turned "liberal" into a dirty word, they've done the same with christianity and turned it into something hateful and unrecognizable. I think it would be a huge mistake to retreat on issues we know are right in the interests of not offending them, because the right will just find some other boogeyman issue to rally them with, and then where are we left? With a bruised and injured group of people we sacrificed for nothing.

We're going to have to find a way to pull christianity back to the left, where I (and so many others) think it truly belongs. Recall that the racists in the 50s and 60s tried to use religion to excuse their bigotry, but thank goodness the civil rights movement was having none of it (they also tried that with women's rights, and that eventually failed, too). We insisted on defining the relationship between civil rights and religion in liberal terms, using the teachings of Christ as our example, and taking the civil rights movement right into the pulpits. And it worked. It was bloodly, hard work, but it worked. We have to find a way to do that all over again.

[tedzbear]

154. Thank you Shakespeare!

These Democrats who are willing to sacrifice their ethics in order to win make me uncomfortable. If these "bigot enticing" strategies are what they call "a big tent," the tent sure feels claustrophobic. Is it me or is the tent shrinking?

Maybe it IS time to vote Green.

:kick:


edit: sp.

[Shakespeare]

155. Not voting green. Not abandoning my party.

As Al Sharpton said, you stay with the Donkey that brought you here. We've just got to keep that donkey in line....

[Monument]

139. I agree with the original poster

So what's the situation now?

We've got another 4 years of Bush. We've got a new Supreme Court Nominee, potentially, and basically the gay movement is going to be set back for YEARS. All for a Newsom publicity stunt? He SHOULD be ashamed, because there is RIGHT and WRONG, and there is also the RIGHT WAY TO DO SOMETHING. Newsom chose to do the right thing the wrong way. Plain and simple, and we got creamed for it.

It is truly unfortunate because I do FULLY support gay rights. I have gay friends. Good ones.

Sad day for gays in this country.

On the day that the Mass Supreme Judicial Court made its ruling, I sent an email to friends saying that Karl Rove was probably the happiest guy on the planet.

I dare to say I was correct.

I also have no doubt that the US will eventually fully support gay marriage, but it will need some time.

[oc2002]

141. not sure who this is, but FUCK HIM, HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL!

We are rolling now. Whos next?

[The Great Deceiver]

142. I love his hair.

:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

148. Stop buying the script. WE WON. We wuz robbed. leave the gays alone!

Daym!

[Mike L]

157. Robbed, if we can't relate to middle America on cultural values, we are

done.

[Goldmund]

163. The what is the Democratic Party? A baseball team?

Whose only purpose is to win in the playoffs?

[Shakespeare]

164. Do we WANT their cultural values?

That's what we need to ask ourselves. We should never sell out our beliefs just to win votes.

What we have to do, instead of regressing by accepting their bigoted values, is find a better way to present what we stand for, specifically in a way that shows how our values are more consistent with christianity than those hateful wedge issues are.