Binary Gay Marriage Poll

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Should support for gay marriage be included in the Democratic platform?


I define marriage as a union between two people who love each other...

That being said I think that plank will kill us at the polls and keep us out of power up and until the time we can convince a majority of Americans that gay marriage is correct..


I can take care of myself.. I am concerned about the poor, the elderly, the infirm who rely on the Democratic party to advance their interests...

I support gay marriage without reservation but I tremble at the implications at the ballot box..

Do you believe support for gay marriage should be included in the Democratic platform?

[The Jacobin]

1. Where is the option "It's up to the states"?

That's where I stand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Isn't That A Cop Out?

I am not saying that to question your belief but folks here think it's a matter of principle...

They would say that's a dodge...

[The Jacobin]

5. No.

Are you asking to force all the states to take it?

There is no way that will pass in 100 years. You are dooming us to obscurity for a century. At least one state at a time, there is a possibility for some progress.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. That's My Position...

I support gay marriage but it will kill us at the polls...

There was a broad consensus for civil rights for blacks in the 60's (outside the south) but no such consensus exists in this instance...

[RPM]

29. No.

It's a line that us in the blue states had better learn to use frequently and often... It may actually awake some remnant of former free political thought in the rotting grey matter of the republican party.

[Azure]

7. Agreed.

The issue of gay marriage should be one of the very first selling points of the new federalism. Repukes will love it because they can ban it in their own knuckledragging states. Most Dems will be satisfied with the fact that it can be legalized in their own blue states. The only Dems who would object to this are the ones who insist on forcing their values on the entire population. How is that mindset different from the mindset of repukes?

State's rights all the way. It's the only choice we have left. It's that or repuke domination for ALL of us, because whatever we may feel about gay marriage and other wedge issues, the opposition is united in their determination to NEVER allow it. Either we get our agenda at the state level or we don't get it at all, because the WHOLE lesson of Novemeber 2 is that the Democratic platform CANNOT win the nation. If we couldn't beat Bush, we can't beat Gomer Pyle. Time for a new plan, guys.

Federalism or fascism. It's up to us.

[Ms. Toad]

24. Just like interracial marriage should be, right? n/t

[Azure]

25. Red Herring.

Any state that banned interracial marriage would be shouted and laughed off the face of the earth. No state would dare do such a thing, and if they did, they would get what they deserved.

[Ms. Toad]

32. Just because it has not been banned for the last few years

does not mean the issue is not the same.

States used to ban interracial marriages, and to insist that each state had the right to make its own decision about whether to allow such marriages - and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states - until forced to recognized such marriages by Loving v. Virginia.

It is not a red herring. It was not that long ago, and it the same issue.

[seaj11]

2. Yes.

I don't think the government should force churches to perform same-sex marriages, but I think homosexual couples should be able to marry before a Justice of the Peace if they wish, just as many heterosexual couples do. I think (and I know this is a radical stance) that states should recognize such marriages as performed in other states.

On a side note, I think some major campaigning is needed, should the FMA come up again, citing scientific information on homosexuality, debunking gay stereotypes, showing gay couples who raise happy, healthy children...let the truth be known!

[Ms. Toad]

28. You've unfortunately bought the fundie misinterpretation of the issue

States grant recognition of religious marriages as an accommodation, not the other way around. No state law forces any religion to marry any couple if such a marriage is inconsistent with their beliefs. In fact Quakers, and probably other religions as well, had to fight to have their marriages recognized at all. The last time I signed a marriage certificate (which requires altering the certificate since we do not have hireling ministers) on behalf of our meeting it was initially rejected until I could point someone higher up the chain of command to the statute which permits a non-minister to certify that the marriage was performed in accordance with the guidelines of our faith community.

State recognition of marriages performed elsewhere is the norm, and generally required since Loving v. Virginia. It is not a radical stance.

[cyr330]

4. YES

It's a basic human right. Straights can get married, so gays should have the same choice.

On edit: Leave it up to the states? That is absolutely fucking crazy. What did we do when they had Jim Crow Laws in the 1950s? Did we leave it up to the states? Nope. We did NOT. Leaving it to these goddamned stupid states would only give them the green light to discriminate. Did we leave it up to the state of Alabama to leave Dr. Martin Luther King in jail for civil disobedience? Nope. These are simple civil rights we're talking about, and EVERYBODY deserves them--even those fucking freepers, and it actually pains me to say that.

[Azure]

27. They don't want basic human rights.

Don't we get it yet? If we ever want to win, we have to stop trying to force decency on others. Tuesday made it clear that a majority of the nation says a big fat NO to decency. If the red states want to pursue every ridiculous policy in the world, let them. Democrats and OTHER minorities can move to the blue states, where we will set up progressive policies at the state level.

Trust me, once the repuke states get a taste of how their own policies affect them without the blue states fighting for them, it won't be long until they are pleading with us come back.

Lokk, let's get real. We couldn't beat the worst president in a century. Whether it's due to Diebold or not doesn't matter. We are finished at the federal level. We can either sit here and figure out new ways to lose, or we can give the repukes some rope and let nature take its course.

I'm for giving them the rope. Federalism or fascism, it's up to us. Either all states will be dominated by repukes, or we will take back our own states and let the red ones eat cake.

[Cats Against Frist]

6. I support civil unions

for anyone. I think the state should sanction no "marriage" of any kind.

So simple, yet so brilliant.

This is actually about "rights" -- not "values" or forcing someone to see something your way. I think the people who are against gay marriage because gays are "forcing their lifestyles down their throats" are delusional bigots -- but the point is rights, not recognition. Sorry if others don't feel that way.

[BamaLefty]

9. If we want to win

You saw the overwhelming support yesterday for the bans. If we want to win, we must say "No"

[socalover]

11. I agree, we cannot win with this issue!

[Mike L]

18. correct.

[cyr330]

40. I hope you're not saying what I think

I certainly hope that you're not saying that you're willing to sacrifice gay rights on the altar of right wing fear. If that becomes the case with the Democratic Party, I'm done with it once and for all.

[LSdemocrat]

8. Other: Ban government recognition of marriage. Civil Unions for all

[elsiesummers]

22. This could work on a grass roots level.

Could also work state by state: If first civil unions laws are created and then straights who support civil unions for all choose civil unions over marriage, then marriage will fall by the wayside.

[Mike L]

12. No. It will get us nothing but losses.

Rove saw how well it worked this time. He'll be back in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, etc, etc.

ML

[Andy_Stephenson]

30. My my aren't you

shining example of Democratic values. Do you believe "colored folk" should still ride in the back of the bus?

:eyes:

[Mike L]

36. I wouldn't compare race and sexual orientation.

I don't think that's fair to African-Americans.

Last time I looked, sexual orientation was not a protected class under our constitution. Race is.

[CityHall]

13. No - should oppose bans, otherwise treat it like flag burning

We thought the flag burning ammendment was stupid too, but it's politically tonedeaf to put it in the platform. We can't let this be used against us again.

[robbedvoter]

14. Gays should be able to mary. F* the dem platform and everything else

[Azure]

34. That's the wrong attitude

Why should my family go without healthcare because some people are unwilling to compromise over a wedge issue?

[socalover]

15. I agree with civil unions

[Bread and Circus]

16. No, it's just something Dem pols should pay lip service to when...

speaking to Gay and Lesbian groups. And only in private.
Then deny it the next day.

Am I joking? Am I being sarcastic? Do I really even think this
is the real issue? Do I even fucking care whether or not gays
can marry or not?

Yes. Yes. No. No.

[Andy_Stephenson]

31. See post

13

[bigwillq]

17. People should have the choice whether they want to marry or not

Marriage should be legal for all people if they choose that's the path they want to follow down.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

19. the word marriage has a religous connetation to most Americans

It just does, no matter how much we argue otherwise. Full rights, benefits and legal protections, but don't call it marriage.

[AP]

20. Marriages are for the church. Civil unions are for the government.

I know plenty of same sex couples who don't take advantage of all the legal benefits of marriage because they don't believe in god. That's crazy.

We could help so many more people than just same sex couples if we took the gov't out of the marriage business (leaving it to churches) and let governments just deal with legal, not spiritual, relationships.

[gottaB]

21. Yes, but under the umbrella of freedom to marry

Because government shouldn't infringe upon fundamental liberties. Nor should it discriminate against any class of citizens. Freedom and equality are the bedrock of our democracy.

[elsiesummers]

23. Not in the platform. Democrats should increase gay rights incrementally.

Either the country eventually comes out of the dark ages and grants civil rights to gays, or we end up the fundie nation that Bush wants.

Rapid change is what scares people.

Eventually, especially as the youth of the population ages, and if we remain on the same relatively open cultural path of the past forty years, gay marriage will happen. But, if the fundamentalists convert a larger percentage of the population, then gay marriage is not the only civil right we should worry about losing.

Also, no federal laws denying equality should be allowed on the books.

Eventually state laws denying gay marriage may be overturned in federal court, as unconstitutional.

[oxymoron]

33. Rapid Change?

I'm damn near 50 and I'm still waiting...

[Mike L]

43. Oxy, you saw gay rights go from, "don't ask, don't tell," to

an endorsement of civil unions in 11 years. That's pretty damn quick for a cultural issue.

[jpgray]

26. Yes. It should. The idea isn't to have the popular position every time

The idea is to have the popular position on an issue more people will vote on. I believe the nature of our politics makes it very easy for us to create a true progressive issue that would make people say: "I disagree with the Democrats on gay marriage / abortion / guns, but X gets them my vote anyway."

That's what we need.

[texas is the reason]

35. no. it is time to win an election for once.

another round of losses in 2006 and we are done for as a party. we now must win at all costs, and we may have to compromise some of our values to do it. a moderate, elected democrat is better than an unelectable purist one. we now must win, win,win. it is time to put gay marriage, abortion, and gun control on the back burner for a bit..

[enki23]

37. it wasn't in our platform THIS TIME

not that you'd know it. note to all you newly minted pragmatists: it's not good enough not to be for gay marriage. kerry was already "not for" gay marriage. to get these bigots to vote for you you have to be ANTI-GAY. PERIOD. don't believe me? then you're a goddamned idiot who has absolutely no idea what it is we're up against. and they won't really believe you're anti-gay without giving them an unequivocal sign, if that's even possible. republicans don't have to do that, they are anti-gay by fucking definition. just as they are assumed to represent christianaty, by definition, whether they actually do or not.

and i for one won't do that. i won't do what it takes to appease the fucking bigots. it would take a lot more than "not being against" gay marriage. you'd have to do something vile to prove you really mean it. none of our base will do that. and without it, you aren't magically going to recapture the fundies.

[pk_du]

39. Amen ( Mister or Sister)

...the newly minted pragmatists can fuck off as far as i'm concerned..at least the ones that think this way.

[Walt Starr]

38. I am vehemently opposed to the terminology "gay marriage"

being included in the platform.

I'm sorry, but that terminology will do nothing but cause us to lose elections.

Simply advocate personal freedom in the platform. Gay marriage is, at its core, an issue of personal freedom.

[Bill McBlueState]

42. I'm also opposed to that term

It implies that a gay marriage is somehow fundamentally different from a straight marriage. That's what the bigots are trying to say.

"Marriage equality" is what we should be fighting for -- for any two people to enter the arrangement, regardless of gender.

[Clovis Sangrail]

41. No

The position should be:

The state has absolutely NO right to tell the churches what to do.
In order to prevent the state from dictating what churches can do, the government should only have the power to grant civil unions.

To do anything else is simply opening the door to the state infringing on the freedom of religion.

...........

take away their club