A few words about the discussion of gay rights and related issues.

[Skinner]

We find ourselves in a rather unpleasant situation here, because events outside of DU have raised a rather sensitive issue: How does the issue of Gay rights effect the national electoral prospects of the Democratic party?

I will spare you a long discussion about my point of view, and boil my opinion down to one sentence: I believe that some potential Democratic voters are turned off by Gay rights, but on balance I believe that the issue helps us more than it hurts us, and I believe we can win nationally without abandoning our support of equal rights for all. But the purpose of this post is not to tell you my point of view.

The purpose of this post is to remind everyone that Democratic Underground has rules regarding anti-gay bigotry. We expect *all* of our members to support equal rights for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

We have very few litmus test issues on DU. We permit members to be pro-life or pro-gun or whatever, provided that they are generally on our side.

But this is a litmus test issue, because we are talking about REAL PEOPLE, our fellow members of this community. I simply will not tolerate the idea of some DU members arguing that other DU members are not deserving of full and equal rights. This is a moral issue. If DU had existed back during the civil rights movement, I hope that we would all agree that this was not the place to discuss whether blacks deserve civil rights.

But I also need to make something else clear: Democratic Underground is a message board dedicated to the discussion of political issues, including how political issues affect the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party. It is not homophobic to discuss whether the issue of Gay rights cost us votes, provided that you are not discussing the issue in a homophobic way. But it is homophobic to scapegoat gays and lesbians in an effort to answer an extremely complex question like "why did we lose?"

So, where is the line drawn here? What is acceptable discourse and what is not? I wish there were easy answers. I would prefer not to have to make calls like this, because invariably someone gets pissed off, but it comes with the job description.

Keep the following guidelines in mind:

1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry.

2. If you want to discuss this issue, you need to do so in a manner that is sensitive to the values of this diverse community. Be as clear and as non-inflammatory as possible in everything you say.

3. If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned.

4. If your explanation for why we lost is based entirely (or almost entirely) on gay rights, then you are scapegoating and you're probably a homophobe. You might get banned.

5. If you are arguing that the party needs to abandon support for gay rights entirely, then you might not be an outright homophobe, but in my opinion you are not sufficiently supportive of equal rights.

6. It is not homophobic to point out the obvious truth that there are large numbers of people in large regions of the country who are opposed to gay rights. ON EDIT: It also not homophobic to point out that political candidates, particularly those running in conservative areas, may have to compromise on the issue of gay rights for the purposes of political expediency.

7. I believe that we need to focus on the question of how our party can be competitive nationally without abandoning this core principle. I believe that gay rights is not a make-or-break issue for a majority of voters in any state. The opinions of hard-core homophobes notwithstanding, my impression is that most Americans are supportive of the idea that people should be able to live their lives how they like. How do we convince potential voters that they need not be afraid? How do we convince potential voters that they should care more about their job and their health care and their children than about who some stranger falls in love with? These are the questions we need to be asking.

We are right on this issue, I have no doubt. In 40 years, we are going to look back at opposition to gay marriage as something as bigoted and anachronistic as opposition to interracial marriage.

I am sorry if some of you feel I am putting too much restriction on the discussion of this topic. I am also sorry if some of you feel I am not restrictive enough. My goal is to create a place where we can discuss the issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

[seaj11]

1. Thank you.

I've been very upset by what I've been seeing here regarding gays and why we lost.

[Dob Bole]

137. Thanks....much needed on here..

[DrWeird]

2. I'm really glad you posted this.

Thank you and good night. I'm off for dinner.

[Dehumanizer]

3. Agreed with much of what was written..

However, one quick point:

Many closet-homophobes are quick to point the finger at the gay community. Likewise, many people are way too quick to accuse others of homophobia. We need to balance everything out and keep an open mind--we're all Democrats here.

We here need to differentiate between what the Democratic Party should stand for, what the Democrats should do strategically, and what we personally feel about the issue. Only by distinguishing the three will we reach a better discussion.

Anyway, good post.

[Skinner]

43. I believe that is key.

"We here need to differentiate between what the Democratic Party should stand for, what the Democrats should do strategically, and what we personally feel about the issue. Only by distinguishing the three will we reach a better discussion."

It is not difficult to differentiate between the three, if members stop and think before they post. I would think that any DU member would *want* to make an effort to be clear about this. This is a very progressive place, and I don't know why members would want to offend a large portion of our members, both gay and straight.

Perhaps I have the benefit of being the guy who enforces the rules. But it seems obvious to me that if you believe our stance on gay rights cost us votes in some states (something which seems obvious) you would want to address the issue without offending people. People were posting things like "All gays need to leave the Democratic Party and DU" or "I'm tired of the Democratic Party being known as the Gay party." That's just offensive, and suggests that the intent is to enflame rather than enlighten.

[TeacherCreature]

4. Thank You.

I was getting pretty worried.

This strikes right in the heart of my own family, and I am sure I am not alone.

[wellstone_democrat]

27. Amen, it was getting very odd this afternoon and disturbing

here. This is right at the heart of my own family as well. I appreciate your reasoning in the above.

[arcos]

5. Thank you...

I think this was needed.

[Bluebear]

6. Thank you so very much

[JPJones]

7. Must support gay marriage

Does that mean that John Kerry would not be welcome on DU?

[Skinner]

9. John Kerry is a politician.

He was saying what he felt was necessary to pander to the voters. It is impossible to know what his true feelings really are. Nobody here is running for president, so the comparison is not relevant.

[Sterling]

11. It is impossible to know what his true feelings really are

You said a mouthfull Skinner. I wish we did not have to say that about our leaders. Can we at least all agree that should be a goal? Have a clear agenda and stick to it?

[Skinner]

14. It would be a great thing.

But they don't call 'em politicians for nothing.

[Sterling]

23. I really hope we can get the amount of "lets sellout the gay"

threads down. I can see the green party already getting ideas about how to exploit such foolish moves.

I have no idea where DU officially stands but I would consider taking a hard line against people trying to move our party to the right.

[umtalal]

64. I am with you Sterling. I also will take a hardstand against that.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. No it is not impossible, he told us in the 3rd debate

He cannot legislate onto others what is an article of faith for him personally. A very appropriate and respectful Catholic response.

[RegexReader]

139. get the government out of marriage

and have it deal with 'civil unions' only. Getting a civil union should be just like getting a driver's license. Even do it at the driver's license bureau. Show up, have them record that the civil union commences at a particular time, have them photograph you together as documentation, and leave. Hell, even add a kiosk out front that has a card reader to record you driver license info, make the picture, and you don't even have to stand in line. Is it over in your 'civil union'? OK, go back to the driver license's bureau and tell them that it is canceled. And it is canceled as of the time it is recorded.

If you move in with your SO now, what do you have to do? Nothing, just pack your bags and go move in. SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL!?!?!?

Leave the swearing and oaths and all that associated ceremony inside of a church. It is of and from churches. And there is separation of church and state. Do away with a 'marriage license'! WTF is the state getting involved a church's procedure?

If we want separation of church & state, why do we put ourselves through this?

My 2¢,

RegexReader
¶

[HFishbine]

102. But

Shouldn't that have disqualified him from people supporting him on DU. I mean, if you're not allowed to question gay marriage on DU, how can we post in support of a candidate who says he doesn't support gay marriage?

[djg21]

75. I have real problems with this.

I fully support gay rights and civil unions allowing monogamous gay couples the same panoply of rights allowed to hetero couples. However, I do not necessarily support gay marriage. I strongly believe that it is a silly semantic dispute that has created a wedge issue, and I know that it has driven some traditionally Democratic voters to support Republican candidates. This truly bothers me.

More importantly, I am perfectly capable of stating my point of view in a courteous and respectful manner, and I really do not appreciate being told that I would not be welcome here merely because I disagreed with what some (and far from all) here believe to be a general consensus.

Moreover, despite what some here on DU seem to think, this Discussion group tends to be far more reactionary and to the left of most people registered in the Democratic Party. Do you really mean to exclude those moderate Dems from discussions on this board regarding issues pertaining to OUR party? I suppose you would exclude Barney Franks who was opposed to OUR party taking an issue regarding gay marriage, and Bill Clinton, who is simply opposed to Gay marriage?

Perhaps if this discussion group cannot be both democratic in principal, and Democratic in party, it should consider changing its name?

I'd offer a few suggestions, but I'm fearful of being banned. I hear that happens a lot on FreeRepublic, and on the Sean Hannity Forum.

I truly hope this new edict amounted from a momentary lapse of reason and will be short-lived.

[Skinner]

89. This website is not an arm of the Democratic Party.

Just like Free Republic is not an arm of the Republican Party.

What is good for the Democratic Party is not necessarily the same thing as what is good for Democratic Underground.

I have made very clear that there is a difference between how we personaly feel about issues, and what we think the Democratic Party's strategy and approach should be. There is nothing morally wrong or homophobic about a member of DU stating the obvious truth: Gay rights are not popular in large portions of the country, and the party needs to figure out how to deal with it. You are welcome to use this message board to discuss any and all possible political approaches to this issue, including soft-peddaling gay rights, compromise, outright lying, or whatever.

If you do not support Gay marriage, that is your choice. But I believe this is a moral issue and I refuse to permit this website to be used to argue that gays and lesbians are not deserving of full and equal rights. I am not dumb, and I am actually very capable of undestanding subtle distinctions between personal opinion and political strategy. Feel free to argue political strategy. But don't use this message board to argue that you are personally opposed to giving full and equal rights to gays and lesbians.

If this website had existed back during the civil rights movement, I would have had the same approach then. You would be welcome to discuss the political consequenses of civil rights, and you would be welcome to discuss what is the best approach for the issue and for the party. But I would simply not tolerate people using this website to push their personal opinion that African Americans should not be permitted to marry white people.

While you may not agree with my comparing gay rights to the rights of African Americans, I am certain that you can understand the argument I am making here.

Barney Frank doesn't oppose gay marriage. You are confusing his opinion on political strategy with his opinion on the issue itsef. That is the distinction that I expect all members to understand. It is clear that there are people on both sides of this divide who are incapable of understanding this distinction.

Allow me to try to make this as clear as possible:

Making a pragmatic political argument that gay rights don't fly in many parts of the country: PERMITTED ON DU

Arguing that you personally think gay people don't deserve full and equal rights: NOT PERMITTED ON DU

It is very important that EVERYONE HERE ON BOTH SIDES of this issue understand this distinction.

[kodi]

8. is this related to bush's mandate?

.

[RinaJ]

10. AGree 100%

On the surface it seems like the logical thing to do might be to step away from this. But that's a short-term solution, and quite honestly I believe the Rethugs would crucify us for trying to copy them, as well as lose us the support of many in the gay community. In the long run, I think we stand to gain many more young people over the next four years, who are a lot more tolerant of at least considering civil unions. This might also help us among conservative gays who are feeling betrayed by the Republican party, but don't trust the Democrats enough to switch at this point. And considering the way so many here seemed ready to abandon championing their rights, I can't say I blame them at this point.

We can continue to champion gay rights AND introduce new points of arguments into it, such as the right to visit sick partners and sharing benefits and such. The same thing goes for abortion rights. This is the time to get firmer in the core ideals of the Democratic party, which is fair and equal treatment for everyone.

I will never conced that we have to "fight dirty" like the Republicans to win. If we do that, then it won't matter how many far-reaching and noble platforms we claim, we will look no better than them to potential new voters who might be open to our ideas, but turned off by seeing the same underhandedness as the Republicans, and deciding not to vote at all. THAT'S what's killing us at this point, the lack of being a clear alternative to the other party. It was never going to happen overnight. It took the Republicans decades, but the one thing they had was patience to wait until their time came. We have to be willing to do the same, no matter how many body blows we take along the way.

[Amaya]

12. Thank you

very much.

[phish420]

13. Right on! Thanks!

[really annoyed]

15. Thank You!

I was about to vomit from all these crazy posts!

Maybe I'll go and take a break....

[msongs]

16. Jesus is alleged to have said

divorce is an abomination, and people who get divorced and then have sex or remarry are committing ADULTERY IN THE EYES OF GOD. He said nothing about gays and lesbians.

SO, if gays are to be an issue for christ-ians, it is about time we started make it clear that divorces and remarriage are also bad.
And that the repubs want to take away divorce.

Msongs
Riverside Ca

dean-obama 2008
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Midlodemocrat]

39. What would Rush do then? n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

17. Thanks, Skinner. It needed to be said.

It's so wonderful that you're the owner of this website!

[DuaneBidoux]

18. Can I hear a BIG AMEN!

[blondeatlast]

19. Thank you, but I still want "Hide Threads" back! nt

[Jack_DeLeon]

20. I disagree with some of what you say...

but I will follow these new message board rules.

[Mike L]

21. Sooooo.......we should start our posts with, "I personally support gay

marriage, but.....," and then talk about the national strategy of whether Democratic candidates should embrace the cultural values of middle America, including opposition to gay marriage, as evidenced by the 11 state votes on gay marriage bans?

Also, can we discuss the consequences of both adopting this strategy, and failing to adopt this strategy?

It really seems strange that DU would blackball this issue in light of the election results. If the Democratic Party chooses to adopt this strategy, I think the G&L community here deserves to know the reason why.

[Skinner]

44. I know some people are going to think this is dumb, but...

...yes, that is exactly what you should do. Someone higher up in this thread suggested that we need to distinguish between our personal feelings on the issue and our feelings about how the party should approach the issue.

I do not believe it is homophobic to discuss how the party needs to deal with this issue. And I think most gay members and straight members here understand that we risk hurting the cause of gay rights (and many other issues) if we are unwilling to compromise in the short term.

I'm not blackballing the issue. But I'm not going to let people post crap like "all gays need to leave the Democratic party" or "I'm tired of the Democratic Party being known as the gay party".

You seem like a smart person. I am confident that you are able to discuss this in a non-offensive way. Who knows, you might even find that your message is more likely to be heard when you deliver it with respect.

[madfloridian]

22. Very nice, Skinner.

It is something Deaniacs take very seriously because Howard Dean went down rather than sell them out. It made us proud.

If I can understand with my fundamentalist Baptist background, I think others can as well.

[Eloriel]

24. Very good.

And not a minute too soon. :evilgrin:

Now, when can we expect similar guidelines re sexism?

[Walt Starr]

25. I am 100% in support of gay rights

I simply advocate reframing the rhetoric used to convey that stance in terminology that those voters who fundamentally support human rights will not react to in a negative fashion.

[wabeewoman]

103. Exactly Walt

They turned the debate from gay rights to gay sex which made the bible belters/evangelicals uncomforable. Part of me want to say, get over it but part of me wants to be pragmatic and get the votes. The key is we need to take over the debate and everytime they said gay marriage return the focus to gay rights and civil unions.

[Riverman]

26. Many thanks

Very well stated. Gavin Newsome, Mayor of San Francisco, is a hero of mine for having the courage to open City Hall doors to marriage by gay and lesbian people. I cried the day I saw two 80 years old women who had been together for decades get married there - the first.

[TriMetFan]

28. Thank You Very Much Skinner.

But at this moment I really do feel that all the hard work that my family put into this election was for nothing. But I would not every tell my 7yr. old that all the miles he walked and all the talking he did to try to get Kerry elected was for nothing. But to be reading all this HATE about us Gay/Lesbians on these boards just goes to show how easy it is to blame a group of people for what others have done. So I guess The Right Wing has WON and so as Karl Rove.
So at this moment I will take a step back and take a deep breath and think about whether or not to stay in the Democrat party.

[jarab]

30. I suppose you put lots of effort into this

newly clarified set of rules, and I'm sure many important members of DU feel appeased.
I disagree with the new rules which I had not seen posted before in a context anywhere near to approaching what you've posted.

I can support civil unions and ALL the various benefits accorded to heteros. Period.

However, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I support gay marriages when I do not. I did not know this was a litmus test for being a member. As with the great majority of Americans - overwhelmingly - I do not support gay marriage. And I do believe that John Kerry's stance is with mine - or mine with his.

I also KNOW that the gay issue cost us in this election. To what degree no one can really ever say. Therefore no one can with assurance ever know whether this issue COST us the election.

Guess you'll just have to ban this homophobe. There are surely at least hundreds more awaiting to be found out. Must be a hell of a juggling act to play to all the sides - or to those most vocal.
Well, at least some are thrilled you posted. I'm simply enlightened. I can't and won't lie to myself or you about this matter.
The rules have been changed in the middle of the game, since absolutely no one even suggested this particular litmus test (Thou shalt support gay marriages) would be applied to any DUer.

I would agree in closing that you do indeed have an "unpleasant situation".
...O...

[Midlodemocrat]

40. I don't think the gay marriage issue cost us the election

...I respect your opinion, but I think it came down to other things as well. Unfortunately, many many people think he is doing a good job on terrorism, which of course, he is not. Additionally, most of my Catholic friends voted on the issue of abortion.(I told them that the reason shrub was against abortion is because he needs all the people he can to pay off the enormous debt he has saddled us with). Also, they played up that whole partial birth thing way, way too much down here.

[Skinner]

46. Jarab, you're not going to get banned.

I think I know you pretty well. You are a decent and thoughtful person who would never deliberately (or inadvertently) offend anyone.

I am aware that there are probably lots of DUers who hold the same position as you: Support gay rights including civil unions, but not "gay marriage." That's fine. As long as you aren't starting offensive threads on topics like "Why I personally believe we should never let gay people marry" then you're going to be fine. I honestly can't imagine you ever posting such a thing.

[TahitiNut]

55. Well, I don't support (civil) "marriages" at all. Period.

Government needs to get out of the marriage 'business' altogether. It makes as much sense for government to presume to be in the marriage 'business' as it would to be in the communion 'business' or the ordination 'busines' or the baptism 'business' ... even if that government is seated in Sacrament(o). I want to see the terms 'husband' and 'wife' removed from all civil forms.

Almost nothing shows the insanity of 'we the people' more than thinking that one person loving another person is a problem. It's just not. Not even close.

[djg21]

81. I agree, however . . .

the reality is that governments (including ours) have traditionally been involved in the "marriage business," and, as a purely practical matter, that tradition is not going to be readily changed any time soon.

[freetobegay]

76. Oy vey.

[alwynsw]

31. Thanks, Skinner.

Now we can only hope that the geographical bashing stops. It's uncomforable a best for many of us who live in red states without having our fellow DU'ers constantly slamming our home states.

Try to think of us as fighting behind enemy lines.

[TriMetFan]

32. I feel for you. Good luck with the fighting behind line.

[alwynsw]

34. Thank you so much!

I hope the infection spreads and the rest of the board will see what we're up against here.

[Kipepeo]

107. you fight where it is most important

thank you

[Sapphocrat]

33. Thank you, Skinner.

Thank you so much.

[Duncan Grant]

35. Thank you, Skinner.

Next time you're in San Francisco - it would be my pleasure to take you and your wife to dinner!

You've made my day. :toast:

[incapsulated]

36. Thank you, Skinner

:thumbsup:

I will not stand for this community to go down the road of blaming gays for this election.

The only good thing is it outs the homophobes among us.

[theHandpuppet]

37. Thank you, Skinner

I have to admit some of the posts here had become so shockingly vile and bigoted I had to stop reading the threads. I've been feeling like crap since Tues night and the last thing I needed from DU was to see so many fellow DUers start blaming gays for our loss. How do some of you straight folks out there (the ones who would argue against standing up for gay rights) think we feel knowing that we are so thoroughly and irrationally HATED by millions upon millions in this country, and all supposedly in the name of a merciful and compassionate God?

What happened Tues night was not just a rejection of Democratic values, but a very public rejection of we in the GLBT community as human beings. I actually had GOP family members in Ohio who voted for the anti-gay initiative -- I didn't need to come here and see rejection from fellow DUers as well, certainly because my fellow Dems here are like another family to me.

I believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, and those principles are unshakeable. I will fight for a woman's right to choose, though that issue may not impact me directly; I will fight for affirmative action, though I may not benefit from it; I will fight for a raise in the minimum wage, though I do not need it; I will fight for unions, though I am not a member; I will fight for veterans, though I have not served. I will defend your right to worship as you choose or to carry a gun, though I may do neither. I will fight for all the principles held by the Democratic Party because it is this goal -- the betterment of our society and nation -- which binds us together as Democrats. I will fearlessly and unapologetically stand with you in the fight, even when that fight gets ugly and tough and hurtful -- the question is, will you now stand with me?

[Midlodemocrat]

42. I will

I agree with you 100%. I will fight for the principles of the Democratic party and will not allow it to be stolen by homophobes. I am so sorry that your family let you down like that. They are obviously not very well informed.

[WillyT]

38. Right On Skinner !!!

:yourock:

[Midlodemocrat]

41. I agree with you 100%

to me, gay marriage is a non issue. My own marriage will not suffer as a result, nor will it lead, as my fundy neighbors believe, to pedophilia, nor polygamy, blah, blah, blah. My gay friends deserve the same respect and rights that I and my husband enjoy without having to worry about how their children will be treated in school. I honestly, sincerely don't understand how a person can be homophobic. I understand fear of heights more easily.

[iverglas]

45. did I miss it?

Keep the following guidelines in mind:

1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sex. That includes the right to decide for one's self what risks to one's life and what limitations on one's liberty to assume.

2. If you want to discuss this issue, you need to do so in a manner that is sensitive to the values of this diverse community. Be as clear and as non-inflammatory as possible in everything you say.

3. If you are opposed to women's rights, you are a misogyinst. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned.

4. If your explanation for why we lost is based entirely (or almost entirely) on women's rights, then you are scapegoating and you're probably a misogyinst. You might get banned.

5. If you are arguing that the party needs to abandon support for women's rights entirely, then you might not be an outright misogynist, but in my opinion you are not sufficiently supportive of equal rights.

6. It is not misogynist to point out the obvious truth that there are large numbers of people in large regions of the country who are opposed to women's rights. ON EDIT: It also not misogynist to point out that political candidates, particularly those running in conservative areas, may have to compromise on the issue of women's rights for the purposes of political expediency.

<Well, except that it is ... and that fact kinda illustrates how it is homophobic to say the same thing about gay rights ...>

7. I believe that we need to focus on the question of how our party can be competitive nationally without abandoning this core principle. I believe that women's rights is not a make-or-break issue for a majority of voters in any state. The opinions of hard-core misogynists notwithstanding, my impression is that most Americans are supportive of the idea that people should be able to live their lives how they like. How do we convince potential voters that they need not be afraid? How do we convince potential voters that they should care more about their job and their health care and their children than about what some stranger decides about her pregnancy? These are the questions we need to be asking.

We are right on this issue, I have no doubt. In 40 years, we are going to look back at opposition to abortion as something as bigoted and anachronistic as support for forced sterilization.

I am sorry if some of you feel I am putting too much restriction on the discussion of this topic. I am also sorry if some of you feel I am not restrictive enough. My goal is to create a place where we can discuss the issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

_________________________

I'm sure it musta been there someplace ...


And yet oddly --

We have very few litmus test issues on DU. We permit members to be pro-life <sic> ..., provided that they are generally on our side.

But this is a litmus test issue, because we are talking about REAL PEOPLE, our fellow members of this community. I simply will not tolerate the idea of some DU members arguing that other DU members are not deserving of full and equal rights. This is a moral issue. If DU had existed back during the civil rights movement, I hope that we would all agree that this was not the place to discuss whether blacks deserve civil rights.

It's just a fucking amazement.

Women must be chopped liver, since we're apparently not "real people", or we'd be getting the same kind of consideration that gay men and lesbians (unquestionably) deserve. It continues to be just fine for some DU members to argue that other DU members -- WOMEN -- are not deserving of full and equal rights.

THAT IS what advocating that women be compelled to assume the risks to their lives and accept the limitations on their liberty that are INHERENT in pregnancy is. It is advocating that women be denied full and equal rights.

Imagine the outcry if a DU member advocated that any other group of DUers be compelled to put their lives at risk to satisfy his/her "moral" requirements.

I think it's immoral to let people die for want of a bone marrow transplant. I say it's time we rounded up all able-bodied white men and took samples of their bone marrow to determine whether they are suitable donors for anyone in need, and extracted their bone marrow (an entirely renewable resource) if they are.

Yup, I'll be expecting to see a groundswell of support for permitting me to advocate that at DU.

Undoubtedly from the same people who advocate compelling women to endure pregnancies and bear children they don't want ...

[Skinner]

47. I'm a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose.

But I have seen many very progressive members of DU explain in sincere and progressive language why they are not. These are not people who consider women to be chopped liver. It seems clear to me (and perhaps only to me) that the issue of gay rights does not have any of the moral ambiguity that some see in the issue of abortion.

[iverglas]

52. it's too bad

You just can't see that your adoption of your own idiosyncratic yardstick on the question of the "progressive"ness of anti-choicism is absolutely no different from the homophobes' application of their own bent little yardstick to the issue of gay and lesbian rights.

"It seems clear to me (and perhaps only to me) that the issue of gay rights does not have any of the moral ambiguity that some see in the issue of abortion."

It seems clear to me (and perhaps only to me) that the issue of school desegregation does not have any of the moral ambiguity that some see in the issue of gay and lesbian rights.

See it there? "Moral ambiguity" is either determined entirely subjectively, by idiosyncratic criteria (I like this; I don't like that), or entirely objectively, by standardized criteria.

If your idiosyncratic criteria are applied, your position can be reduced to "because I say so". And that's fine, because that's the actual criterion here; it's just that it's the appropriate thing to say when it is in fact the criterion.

If standardized criteria are applied, your position makes no sense. Saying that someone has "explain<ed> in sincere and progressive language why" s/he is anti-choice does not mean that s/he has actually done so ... by any criterion but your own assessment (based on idiosyncratic criteria, again): "because I liked it".

There simply is not a way in hell that the criteria that result in support for anti-gay/lesbian rights being a necessary condition for "progressive"ness can result in support for women's reproductive rights NOT being a necessary condition for "progressive"ness, if those criteria are applied uniformly to the two matters.

And no fine and flowery language produced by any anti-choicer can get around that fact. Denying gay men and lesbians access to marriage is a violation of the fundamental/constitutional right to the equal protection of the law. Denying women access to abortion is a violation of the fundamental/constitutional rights to life and liberty without due process, and to the equal protection of the law.

Unless you've encountered someone who has come up with a justification for those violations that stands up to constitutional scrutiny, you're just saying "hmm, sounds good to me, and because I say so".

And like I said, that's yours to say. But it simply does not convey respect for women at DU.

[Skinner]

57. I'm trying to be as honest and fair as possible here.

Since I'm the owner of this website, then essentially "because I say so" is the reason why we have *any* rules. At least I've got the honesty, integrity, and intelligence to admit that is the case.

As for lacking any objective criteria for making the call here, I have to strongly disagree. I'm certain that my objective, standardized criteria will mean very little to you. And I don't relish the prospect of making ant-choicers' arguments for them, because I disagree strongly. But here goes:

My feeling on individual rights is: As long as you aren't causing harm to anyone else, you should be able to live your life however you please. I didn't make this idea up, by the way. This is a fairly ordinary standard by which individual liberty is judged.

Using this standard, there is absolutely no question that gays should have full and equal rights. Providing gays with equal rights does not cause any harm to anyone.

This standard also leads me to support reproductive freedom, because I do not consider a fetus to be a person, either morally or legally. But I understand that there are plenty of people out there, including plenty of progressives, who do believe that a fetus is a person. And by the standard I have laid out, if you believe a fetus is a person, then you would weigh the rights of the mother against the alleged harm to the fetus.

So yes, the answer is "because I said so" but I am not just arbitrarily enforcing whatever arbitrary lines I feel like enforcing. I am actually using objective, standardized criteria.

[iverglas]

63. any time this stops being fun

feel quite free to stop responding! (That's genuine sincerity there; it probably just isn't as much fun for you as it is for me.)

"As long as you aren't causing harm to anyone else, you should be able to live your life however you please. I didn't make this idea up, by the way. This is a fairly ordinary standard by which individual liberty is judged."

Well, actually, it's a little oversimplified and overbroad, both. It may be how interference with individual liberty is "judged" by the general public, but it isn't quite how such interference is judged by the courts assigned to the task.

And since the common basis for any such arguments -- the only legitimate common basis -- is the applicable constitution, it really is the tests applied by the constitutional courts that are relevant. Those are the ones that I stick to.

"Using this standard, there is absolutely no question that gays should have full and equal rights. Providing gays with equal rights does not cause any harm to anyone."

Still question-begging, you see.

What is "harm"? Why would your definition of "harm" apply, and not someone else's?

There are many areas in which we regulate or prohibit conduct because of "harm" that we consider it does to the society, not just to individuals. Plainly, opponents of gay rights are of the view that treating gay men and lesbians equally would cause such harm. Others (say, an overwhelming majority of the population) are of the view that permitting multi-partner marriages would cause such harm. Then there are things like laws prohibiting the capture of members of endangered species. I'm sure that many opponents of gay rights can make very articulate, respectful arguments along that line.

"But I understand that there are plenty of people out there, including plenty of progressives, who do believe that a fetus is a person. And by the standard I have laid out, if you believe a fetus is a person, then you would weigh the rights of the mother against the alleged harm to the fetus."

It's certainly the argument. Where it falls down is that a fetus is not a person. I don't take into account people's belief that there are fairies at the bottom of their garden when I consider whether it is permissible for the municipality to conduct aerial spraying for mosquitos to combat West Nile virus. I just don't need to consider people's beliefs that things are what they are not.

Much as I found John Kerry's defence of women's rights less than sincere and less than adequate, even he distinguished between belief and fact. It isn't entirely sufficient to say that Roe v. Wade unequivocally held that a fetus is not a person and does not have rights (that's a tautology: if it's a person it has rights; if it has rights it's a person). Courts sometimes make decisions that are more than arguably incorrect, according to the standards they are bound to apply.

But someone who wishes to argue that has the burden of persuasion, and we seem to be letting them off the hook here a little to readily. "Because I don't like it" may be (is) conclusive when it comes to the rules at DU, but it doesn't hold water when it comes to the rules governing the exercise of women's rights.

The anti-choice "it's a person" claim is utterly and completely incoherent, and in quite a few years of attempting to drag a coherent defence of it out of many many of its proponents, I have not yet received one.

*If* it's a person, then "killing" it is homicide. Full stop. It may then be killed only in self-defence (if it is intentionally and seriously assaulting someone and there is no other reasonable escape route or less harmful option), or possibly out of necessity (if it is unintentionally about to cause someone's death and no other way of avoiding death is possible). We do not kill persons, or permit persons to be killed, because of their parentage, or because they are defective, or because their presence might cause harm to someone else.

These people do NOT believe that a fetus is a person. They could not believe that and *not* advocate that intentionally killing a fetus without due process, and in the absence of any intentional harmful act by the fetus or necessity, not be prosecuted as homicide. Their heads would spin off their shoulders if they tried.

None of us has to take their claim to "believe" this nonsense at face value, no matter how sincerely they state it. I absolutely will not, and I can't think why you would -- any more than you would take a claim to believe that gay marriage will cause modern western society to crumble at face value.

So, being human, we tend to suspect that these folks have quite different motives from the ones they state. Homophobia and misogyny do spring to mind.

"This standard also leads me to support reproductive freedom, because I do not consider a fetus to be a person, either morally or legally."

Actually, the question of whether something is a human being (which is what determines whether it is a "person" or not) is not a matter of personal considerations any more than the question of whether a square has four sides is. It is a matter of definition, and individuals do not define things. Human groups do that. In the absence of an express definition (for instance, the Criminal Code of Canada does not define "human being", although it defines the killing of one as homicide), we have to infer it from what we know. And we know that no human group (society, culture, nation-state) in history has ever treated a fetus the way it treats a human being, so obviously none has ever defined a fetus as a human being.

"Morally", of course, has nothing to do with it. Some people apparently claim to believe that animals are "morally" persons, i.e. have rights. I don't think that you would permit such people to blame hunters for the Democrats' defeat, or persistently assert their outrage at / distaste for / desire to outlaw hunting on a discussion board where half the members were hunters.

The issue is never the morality of abortion (unless someone for some reason wants to discuss that question, which I certainly never do). The public policy issue is whether abortion should be legal. And the political issue is how the public policy issue should be addressed.

And since *I* find everything said by anti-choicers in support of their position on those two matters (and by anti-abortion pro-choicers on the latter one) to be one or more of vicious, foolish and disingenuous, as explained above, I don't see any difference between them and gay rights opponents. That is, I consider the distinction you make to be non-existent. And I think I do a pretty good job of making that argument. ;)

I mean, nobody's put a dent in it yet. So there it is, for your pleasure, at your leisure.

[progdonkey]

79. I think you made a mistake in terminology...

...and that's what's raising iverglas' ire.

From your responses to iverglas' posts, it seems that, when you referred to some DUers being "pro-life," you meant that some DUers simply consider a fetus to be a person. I think you're in error, though, as "pro-life"--at least to me, so I'm delving into subjectivity here--universally means "anti-choice." That is, a person is capable of being "pro-choice" regardless of whether they believe the fetus to be a person or not, as the issue is one of "does the government have any jurisdiction over a woman's reproductive system?" But pro-lifers are those who believe the government does have jurisdiction over a woman's uterus--and the source of that is the belief that a fetus is a person; but not all people who believe a fetus is a person are pro-life. It's basically an issue of which is the supergroup--all A's are C, but not all C's are A.

I would liken it to the question of whether homosexuality is genetic, developmental, or simply pure choice--it is irrelevant what someone believes to be the cause of homosexuality; what is relevant is still respecting their civil rights as human beings. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether a DUer believes a fetus is a person or not; what matters is that they still protect a woman's civil rights.

I don't believe any DUers are "pro-life" then, as no DUer should believe that the government has any jurisdiction over telling a woman what to do with her body, whether it's having an abortion or sleeping with another woman.

It's really just an issue of semantics, though. ;-)

[iverglas]

84. heh

I don't believe any DUers are "pro-life" then, as no DUer should believe that the government has any jurisdiction over telling a woman what to do with her body, whether it's having an abortion or sleeping with another woman.

It's really just an issue of semantics, though.


Would that you were right. (I suspect there is no stupidfaceiconthingy for "rueful half-smile".)

That there is the problem.

The immediate issue is the spate of scapegoating -- commitment to women's rights caused loss of votes, what "reframing" shall we do, blah blah. But the fact is that there's no shortage of genuine anti-choicers hereabouts.

Likewise, it doesn't matter whether a DUer believes a fetus is a person or not; what matters is that they still protect a woman's civil rights.

And the problem there is that it is simply, flat-out, 100% impossible to protect a woman's constitutional rights on an equal basis with men's if a fetus is assigned rights. Unless the fetus's "rights" are grossly violated. It's just an insoluble mare's nest.

Someone would have to invent a procedure that met due process requirements to decide which of two rights-holders -- woman and fetus -- would either be killed directly (fetus) or be compelled to die as a result of non-intervention to save her life (woman), in a situation in which it was not possible for both to live. Talk about yer Solomon; what tribunal could do that, and on what basis?! Some pigs are more equal than others??

As to the semantics, I don't really care what people who get offended by abortion but actively oppose interference in the exercise of women's rights call themselves. As long as they shut up about their theories as to how everybody hates abortion, everybody agrees that abortion should be rare, no woman ever wants to have an abortion, women wouldn't have abortions if they just had better income support, abortion is/should be a last resort only, blah blah. I don't need anybody speaking for me, especially when what they're saying is less than accurate.

I'd prefer it if they'd actually just shut up about everything but the rights issue, in fact, but that's a tactical issue (hey, maybe it really does persuade anti-abortion voters to vote for choice if someone who hates abortion but loves choice shares with them how nasty s/he thinks abortion is ...) so it is a subject of fair comment, I suppose. Sure would be nice if we could all just agree it's dumb and counterproductive, of course.

[OrwellwasRight]

95. The Problem is that pro-choicers have given in by using

the language of "everybody hates abortion, everybody agrees that abortion should be rare, no woman ever wants to have an abortion, women wouldn't have abortions if they just had better income support, abortion is/should be a last resort only, blah blah."

Because of this, women can't talk openly about how glad they were to have one, how it enabled them to go to college, take a job, do some research, get some award, get away from a bad marriage, move out of some town and eventually meet the love of their life, etc. or whatever good might have come out of it

I think the discussion would open up considerably if someone like Barbara Boxer or (insert name of respected female here) could say "I had an abortion and I'm glad. I wouldn't want my life to be any other way."

But since we have agreed that abortions are shameful, embarrassing, a last resort, etc., we can't do that.

On the other hand, gays and lesbians can speak openly about their situation, and say how much better their lives are when they were able to come out, when their family finally accepted them, when they got married to their partner, when they were accorded equal rights in the workplace, whatever.

[iverglas]

128. 'zactly

The experience belongs to the woman whose experience it is, and it is hers to define.

Because of this, women can't talk openly about how glad they were to have one, how it enabled them to go to college, take a job, do some research, get some award, get away from a bad marriage, move out of some town and eventually meet the love of their life, etc. or whatever good might have come out of it

I think the discussion would open up considerably if someone like Barbara Boxer or (insert name of respected female here) could say "I had an abortion and I'm glad. I wouldn't want my life to be any other way."

Absolutely exactly. Or even DUer123, on more personal levels. We can all be one another's role model and source of understanding.

But since we have agreed that abortions are shameful, embarrassing, a last resort, etc., we can't do that.

And a woman who *doesn't* feel that way can't talk about how she does feel, because her experience has already been defined as shameful in the mind of the listener, and her own image will be diminished in that listener's mind no matter how she tries to express her own experience.

This makes it hard for women to speak publicly and privately about their own experience, and even to "speak to" themselves about it.

So yes, as compared to just about any other disadvantaged group, women are at an extra disadvantage in this instance, in talking about their own experience, something that is necessary to do for a number of reasons, both personal and political. Funny how we so often get that dual burden ...

And experience that is common to huge numbers of women -- and if the experience of unwanted pregnancy regardless of outcome is counted in, approaching an overwhelming majority of women -- is not shared and examined, it is hidden away and ignored. And that does no good for any woman, either those who have had unwanted pregnancies and/or abortions or those who will one day (as probably most of us will) have that experience. Our own, women's, experience is still being denied and stigmatized.

It is unacceptable for third parties here, now, to attempt to define the experience of gay men and lesbians as shameful.

It would be nice if women were accorded the same respect, and it would also be politically beneficial both to women and to progressive politics, and to society as a whole, if the real experience of unwanted pregnancy and abortion (and the other choices women make) were acknowledged and treated as normal.

Thanks for that.

[Djinn]

141. Bingo

I HATE the "abortions should be rare" crap spouted by so called pro-choicers - it should be available when and where it's needed end of story.

Not everyone - not even most women - have any regret or guilt over their abortion, atleast until the fundie mysoginists get hold of them.

On the broader issue the people here advocating that the Dem's stop supporting EQUAL rights (it's not a GAY rights issue, no-one's proposing they get right's no-one else has) and stop supoprting legal and accessible abortion in order to win an election have had me steaming. Why not go the whole hog, bung a born again candidate in there, have him talk about defeating evil "terrarists", locking people up without trial and cutting taxes - hey it worked for Bush!

Why not just take on the entire Rep platform?? umm maybe because it's socially and morally repulsive!

The answer is to counter it with TRUTH - eg in my part of the world, we also just re-elected a bunch of right wing bampots - a couple have been spouting off on the "epidemic" of abortion, I've only heard ONE person counter such obvious crap with the FACT that abortion rates in Australia have gone down by 20% in 20 years - the pro lifers are full of shit! Stop pandering to fairy stories told by people who believe we all descended from Adam and Eve & start CALLING them on it.

[Midlodemocrat]

53. I agree with that as well

Telling me that abortion is murder, while still supporting the death penalty makes no sense at all. Either they are both murder, or they both aren't.

[Jack_DeLeon]

106. They are both killings...

they arent both necessarily murder.

I dont see either as being murder, they are both legal killings.

However there are those here that see the death penalty as murder and abortion as not. I dont see you calling those people hypocrites.

Its perfectly acceptable to have the opposite view that the death penalty isnt murder and that abortion is.

[Midlodemocrat]

124. They are both killings

...that was my point. However, I feel very strongly that I cannot tell another woman what to do with the baby she can't or won't have. That is not up to me to decide. I have been fortunate, I have never personally needed to go that route, but I wouldn't presume to tell someone else they couldn't. That is between them, the father, and if they believe in a higher power, him/her.

[Djinn]

142. I'm one but it's NOT hypocrisy

while I'm not actually ardently anti-death penalty - I'd actually be for it if we (or you) had a dependable legal system, it's very easy to state one is murder and one is not.

People sent to the gas chambers are living breathing human beings. No-one has ever aborted a living breathing human being - fetus NOT a person.

[OrwellwasRight]

121. Not necessarily

One is a human being you see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. An individual person.

The other is part of my body, something that depends on me, my health, my blood, my food, etc. Not its own individual person. Can't see it, talk to it, smell it, etc. You might not even know it was in the room unless I told you it was.

I belive the death penalty is state sanctioned murder, but I do not believe that abortion is murder.

I do understand your point, and why some believe it to be true. I just don't agree.

[Midlodemocrat]

125. Clarification

I am staunchly anti-death penalty...especially when it comes to the fact that so many have been erroneously convicted. I was simply commenting on the fact that the "Pro-Lifers" tend to only value the life of an unborn fetus, not the life of a person on death row.

[OrwellwasRight]

127. Agreed. n/t

[Justice]

132. How can you be staunchly anti-death penalty but not prolife?

I think that is the problem with arguments on both sides. There was a time when the democrats won the argument - we had legal abortions and banned the death penalty --but now the pendulum is swinging the other way.

I think there is more similiarity in the two arguments than differences == so it is hard to understand how one could have different results.

[Midlodemocrat]

138. Because I think it is up to the woman

...to decide what to do with her body. I have never been in the position of needing an abortion, and don't expect to at 46, and therefore, can't begin to contemplate the complexities of someone who is not in a position to have the baby she is carrying...so I don't think I can presume to speak for her.

[Djinn]

143. one is a individual

who lives and breaths the other is a part of another person's body and is NOT a person in their own right

[Love Bug]

51. Thank you, thank you, thank you iverglas!

If you hadn't posted this, I would have. I applaud Skinner for his decision to change the rules and demand respect for our gay DUers. I hope he will consider extending that courtesy to women DUers as well.

I believe Choice is a civil rights issue for women and should have equal consideration on this board. There were just as many posts yesterday suggesting that Dems abandon supporting Choice to get elected as there were suggesting gays be abandoned.

It sickens me to see the true colors of some our fellow Dems. I guess some of us have a ways to go before we are truly progressive.

[VelmaD]

87. Thank you iverglas

I agree with you 100 percent and am apoplectic that the admins have not taken a similar stand against the DU members who have been blaming women and the Democratic party's pro-choice position for "losing" the election. (We didn't lose btw - we was robbed)

I'm apoplectic...but not surprised. *sigh*

[arwalden]

48. Thanks, Skinner.

[terrya]

49. Thank you, Skinner.

As a gay man, I am terrified and angry for what WILL transpire for GLBT Americans in these next four years. I have found some of the things said on here as of late appalling.

[Beware the Beast Man]

60. Sadly, it's the Blame Game.

There are a great number of folks on here who cannot accept the fact that the Dems lost badly in this election, so either they take comfort in conspiracies, fear, or most unfortunately, bigotry. For the last three days I've seen nothing but finger-pointing. If we want to cover any ground in the next four years, we have to solidify.

[54anickel]

50. Remember 63% were FOR either marriage or civil unions. They were

FOR some type of arrangement that offered gays equal rights. If Shrub can consider 51% a f'ing "mandate" then this is a "landslide".

Only 37% answered no legal recognition.

[unfrigginreal]

54. Well, I didn't see this post before I posted a thread about this

I'm not sure that it's appropriate based on your rule that we must support the right of marriage for all regardless of sexual orientation. While I personally support it, I am gay after all, it just seems to me that we can accomplish much more by making this an equal rights issue instead of getting hung up on "marriage."

Here's the thread in case you feel it's not appropriate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2603186

[Skinner]

59. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Based on what I have said above, your post is fine.

[Wat_Tyler]

56. Thanks, Skinner. Let's draw a line in the sand here.

Sure, I'd draw a line on abortion too, but the issue massively at hand is Gay Rights. I'm with you on that.

[SmokingJacket]

58. Well put!!!!! n/t

[welshTerrier2]

61. Skinner, you hit the nail right on the head

we are always confronted with striking a balance between fighting for our deepest beliefs and realistically recognizing our ability to achieve them ... sometimes a longer range plan is more effective than a short range plan ...

it seems to me, however, that individual liberties, including the rights of gays, need to be a central theme in the Democratic Party's message ...

I think we should allow discussions about delaying the push for equal rights for gays as a political consideration ... i don't think, however, that "putting this issue on the back burner" is the right thing to do ... we are losing the cultural war on this issue because we have lost the battle to define the framework.

when we allow the right to define this issue as a radical bunch of sinners doing disgusting things, we lose ... when the debate is whether their children will be exposed to all this immorality, we lose ... when it's "just not christian", we lose ... gay rights needs a makeover ... until more citizens understand and value that we as Americans should value freedom for all, whether we approve of them or not, no progress can be made ...

[umtalal]

62. Skinner: we should title this thread as what the dem. party should do next

I am not willing to be against gays, women and civil rights for all. I am not willing to appeal to the "south"

[Skinner]

66. This is an oversmplified view.

We absolutely have to be willing to appeal to the south, or else we will continue to lose. Giving up on an entire region of the country is a loser's strategy.

It is also a mistake to automatically assume that the key to winning the South lies entirely in the issue of gay rights, or anyone else's civil rights. Remember that we're not fighting to get 100% of the vote; all we need is 51%. So any solution will not include the (admittedly large) group of people who are hard-core homophobes who would never vote Democratic, even if their lives depend on it.

What is necessary to get to 51%? That is the question. Assuming we know the answer already, particularly if we aren't familiar with the south, strikes me as a mistake.

[umtalal]

71. Well then basing it on your post. Let us start a brainstorming thread.

[KC21304]

85. Absolutely. Bill Clinton did it and he was pro-choice.

It is all in the rhetoric used. Doesn't everyone know it was those 1 million phony phone mostly in Ohio, claiming to be from Kerry urging protection of gay marriage that lost this election ? And some of them were very sick I hear.

[Mike L]

122. Well, I live in the South, and I think I know the answer.

Running a candidate like Mike Easley, who just won an easy victory in the Gubernatorial race, would probably get us NC. However, with the exception of FL (if you consider it part of the South), I don't think we can win any other Southern states for some time to come, if ever.

However, IMO, we should pick a candidate with the intention of winning the South. This will give us a very good shot at winning OH and FL, winning back IA and NM, keeping the remaining close blue states, and picking up one or two Midwestern states.

[Skittles]

65. THANKS SKINNER

I was just thinking yesterday the Mods need to address this gay issue that has surfaced recently here in the DU - I've seen some incredibly hurtful, f***ed up stuff. You ROCK. :hi:

[molly]

67. AMEN!

[ET Awful]

68. THANK YOU SKINNER!!!!!

Either we are a party for equal rights for all, or we are not. We are a party of inclusion, or we are not.

If we start relegating certain people to second-class status, we become that which we loathe.

I for one will NOT sell out my values for anyone.

[amazona]

69. thank you

You are doing the right thing.

[Romberry]

70. My feeling is that this rule is poorly done.

"Marriage" has historically been considered as "within the church" and as such is a religious issue. When you start demanding people allow "gay marriage" (with the emphasis on "marriage"), are you not threatening the religious beliefs of many of them?

Howard Dean was not for "gay marriage", he was for "civil unions". John Kerry was not for "gay marriage", he was in favor of some form of "civil unions". Bill Clinton is apparently not really in favor of either one.

I think you'd do much better to simply say that DU'ers must support civil rights for all people and approach it from that direction. One can certainly support state-sanctioned civil unions with the legal protections that come with them without supporting full-on "marriage".

I think you have to be smart on this issue. At the moment I am afraid you're not. What you've done is generate a "you're either with us or you're against us" kind of litmus test which I find to be a form of intolerance all its own.

Just to be clear, I personally support the idea of civil unions *and* gay marriage but I know that sometime you have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run and run before you get good enough to compete in the Olympics. Making "gay marriage" an all or nothing litmus test is, I believe, at least a small portion of what led to the outcome on Tuesday. Eleven swing states had it on the ballot. In Ohio, approximately 25% of voters who voted for John Kerry also voted for the amendment banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions and (IIRC) legal recognition of "domestic partnerships" even for purposes of insurance and benefits.

Short version: I know you're heart is in the right place but I think this rule is a mistake. "Marriage" may be, for now, a word too far.

[Corkey Mineola]

78. Anything less is Jim Crow

I'm a gay man. Do I want to have a marriage? Not necessarily. Heterosexuals get divorced at an alarming rate.

Do I want to be deprived of EVER having that right? NO.

Use the word that tells the truth about the long-term vision: MARRIAGE.

PHN1

[jjanpundt]

83. For some reason "marriage" just seems

to be the hot button entirely. From all the reading I've done and talking with neighbors, friends, no one has a problem with "civil unions" and protecting the rights of gays/lesbians. It's when the word "marriage" enters the conversation that they start getting uncomfortable. Also in various conversations over marriage - why is it considered "marriage" when a man and woman get married at City Hall or in a judges chambers? Wouldn't that fall into the "civil union" category? If the word "marriage" is taken out of the discussion it boils down to a question of civil rights.

In the early 70s I worked for a gay man and tried to offer some sort of comfort/support when his partner of 20+ years was diagnosed with cancer. My boss had absolutely no control over the treatment that his partner received, what kind of funeral his partner wanted etc. What his partner's family wanted they bulldozed right over him. The family tried to take away the house the two had bought, etc. It was ugly and nasty and heartbreaking to witness. No one should ever have to go through that. I've quietly (I'm not much of a joiner on anything) supported gay rights from that time on.

IMO if this country is ever going to live up to the ideals of the founding fathers EVERY PERSON has to be treated equally. No distinctions for any reason.

Just my 2 cents worth

[Skinner]

92. Romberry, I think you misunderstand.

I am not requiring anyone to agree on political strategy. But I do expect members of DU to support full and equal rights for everyone. To repeat something I said in an earlier post:

Allow me to try to make this as clear as possible:

Making a pragmatic political argument that gay rights don't fly in many parts of the country: PERMITTED ON DU

Arguing that you personally think gay people don't deserve full and equal rights: NOT PERMITTED ON DU

It is very important that EVERYONE HERE ON BOTH SIDES of this issue understand this distinction.

[HFishbine]

101. That's almost worse

As one who beleives that marriage shouldn't even be a state issue, that it's a religious issue, it seems even worse that we are allowed to discuss the gay rights issue in a political context, but that we must pass the test of supporting gay marriage before we will be allowed to.

I doubt if this is the time to be narrowing our discussions.

[Skinner]

109. You're fine.

If you don't support state-sanctioned marriage for gay people or straight people, you support full and equal rights for all americans.

And I think people need to understand that this "new rule" is not a new rule at all. We have *always* expected members to support full and equal rights for gays and lesbians. I have made no secret of this fact. The only reason I was posting now is because we've had a few morons posting things like: "I'm tired of my party being known as the gay party" or "All gay people need to leave the Democratic party and leave DU."

[freetobegay]

114. Have you been able to put a dent in that brick wall yet Skinner?

What a horrible headache you must have.

[HFishbine]

115. Well, there you go then

Your first sentance captures my position completely accurately. But my view is one that is at odds with the new rule's demands that I support gay marriage.

It might seem like semantics, but since there are legitimate differences of opinion throughout the Dem party on how to acheive equal rights for gays, asking us to subscribe to only one solution is counter-productive.

I honestly appreciate your good intentions. As with all disruptors or those who demonstrate they are unable to have a respectful conversation, such people should be shown the door. But I think you could accomplish what you want without insisting that gay marriage be the ultimate measure of one's support for equal rights.

[Skinner]

118. Again, it's not a new rule.

And yes, it's semantics. I see your point. But here's the choice I face whenever I have to explain something:

Write something that covers every possible permutation that could possibly arise, or write in a direct and clear manner that gets my point across to everyone.

What I am requiring is that people support equal rights. Period. If you support state sanctioned marriage for straight people, then you are expected to support if for gay people. If you oppose state sanctioned marriage for straight people, then you are expected to oppose it for gay people. That's the bottom line.

[Djinn]

145. historically

marriage existed before Christianity - it was a financial contract more than anything else - it is NOT up to the churches to decide this they do not and never have owned marriage.

You want a religious marriage go for it - you want a state marriage go for it.

This again is part of calling the churches on their bullshit - they DON'T own marriage - "God" didn't institute marriage - people did.

[Endangered Specie]

72. What about people who only support civil unions?

(Im playing devil's advocate here)
That is sorta the official stance of the Democratic party, and alot of moderates and 'semi-progressives'.

I (reluctantly) agree that not everyone should be made to be 100% progressive/liberal, but I feel that if you are to allow wavering on the issue of choice, and guns, and the like, then people shouldnt be made to conform completely to the whole gay marriage thing.


btw there are some of us (me) who believe in ridding of "marriage" from gov't altogether and both straight and gay folks only get civil unions.

[The Flaming Red Head]

73. I'm from the south and voted against the protect marriage amendment

so did my 70 year old mother. so be nice to us liberal southerners. we're trying.

[Endangered Specie]

74. While we are on the subject of sensitive issues...

Can you please address the (apparently large) anti-South/Southerner element that is quite present on the DU forums.

Having non-southerner who bashes the South when they do not know all that much about it beyond how it votes for president, is not particularly my idea of a good thing (being as I am from NC).

I like to call it geopraphic-discrimination.

[Skinner]

99. We may change our approach to this issue.

My opinion has always been that discussing (very broad) regional differences is totally appropriate on a website that is dedicated to the discussion of politics. After all, it's clear that there is a stark regional disparity in how Americans think and vote. The majority of people in the South and the West made the wrong choice this election. I am confident that everyone on this website understands that all Southerners are not stereotypes, and I am confident that everyone understands that there are plenty of very progressive people in the South.

But to be honest, I'm just tired of being made out to be the bad guy on most of this stuff. So, yes, we are considering requiring a minimum level of sensitivity when discussing regional differences, too. I'm feeling quite ambivalent about this possibility, to be honest.

[Endangered Specie]

123. Thank you for your consideration.

Believe me we are trying to change things here, but its hard to do when people paint you over with a broad brush.

Anyhows, thanks again for your attention to it.

-ES

[Corkey Mineola]

77. Gay Gratitude = Heartfelt Gratitude; Empathy Required

Hey Skinner
What a beautifully articulated message and statement of policy.

All I would add is the notion of EMPATHY.

Before you post something about gay rights costing us votes, abandoning the agenda, etc. think about a core identity you possess:

examples:
white
straight
female
black
catholic
democrat

and imagine that you are told that you are not welcome because of that identity at a
political discussion or table
religion's communion table
family dinner table
doctor's examning table

etc.

You get the point. This is not for you Skinner, just for all.

Put yourself in our shoes before you speak on this issue. Please.

PHN1

[freetobegay]

80. I thank you for your words

But they will fall on deaf ears. Before Nov 02, I felt really secure here now I don't. I have seen alot of posts with hidden hate in it. Hate is not a family value. I have taken names & I have my list. I will fight these bigots one member at a time.

I don't see how keeping anyone a 2nd class citizen, could be construed as anything else.

[Skinner]

119. Please do not take names.

This is just counterproductive and disruptive. Let's not turn this into some kind of personal vendetta.

[theboss]

82. Never mind

Someone else made my point.

[OneBlueSky]

86. great post, and badly needed . . . thank you! . . . n/t

.

[Redneck Socialist]

88. Thank you Skinner. n/t

[helnwhls]

90. Thank you!

[NoSheep]

91. Thanks! nt

[norml]

93. Thread I Started In The Meeting Room, Please Copy,and Distribute

norml (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-05-04 03:35 PM
Original message
The "Conservative" Sermon On The Mount


Blessed are the rich for all good things trickle down from them. Cursed are the poor for poverty results from their moral failings. Blessed are the war makers for they keep freedom on the march. Cursed are the peacemakers for they shall be called appeasers. Blessed are those who inflict harsh punishments for they maintain law and order. Cursed are those who forgive for they shall be called soft on crime. Blessed are those who pray loudly standing in the churches and on the corners sounding the trumpet before them. Cursed are those who shut the closet door and pray in secret for their prayers are not heard. Blessed are those who cast the first stone for the sake of sexual morality for that is the only morality that matters. Cursed are those who see sexuality as a private matter for marriage must be defended against them.



By me, Brian Shawn Mary. I wrote it this morning,please steal.

[realcountrymusic]

94. well said

And it's a delight to be in a bigot-free zone.

That said, the gay rights movement, which I support completely, did make a major tactical error this year --or at least some of its leaders did. I do not believe it "cost us the election," but I believe it gave Rove an opening a mile wide.

In the burst of activism around same-sex marriage, and especially the well-publicized scenes in San Fran and New Palz and Massachusetss, we played right into Rove's dream of moblizing bigots to vote. Last Spring I was shouting at the TV "PLEASE HOLD ON ANOTHER YEAR!" If the movement had been able to lay low on the marriage issue for a bit longer, they would have had a president likely to give them a sympathetic supreme court. So in real terms, gay activists set back the gay rights movement by at least a decade this year, depending on what happens with the SCOTUS.

We lost in part because anti-gay bigotry was on the ballot in swing states. I know some of those people, unfortunately. This was guaranteed to get them to the polls,more than gunsor abortion ever could. They live in deep, deep fear and hatred of homosexuals. Their church andcommunity legitimizes their deepest hatreds and fears.

Now, not only is marriage off the table for a generation, but civil unions are in serious danger. Hell, the right of gays to live in peace even in the closet is now threatened.

So you can be pro-gay rights, like me, and still pissed off about the way the gay rights movement played a short game this year. Dammit.

RCM

[HFishbine]

96. This is a first and ought to be reconsidered

Respectfully, your rules would ban the likes of John Kerry and John Edwards:

"1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry."

and

"3. If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe."

DU's strenght has been its willingness to accomodate discussion without any predetermined litmus tests. This is a first for DU which, as noted, imposes rules that even our candidates couldn't meet.

[Skinner]

100. Actually, our rules have always forbidden anti-gay bigotry.

This is not new at all. If you think a large number of our members are not deserving of equal rights, we hope you will not use this website to make that case.

As for John Kerry and John Edwards, I highly doubt that they have any plan to post here. And if they did, I doubt they would dwell on the issue of gay rights.

[HFishbine]

105. Careful, don't put words in my mouth

I never said or implied that gay people are not deserving of equal rights. I simply maintain that there is legitimate disagreement about how to achieve that. Your rule that demands support of gay marriage as the only test for whether or not one supports equal rights is what is agregious.

The point about the candidates is not that they might run into trouble if they were to post on DU, but it illustrate that some in the Dem party, INCLUDING OUR NOMINATED CANDIDATES support equal rights for gays without supporting gay marriage. It's a legitimate disagreement among progressives that does not make one who fails to take your pledge of support for gay marriate any more homophobic than the leaders of the party.

[Skinner]

108. I fully understand why national candidates have to fudge this issue.

For that reason, I will not quibble with Kerry's position on Gay rights, nor will I label him a homophobe.

But nobody on Democratic Underground is running for president. I hope you will read all of my other comments in this thread about this issue. Members are welcome to discuss strategy, but we expect all of our members to support the goal of full and equal rights for all americans and for all members of Democratic Underground.

[HFishbine]

111. Argggh

So we also have to accept that if we agreed with Kerry and Edwards on this issue, we were accepting a position that was certainly only construed for political purposes. No chance that they, or any of us could legitimatley hold this view.

You're fudging the issue a little bit because you ask us to accept "gay marriage" but defend your position with arguments for "equal rights." You tie the two together and demand that we do too. Some of us (Kerry and Edwards included) do not conflate the two. Some of us may see an opportunity for equal rights without gay marriage necessarily and would like the opportunity to continue to explore the issue with an honest opinion.

[Freddie Stubbs]

112. So as a 'goal'

it's not something that may be a good thing to push for AT THIS TIME?

This sort of how I view this issue society is going to need to change before the laws are changed. FDR didn't push for desegragation in 1933. If he had he may very well have been a one-term President.

[Skinner]

116. Nothing homophobic about that point of view, IMO.

You share the goal, but you think it's unrealistic at this time. Seems fair.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Kipepeo]

104. Thank You Skinner

Personally, I feel I may have been too sensitive in a thread yesterday, confusing discussing with attacking because there had been so many blatant attacks. I will be more cautious and reasonable. Yesterday was an emotional day!

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[votefordan]

113. We have to look at the meat of the issue.

Marriage is just a label that is given to a union.

But the definition of marriage differs between the State, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc.

What is the most important is to make sure that people can have the same legal arangements as others can. IE a couple that is homosexual should be able to have the same benefits as one that is heterosexual.

So do we have state marriages for ones and civil unions for the other? No. Why? Because it rings of "separate but equal".

So what we need to do is make civil unions for everyone (homosexual and heterosexual) and then leave the label of marriage to be fought over by the religions.

As to number 5. We did lose because of Gay Marriage... but not because we support it. We lost because of political games played by the right. They passed the ammendment in Ohio where it not only defined marriage as between a man and a woman only, but it also banned civil unions between people that are homosexuals. This is against the rules of the game because ammendments in Ohio are supposed to only be about 1 issue. The same thing happened in Louisiana, but our legislature was able to push it on a state ballot and not on the Presidential ballot. So luckilly the Democrats are still fighting for 2 House seats here.

The republicans did not really want to "ban" gay marriage this time. They just wanted to get the extremist part of their base out to vote against it. They know it will be thrown out and they know that they will be able to use this argument again.

We NEED to point this out to their consituants. We NEED to show them the games that they are playing. That their so called "leaders" are not actually doing what they want them to do in banning gay marriage, but are just using gay marriage as a political ploy.

Once the extremists realize this, they will abandon those Republican leaders for those that are even more right wing.

And once that happens, the more moderate republicans wont vote for them which gives us an advantage.

[americanwomanone]

117. Thank You Skinner Bigotry Is A Distraction And Doesn't Need To Be Here

We have more important things to deal with. Such as 2006 and 2008.

[Edmond Dantes]

120. It would be more beneficial for all of us if we focused on the

broader issue here: civil rights/civil liberties for all. That includes the right to privacy.

For some, the right to privacy finds expression primarily in a woman's right to choose whether to bear children; for others, it's the right to choose your life partner, irrespective of religion/race/gender; for yet others, it's the right to medical privacy; for me, it's the right to feel secure in my home--without fear of the feds using "sneak and peak" warrants to look through my house when I am out at a doctor's appointment.

Focus on the broader unifying privacy issue, not on each individual subissue. Many of these privacy issues fall under the heading "family privacy". Even fundies can identify with that concept. What fundy wants the gov't telling them how to run/raise their family?

Just my 2 cents...

[UdoKier]

126. Shouldn't this post be pegged to the top?

It's a great post and should be required reading before jumping into discussions of the issue.

[kentuck]

129. Is it possible to discuss this issue in strategy terms without seeming ..

homophobic? I think it was a mistake, indeed a blunder, to debate this issue at this important time, when so much was at stake. How important was this issue in the grand scheme of things? Was it more important than people continuing to die in an illegal war? Was it more important than running our economy into the ground? Was it more important than preventing the privatization of Social Security? Was it more important than national healthcare? There are some that will argue yes and some that will argue no.

And is it more important that we stand on this principle of "civil rights" , and ask every other Democrat to get in line and "shut up" or you will be banned? Is that what you are saying Skinner?

[Edmond Dantes]

130. I would like to point out that gays/lesbians often fear for their

very lives--even in urban areas like D.C. No one should have to live like that.

The issue is not trivial by any stretch of the imagination.

[kentuck]

131. I agree....it is not trivial....

But can we discuss it from a poliical strategy viewpoint? Or is it about civil rights and there is no compromise? We will discuss it in every state in the union and we will fight to the last man or woman? Or can some people look at the results and see that the states where the Republicans used the "issue" to divide and bring out their bigot vote was not good for the Democratic Party and was not good for gays either? Would it be a quicker and less painful way to go the legislative route - rather than state by state rejection? That is all I say.

[Edmond Dantes]

134. Maybe my memory is fuzzy....

but I believe that it was Rove's strategy to focus on this one small piece of the broader "family privacy" issue, and that is why he was able to drive the wedge. We are always REacting to their strategies.

Sometimes, we should simply do an end run and keep running with our own ball. E.g.,

"The issue is not right-to-choose, or gay rights, or interracial marriage, but the right to family privacy. Why does Bush see all these bogeymen under the bed?

"Now let's talk about things that REALLY matter--like which party is willing to SUPPORT the American family with jobs, healthcare, education, etc."

People will interpret "family" within their own individual frame of reference. We do not need to spell it out for them. This is where we run into trouble.

[twenty2strings]

133. Way to go!

Big tent or no tent. Thanks Skinner!:grouphug:

[Trahurn]

135. BRAVO!! BRAVO!!

Dear Skinner:
This is amazing. I had come to DU this afternoon and after just 3 or 4 minutes of reading more utter crapolla about how we as democrats need to back peddle (as in turning the clock backward) on the issue of seeing gays and "all" humans as people deserving of every right and respect and opportunity that every other American is supposed to have as their inalienable rights. I want you to know that I had gotten a "gut full" of this homophobe posting on this list and I suddenly was asking myself where I was.
When it is clear we have an election when the exit polling does not even come close to matching the mysterious finally tally, sitting around blaming the position of the democratic party as a reason for this loss is the absolute height of stupidity and I was on the absolute verge of leaving this list today never to come back as I was feeling not only had I lost an election I wanted more than anything I ever wanted in my life, it seemed I was also losing what was supposed to be mine and our political identity as people. And I will not back track or suddenly become hateful and start persecuting and ostracizing homosexuals. In fact I was prepared to begin ostracizing the democratic party if this is where it was going as I just could not believe what I was reading and hearing on this list. To now read that you would not tolerate such "crap" on this list gave my political and personal batteries a supercharge boost. Something they were in sore need of.
I cannot tell you how much it means to me as a person, an American and a democrat to hear someone willing to set limits and state what is acceptable conduct in this forum. Quite frankly I am extremely disappointed at what some of my so called "fellow" democrats had posted on this board and I must say I was ashamed and found that I could no longer participate. Your very classy and forthright post has now changed all that as you have re-energized my faith in what it means to believe in equality for all people and not just when it is politically expedient. If there was some award I could nominate you for you could consider yourself nominated. Thank you so very much for your courage of your convictions and I have to agree that if that is asking too much from fellow democrats perhaps you need to re evaluate your party and what it means to you. One more time fellow democrats. People are just exactly that.........people regardless of what drum beat they walk to. The only exception to this are republicans but that is only because they do not wish to behave like nor be treated like people.
Again my thanks. ANCHOR!! ANCHOR!!

Trahurn

[KennedyGuy]

136. Thank You

I was getting a little worried for awhile around here.

[arewenotdemo]

140. Thank you

Couldn't agree more about the "looking back" part. Let's hope that it won't take 40 years, though. :toast:

[Rockholm]

144. Thank you, Skinner.

[Zuni]

146. cannot argue with the idea of equal rights for all

there is no way around it. Equal rights for all citizens, period.

[DemoTex]

147. Well said, Skinner.

Well said indeed.

[yardwork]

148. Number One, I don't think that Kerry lost the election

There's enough evidence of voter fraud for me to question whether the chimp was actually elected or not.

Therefore, the question of whether this issue or that issue "lost" the election is moot.

If the votes had been tallied correctly I believe we would be celebrating victory and patting one another on the backs for standing up for what we believe, which is equal rights for all.

Soooooo....the last thing in the world I will support is any suggestion that we move the Democratic Party to the right or abandon our bedrock principles.

I believe in equal rights for all and I will not give up this stance in the name of political expediency. The Republicans lie about everything anyway. Suppose we give them everything they want? They'll just create new wedge issues. I'm not playing their game, and I'm not budging on my principles, and I'm sure as hell not abandoning the GLBT members of our country.