I essentially agree with Skinner about the LGBT Rights Issue

[UdoKier]

I do not believe that our loss was caused by our support of gay rights. Kerry himself made MANY blunders that come to mind, annd there certainly was some degree of voter fraud in Ohio (not 4 mil. votes nationwide, however) The fact is, the party has NOT supported gay rights in a unified way. Many of our elected officials support civil unions, domestic partnership agreements, or still oppose it altogether. (You there, Zell?)

I also agree that those of us who support gay rights should never abandon that support, and I hope that the party does at some point make full equal rights for all people a permanent plank in the platform.

But we have also seen that in almost all of the eleven states that passed anti-gay marriage amendments, they passed by an OVERWHELMING margin. There is a deep-seated opposition to it in HUGE swaths of the country. And there is the rub. I personally do not think that we as a party should simply write off these states simply because we disagree with them on this one item.

And then there is issue of Mayor Newsom and the Mass. supreme court. There is legitimate disagreement on Mayor Newsom's judgment and motivation in the timing of the mass gay marriages , especially here in San Francisco, where MANY progressives are suspicious of him for that and many other reasons. As for the Mass. decision - while it was right, the fact is three out of the four judges who pushed the gay marriage issue to the forefront were Republican appointees, which makes me suspect that Machiavellian types within the GOP are using this issue against us in ways we not be fully aware of. The jury's still out on Mayor Newsom and where his heart really lies - I still hope he turns out to be a good mayor for us.

So, while I disagree with those who call for dropping support for gay rights, I really think it's crucial that the party and the LGBT community be on the same page in how to achieve that. I think the party needs to think much more strategically about how, when and where to mount challenges to discrimination, and again, have everybody on the same page.

The success of shows like "Ellen", "Will & Grace", etc. show there is already a great deal more acceptance of gay people themselves in the "mainstream". And I would say that Ellen has done a wonderful job in creating a show that really highlights the fact that she is a regular person like anyone else and not some scary "other" in some "lefty loon" place like San Francisco. If, as a party, we are going to continue to promote full equal rights for everyone, perhaps we should have approachable spokespeople like Ellen going out and making the case for it in a way that's less threatening to those not used to the notion of different ways of living and loving.

Face it. Rural America is very different from where a lot of us live. The people in my grandma's hometown of Bowie, Texas are as much in a conservative bubble as I am in a liberal one in San Francisco.

I continue to hold out hope that we can somehow bridge that divide and at the very least, get a majority of people in these places to embrace the NECESSITY of separation of church and state - which precludes theology-based discrimination of the kind that was just passed in 11 states. They need to be reassured that:

a. They need not approve of gay marriage if their church tells them it's wrong. There are a lot of things I don't approve of - but I don't go up and assault SUV drivers on the street- IE they need to respect LGBT people and stop scapegoating and bashing. If gay marriage were passed, they would still be free to proselytize their sad theology and try to convince gays to become ex-gays. I don't think that any off us have ever tried to dictate what an church's theology or ideology should be.

b. Their bibles were NEVER going to be banned. This was a Rovian lie from day one. It needs to be made perfectly clear that our party FULLY SUPPORTS FREEDOM OF RELIGION (which should include the freedom from religion IMO). And the only way to protect that freedom is for the separation of church and state to be maintained, and for no one religion to be favored above another. Anti-gay laws represent an interpretation of Christian theology put to law, and is a violation of the rights of those who believe in other religions that may fully support the idea of gay marriage.

c. Equal rights for all people would not mean that their little burgs would suddenly be overrun with gay couples. Nothing would essentially change except that couples who are now together anyway could enjoy some of the legal benefits of marriage.


Last, the fact that even (cough) "President" Bush endorsed civil unions represents a huge change. His saying that was no accident. It means that even among republicans there are enough people who do not want to demonize or discriminate against gays that they have had to adjust their position, but are just not ready to go whole hog for gay marriage yet. But the fact that they kept Mary Cheney hidden throughout the convention shows they are still trying to hide that fact from their fundamentalist base.


Anyway, this is less a position paper than a collection of thoughts on the matter. In the end, I will support the democratic party, however it decides to approach this.

[kentuck]

1. One of those 11 states was Oregon.....

Can you name a more progressive state in the union? Perhaps Vermont? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. I would argue the issue needs to be out of state referendums and in the legislature. We would still be discussing the Civil Rights Act if we had depended on the states in the South to approve it. Some people seem to have difficulty handling the truth. Or the reality of the truth.