Dems Should Stake a Position on Civil Unions

[mondo joe]

So we've got a rough three way split - 1/3 support same sex marriage, 1/3 support only civil unions and 1/3 want NO legal recognition at all for same sex couples.

It's not precisely 1/3 for each - but close enough.

The pro-civil union people are the ones up for grabs - they share something with each of the other groups. But on the whole I think they have more in common with the pro-marriage group. There is a 2/3 consensus in support of SOME form of legal recognition for same sex couples.

I personally support same sex marriage and don't consider civil unions a real alternative. But I could swallow that if the dems would come out in support of civil unions and stake a claim there.

Let the pro civil union and pro marriage people at least get together and make some progress. And let the far right bigots make clear who they are when they say gay partners should not have the right to visit each other in the hospital.

I don't think civil unions are the ideal. But I'd be more proud of my party if they took a stance on making progress rather than being a bunch of hyper cautious scaredy pants.

[JI7]

1. we need to promote civil unions and expose the right wing for the haters

they are.

right now i think a lot of people fall for the crap that it's not about hating gays or gay bashing but it's about family and values and preserving the institution of marriage and other non sense. but this is how a lot of people see it.

but a lot of these people are truly anti gay. they don't want to give them any rights. and when/if we push for civil unions and they come out against it they will be exposed for what they are.

[welshTerrier2]

2. your post seems to focus only on gay couples

there are many who think that all "marriages" should be civil unions ... that applies to both straight and gay couples ...

[Walt Starr]

3. HEre's a better plan, get government out of the marriage business

Make every union a civil union under the law. MArriage becomes the religious endorsement of the civil union. This works better for everybody concerned.

[mondo joe]

5. I support the principle, but it's not gonna' happen.

I have to try to support more likely solutions.

[xequals]

64. I think so. That's more bold.

Just taking the 'civil union' position is the Democratic wimpiness we've come to know in recent years. The liberal frame has failed - too much baggage.

Civil unions for everyone is libertarian and keeping with the principles America was founded on, and that is the way it needs to be framed. Quote the founding fathers. That's how MLK did it, not with angry left wing arguments, but by appealing to patriotism and American values.

[kohodog]

4. Dems should take a position on something.

Anything, please. The lack of clairty on many issuse has Bush ruling for another four years or more. Time to shake up the DLC

[bigwillq]

6. DEMS should at least support civil unions and push

to make it legal in all states. Make it a national law and don't leave it up to the states.

I think that gay marriage should also be legal in all states but I'm biased cause I'm gay. I can live with no gay marriage but civil unions in all states would be a step in the right direction.

[Kammer]

8. Defense

The Dems won't be making any law for a few years. We must have power to do that, and you get power from winning elections. We have to concentrate now on tactics to prevent the Republicans from making bad law.

[rockydem]

7. I agree - it also unmasks the fundies as the homophobic haters

they really are...

The only basis for opposing civil unions is that gays are second class citizens...which is exactly how these warped, diseased haters think.

[tsuki]

9. I am going to explain my position one more time.

I have friends who are married. They flew to Hawaii ten years ago and got married. Real pretty marriage certificate and everything. But, in Florida, they do not have the protection of a civil union. Bah, Humbug on Florida. Equal protection under the law. I absolutely agree with it.

But if you are asking me if I think that the state should make the Catholic Church marry gays, sorry, no I don't.

I don't see a conflict here, but I guess you all do.

[mondo joe]

10. Who the heck ever suggested forcing churches to marry ANYONE?

Churches aren't currently forced to marry anyone. Why would that change?

[tsuki]

15. I guess it is the language I object to. Too vague.

In the case of my friends, they are married. They took care of all the legal stuff with wills, living wills, legal agreements, etc.

I am a strict believer in separation of church and state. I don't think that the state should force its way into church doctrine. If a church's doctrine includes gay marriage, then great. If not, then I back off.

But equal protection under the law, I support whole heartedly.

That is why I am ABSOLUTELY against any "anti-marriage" law.

[MrTriumph]

11. The record is 0-11 - And you want to what!?

Get Real.

The gay movement has no one to blame but its leaders. The hoopla about the mass weddings and rushes to get licenses last spring was a HUGE disaster.

[mondo joe]

12. On gay MARRIAGE. Not CIVIL UNIONS.

Which LEADERS of the "gay movement" do you hold responsible?

Who are these "leaders"?

Can you name 3?

[MrTriumph]

13. Civil unions- in this atmosphere you can forget it

Yes, I understand the distinction between civil union & marriage. In this atmosphere civil union will be seen the same as marriage. It is a non-starter until something fundamental changes.


No, I can't name three. In fact, I can't name one.

One might conclude eleven defeats suggests the gay rights movement is poorly lead & poorly explained and has a vocal, motivated, well lead opposition.

[mondo joe]

14. But the atmosphere is in thirds.

One third support marriage, one third civil unions, one third opposed to all legal recognition. that's two thirds to one third.

When you admit you can't name even one "leader" of the "gay movement" you might begin to realize neither really exists.

There is no GAY MOVEMENT. Get over it.

[MrTriumph]

17. Underestimating tenacity of opponents

Hey, Joe- Only 1/3 of those with an opinion are well organized, fully funded, motivated, and tenacious in their effort to ban gay marriage.

And if you are saying the proponents of gay marriage are leaderless, disorganized and unfunded, well, what do you think the outcome will be?

Let's see, the movement for womens' rights has been around for over 100 years. To various degrees it has been well lead, funded and organized. The movement wisely adopted long term strategies. And, of course the movement has many goals yet to attain. But it is clear it continues to advance. Seems like it might be an example.

[mondo joe]

18. You're Understimating the American People. And math.

It's simple - you've got 2/3 of the people who support some form of legal recognition.

You've got 1/3 opposed.

Do the math.

And I don't know why you're talking about proponents of gay marriage, because that's not the topic - civil unions are. And if the DNC would grow some balls there'd be moneyed organized proponents.

You say the women's rights movement had adopted long term strategies --- I suggest you cite them.

You have to break out of the model of "movements" - they don't exist.

[MrTriumph]

65. Easy

Right to vote
Women office holders
Access to workplace
Equal pay
And a host of on-the-job issues

2/3rds is very interesting. Then why did the ballot measures pass so easily?

Movements do exist. They are more successful when they have leaders that set goals, derive strategies, and organize. That's why the moveent to ban gay marriage is 11-0.

[mondo joe]

68. The leaders on civil rights issues should be the DNC

The WOMEN's MOVEMENT goals you mentioned haven't been tended to by any WOMEN's MOVEMENT for decades, and some for nearly a century.

What's curious is that you think this is a GAY issue rather than a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Are you a Republican?

You say "2/3rds is very interesting. Then why did the ballot measures pass so easily?"

And the answer is: Only one third supports MARRIAGE. See, there are THREE options, not two: civil unions, marriage, no recognition at all. So the Repubs turned it into a wedge issue against us. What I'm suggesting is reversing the wedge.

[MrTriumph]

70. No, I am not a Republican

And I understand you are suggesting there are 3 options. It appears you and I disagree about civil unions being a viable option. And selling CVs is probably a nonstarter.

[mondo joe]

71. Why are civil unions NOT a viable option?

If you've got 2/3 supporting some form of legal recognition, why are CUs not an option?

[MrTriumph]

73. Because the momentum is heavily against the idea

Old saw: Timing is everything.

[mondo joe]

75. Where is your evidence that the momentum is against civil unions?

THe polling indicates otherwise.

[leftist.]

16. Here it is:

It is EVERYONES RIGHT to have the chance to do what anyone else can do.

Done and done.

[sangh0]

19. Haven't they ALREADY taken a stand on civil unions?

Are there any Dems who oppose civil unions?

[mondo joe]

20. Failure to oppose is not taking a stand.

That's the problem - dems have been such timid puffs of nothingness that people are mistaking the failure to oppose something for supporting something.

[sangh0]

21. So I guess you can't answer my question

Do you know which Dems have supported and which have not, or are you too intent blowing hot air to find out?

If you care so much, wouldn't you try to find out which Dems HAVE supported civil unions, so you could support them in their efforts?

[mondo joe]

22. Here's the answer

The democratic party as an institution has not taken any notable stand.

Some dems - like Howard Dean - have said they support civil unions.

But it has never risen to a major issue for the party.

If the Dems were supporting civil unions in that way you wouldn't NEED to research which ones did.

[sangh0]

24. You mean the Democratic Party Platform for 2004 didn't endorse CU's?

Or is being part of the official party platform NOT a sign that the party supports CU's?

Here's the answer...The democratic party as an institution has not taken any notable stand

IOW, your "answer" is something you made up out of thin air.

[mondo joe]

27. There is a reference. But I am, again, talking about USING the issue

There is a reference. But I am, again, talking about USING the issue and DOING something with it.

Otherwise it's lip service.

[sangh0]

30. So now you change your story

You first said the Dem party hasn't taken a stand

Then you said it wasn't in the platform

Now, it's there, but it's just a "reference".

Care to be proven a liar?

[mondo joe]

31. Never changed my story.

CIVIL UNIONS are not in the party platform.

A reference to rights and responsibility is.

Just as I said.

[sangh0]

33. You've told several untruths

You first said the Dem party hasn't taken a stand

Then you said it wasn't in the platform

Now, it's there, but it's just a "reference".

You said did nothing for CU's even though he spoke in support of them during his last debate with bush*

[mondo joe]

36. Please review. No untruths.

The Dem party has NOT taken a stand on civil unions - they aren't even explicitly mentioned in the party platform.

I'll credit the platform with referencing rights and responsibilities --- nice and vague.

And I don't think SAYING you support civil unions DOES anything if all you do is say it.

[sangh0]

39. You repeat your untruths

You said the platform said nothing about CU's, now you admit they do, but claim you haven't moved.

You criticize Kerry for "paying lip service" but defend yourself for "advocating" for CU's, without ever explaining how YOUR "advocating" differs from Kerry's "lip service"

[mondo joe]

42. I'm sorry you can't get this - the platform references rights, but doesn't

I'm sorry you can't get this - the platform references rights, but doesn't even explicitly mention civil unions.

I don't know what you think is untrue about this.

As to the difference between Kerry and myself, he's spent a couple of years as a Senator, in a position to influence legislation, and I haven't.

[sangh0]

44. You're being very wishy-washy

Your support for CU's, as expressed in your OP, is far weaker than the support Kerry has given to CU's. It's as wishy-washy as anything any Dem has said and you don't have to run for election.

You blame Dems for being wishy-washy on an issue you are wishy-washy on, and you blame Dems for only paying lip service while you yourslef do no more than pay lip service.

[mondo joe]

46. My support is personal. Kerry and the DNC had/have an opportunity

My support is personal. Kerry and the DNC had/have an opportunity to do something real.

What's WISHY WASHY is saying you support it but doing nothing to make it happen.

[sangh0]

49. Your support for CU's is wishy-washy. You offer nothing but lip service

which has been duly noted.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, there are CU's and the only reason why this is true is because Dems supported it in words and deed.

What's WISHY WASHY is saying you support it but doing nothing to make it happen.

Dems HAVE made it happen. They've made it happen here in NYC and a number of other places. Where have YOU made it happen? Name the town?

[mondo joe]

52. No, there are CUs because of the judiciary.

Which dems legislated CUs?

Even Howard Dean signed them into law in Vermont BECAUSE of the judiciary.

[sangh0]

53. Can you name the court case that created CU's in NYC and San Francisco

or are they result of legislation passed by Dems?

[mondo joe]

57. NY's domestic partner registry (not CU's) were signed into law

NY's domestic partner registry (not CU's) were signed into law by David Dinkins in an executive order and then later expanded by Giuliani.

But neither this nor San Francisco address the topic of my thread which is about dems doing something to prominently advocate for CUs at the national level and use them as a wedge issue.

[sangh0]

58. You said it was the courts

now you say it was the mayor

You said the platform said nothing CU's. Then you said it was only a reference.

You criticized the Dems for being wishy-washy while your support for CU's is wishy-washy

But neither this nor San Francisco address the topic of my thread which is about dems doing something to prominently advocate for CUs at the national level and use them as a wedge issue.

If all you wanted to do was to promote your idea, you didn't have to attack the Dems and you didn't have to invent facts to support your attack. The truth is, if it wasn't for Dems there would be no CU's anywhere because it sure wasn't the repukes who put them there.

But you still won't acknowledge that because doing so puts the lie to your claim that the dems have done nothing but pay lip service

[mondo joe]

59. The mayor created a domestic partner registry. The judiciary

The mayor created a domestic partner registry. The judiciary was the cause of civil unions, which so far exist in Vermont only.

Sorry you have a hard time with accuracy.

[sangh0]

61. You said it was the court, then the mayor, now it's back to the courts

The courts made CU's in VT. Their decision didn't affect any other state or locality.

How did the other localities get CU's?

Amd why is does Dinkins (a Dem) actions to support CU's "doing nothing but paying lip service"?

And why did Giuliani expand them? Were Republicans pressuring him to expand the CU's?

Or was it Dems?

[mondo joe]

62. The other localities didn't get CUs, they have domestic partner registries

Again, sorry you have a hard time with accuracy.

[zulchzulu]

23. Kerry supports civil unions...did you miss it?

It's already in the Dem party platform.

[sangh0]

25. If he looked for it, how could he bash the Dems for not supporting it?

.

[mondo joe]

26. Again, failure to oppose isn't support. And it's not in the party platform

The sort of "support" which amounts to saying you support it but doing nothing to make it happen isn't what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about acting on it, and making it a wedge issue FOR us the way it was made a wedge issue against us.

And I'm afraid you're wrong - it's not in the party platform. The platform vaguely addresses rights and responsibilities for gay families.

[sangh0]

28. It is in the party platform

Please tell the truth

[mondo joe]

29. As I said in my post, rights and resonsibilities are referenced.

Civil unions are not explicitly addressed.

And Kerry certainly did nothing to promote civil unions in this campaign.

[sangh0]

32. Kerry supported it on national TV. 60 million saw him endorse CU's

during his last debate with bush*

That's another untruth you've told

You first said the Dem party hasn't taken a stand

Then you said it wasn't in the platform

Now, it's there, but it's just a "reference".

[mondo joe]

34. Don't worry sangh0. Kerry's lip service is duly noted.

Don't worry - I'm well aware of Kerry's lip service on civil unions.

But as I said repeatedly in this thread, I'm advocating DOING something about civil unions. Not candidates just saying they support them.

[sangh0]

38. Keep changing your story

You first said the Dem party hasn't taken a stand

Then you said it wasn't in the platform

Now, it's there, but it's just a "reference".

You also said Kerry did nothing, even though you know that's not true.

You also failed to notice that the only reason there are any gay CU's anywhere is because of Democrats, who according to you do nothing.

I'm advocating DOING something about civil unions

IOW, you're just paying lip service. Duly noted.

[mondo joe]

40. Again, there is no change. CIVIL UNIONS are not in the platform

Again, there is no change. CIVIL UNIONS are not in the platform - a vague reference to rights and responsibilities is.

And Kerry SAID he supported civil unions - bravo. He didn't do anything to make them happen.

And the civil unions that DO exist are the result of the judiciary - not legislators.

[sangh0]

47. You said the platform said nothing. You said Dems did not support CU's

The platform does support CU's and the Dems do support CU's, which is the reason why they even exist anywhere in the US. You criticized Dems for only giving wishy-washy support to CU's while your own support for CU's is wishy-washy, and you criticize Kerry for paying lip service to CU's while you do nothing more than pay lip service for CU's

[mondo joe]

50. Please find the words "civil unions" in the platform.

If you want to reduce the power and options the DNC and the candidate has to nothing more than a message board poster, it's your option. But I don't think it's very honest.

My own support of CUs isn't wishy washy. I don't think they are the ideal, but I think they are a very worthwhile compromise and a potentially value wedge issue.

But rather than talk about that you'd rather assail another message board poster.

Enjoy.

[sangh0]

54. You said the platform said nothing.

You said the platform said nothing. You said Dems did not support CU's

The platform does support CU's and the Dems do support CU's, which is the reason why they even exist anywhere in the US. You criticized Dems for only giving wishy-washy support to CU's while your own support for CU's is wishy-washy, and you criticize Kerry for paying lip service to CU's while you do nothing more than pay lip service for CU's

My own support of CUs isn't wishy washy. I don't think they are the ideal

Wishy-washy

But rather than talk about that you'd rather assail another message board poster.

Rather than learn the facts, you'd rather make up lies about how it was the courts that created CU's.

[zulchzulu]

35. Methinks you are mistaken on Democrat platform on civil unions

"The Democratic Party deals with the divisive issue in a single paragraph on page 36 of its proposed 37-page platform. Without using the term "civil union," the party seeks "full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation" and "equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families."

That's pretty much the core definition of civil unions. Granted, it could be buzzword-defined, but the essence of civil unions is certainly there.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040727/NEWS09/407270392

[mondo joe]

37. As I've said several times in this thread, the platform makes a vague

As I've said several times in this thread, the platform makes a vague reference to rights and responsibilities.

But the party stance on civil unions is so wishy washy they aren't even CALLED civil unions.

[sangh0]

43. Wishy-washy?

You mean in contrast to the strong support you give for CU's in your OP:

"I personally support same sex marriage and don't consider civil unions a real alternative. But I could swallow that if the dems would come out in support of civil unions and stake a claim there...I don't think civil unions are the ideal. But I'd be more proud of my party if they took a stance on making progress rather than being a bunch of hyper cautious scaredy pants. "

Saying CU's are "not a real alternative" is NOT the way to show your strong support.

[mondo joe]

45. Since you can't distinguish between those who are legislators and

Since you can't distinguish between those who are legislators and those who aren't, allow me to help:

John Kerry and many others are actually dems with some power to influence and enact legislation. I am not.

Just the same, what I'm advocating is a compromise position on the majority concensus, even though it's not the solution I PERSONALLY find satisfactory.

I don't think civil unions are the ideal. But I do think they're a worthwhile compromise.

[sangh0]

51. Dem legislators HAVE passed CU legislation

they did it here in NYC and a number of other cities.

Where were you, paying lip service?

Just the same, what I'm advocating is a compromise position on the majority concensus, even though it's not the solution I PERSONALLY find satisfactory.

I don't think civil unions are the ideal. But I do think they're a worthwhile compromise.

Wishy-washy. Very wishy-washy

[zulchzulu]

48. Here's the exact verbage from the Democrat 2004 platform

"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart. "

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Here is a civil union defined:

"A civil union is one of several terms for a civil status similar to marriage, typically created for the purposes of allowing homosexual couples access to the benefits enjoyed by married heterosexuals (see also same-sex marriage); it can also be used by couples of differing sexes who do not prefer to enter into the legal institution of marriage (perhaps out of solidarity with those who fight for equality) but who would rather be in a union more similar to a common-law marriage."

http://www.free-definition.com/Civil-union.html

[mondo joe]

55. You might interpret it to mean civil unions, but

You might interpret it to mean civil unions, but the vague language is such that no dem even has to ADMIT to a platform that supports civil unions.

And, one more time, throughout this thread I've been saying I think the dems should DO something with CUs as a wedge issue.

[sangh0]

56. Dems PASS CU LAWS

Doesn't that tell you something?

And, one more time, throughout this thread I've been saying I think the dems should DO something with CUs as a wedge issue.

You've also been saying that the Dems have done nothing for CU's but paid lip service. Stop pretending that your a victim and deal with the facts.

If you have a new idea, you don't have to knock anyone down in order to promote it. You knocked the Dems because you wanted to, and you didn't even bother yourself to look into the facts before doing so.

[tsuki]

72. But I heard Kerry say on CSpan that he supported Civil Unions.

[Dastard Stepchild]

41. Someone may have mentioned this...

but I think that civil unions are an appropriate course of action at this time for a very important reason: they provide "marriage" rights to individuals who cannot or do not wish to be married in a church. GLBT individuals aren't the only people who choose civil unions, and I believe that most religious organizations do not validate heterosexual civil unions as "marriages" either. For example, I was married as a young girl in a civil ceremony. I then got divorced. When I went to be remarried, in a church, the Priest said no problem b/c I was never even married in the first place in the eyes of God. In fact, even when one does get married in the church, it is not legally "valid" until the marriage certificate is filed with the county. So, the rights of marriage are not conferred unto the couple until the county grants validation. Hence, a very good first step would be to get the county to allow for the issuance of licenses for same sex couples. Does semantics matter - if it is a union or a marriage, and it confers the same rights and privileges, is this not OK?

I think it would be best, at this juncture, to focus on expanding policy to include same sex couples' civil union rights.

[choicevoice]

60. Why focus on civil unions for just gays and lesbians?

I personally think that any two consenting adults who want to marry should be able to. I personally have tried it twice and gave up on it. Seems its not my forte.

However I have been in a heterosexual relationship for 9 years on Nov. 8th. While I have no desire or intention to marry a civil union would work for me just fine.

How many people out there are living (*gasp* in sin) together like I am? How many older people can't marry becuase they would lose benefits of some kind and just plain can't afford it?

Possibly we should discuss more what civil unions do. I think people still have only one thing in their heads when they hear the term, they still see sinning sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. Why not focus on the reasons we need civil unions. Hell we can have sex without any kind of paper at all.

[SoCalDemocrat]

63. how about we jus t leave it alone

This is not a "big" issue. Now that we have no legislative power it's also something we cannot do anything about at the federal level.

[mondo joe]

67. We already tried leaving it alone. I'm suggesting exploiting it.

We tried playing it safe and doing nothing already.

[MsTryska]

66. reframe the entire debate as Benefits Equality. nt

nt

[hexola]

69. McGreevey....

...big setback...

[MrTriumph]

74. Time Mag's Person of the Year