Poll: Should Gays & Lesbians Go Back Into the Closet to Win in November?

[David Zephyr]

There have been an amazing number of highly offensive posts lately here at the DU boldly suggesting that gay and lesbians should shut up about our civil rights and the great legal injustices that we as homosexual Americans suffer here in the United States. I have been surprised to see such threads permitted here seeing as to how ugly the theme of these threads have been.

And, to be completely frank, I have been astonished by the nearly hostile nature of many of the posts here suggesting that queer people like me will cost the Democrats the election in November if we do not "shut up" about our quest for equal protection under the law.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Hell fucking no!

and I think my candidate would agree with me

[maddezmom]

2. Gays & Lesbians Should Never Subjugate Their Voices Agains Injustice.

wow, I'm the first to vote!

[spooky3]

3. Gays and lesbians are as important as any other Democrats.

Eliminating employment discrimination is top priority. I'm not G/L, and I know there are a lot of other issues too, but it's outrageous that this is still permitted at the federal level.

[dsc]

4. We are one of the Democrats most loyal constituencies

and we also give much funding. We won't, and we shouldn't, sit down and shut up. We not only need to win we need to deserve to win. My rights aren't negotiable.

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. Oh, HELL NO!

I've fought too long and too hard to gain the respect of my family, peers and community (try that as a gay cop in the Corn Belt), and there's NO way in HELL I'm gonna 'shut up and make nice'! :grr:

[jpgray]

6. Christ no!

People are saying, and rightfully, that the GOP plans to USE gay marriage in a way that it divides the country. It is my opinion that this will backfire. All the major candidates support civil unions and have denounced the DOMA.

edit: I personally support gay "marriage", but will vote for a civil union supporter.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. No bleeping way!

My guy Clark says (in regards to the Patriot Act) "You can't sacrifice Liberty in order to defend it" That about sums it up with this question too.

[AP]

8. No. But if they could just tweak the message a little bit so that it's...

...about the downward and outward flow of political, econmic and cultural power.

For example, do we want gay marriage because the institution of marriage is such a wonderful thing that never subjugates anyone to accepting less than they deserve?

Or are we fighting for people to be able to joing together and have RIGHTS and duties which allow them to be effective economic units which can combat the shift of wealth up the wealth pyramid to corporations which benefit from low wages and workers with fewer options.

Leave the spiritual issues to the church. Let's fight for the MATERIAL issues: lets fight for health insurance benefits so that people don't have to be slaves to low paying, crappy jobs just because they're afraid of getting sick.

Married people have an easier time of getting on in our society not for the spiritual reasons, but because of the MATERIAL reasons -- because of the rights and the benefits. Lets focus on the material things.

How 'bout it?

[DemBones DemBones]

43. Good points. n/t

[youngred]

9. Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights are a winning issue

they should stand and stand proud

[IndianaGreen]

10. Discrimination against one, is discrimination against all!

Why should a Christian tell a Jewish gay couple that they cannot be married by a rabbi?

Why should we as Jews let Christians tell us who we can, and cannot marry?

Here is the point of view about gay marriage from rabbis Dennis and Sandy Sasso of Indianapolis's Beth-El Zedeck Temple, the Conservative/Reconstructionist congregation of which I am a member:

Dennis & Sandy Sasso
A different view of Bible's message on homosexuality

January 20, 2004

When Britney Spears marries a young man in Las Vegas on a whim and then quickly files for an annulment, what does that tell us about the sanctity of marriage in our society? When men and women in marital relationships abuse one another, are disloyal and disrespectful, then the holiness of the marital covenant is debased. But when two people of the same or different gender commit to a loving partnership based on trust, caring and commitment then, most assuredly, God blesses that relationship, and society should do likewise.

• The Bible tells us that homosexual relations are prohibited.

Taking the Bible literally, out of its historical and social context, is dangerous. Strangely enough, many of those who claim to take the Bible at its word usually have selective hearing. The same people who listen to what Scripture says in regard to homosexual behavior turn a deaf ear to what it says, for example, regarding the violation of the Sabbath or the observance of dietary laws.

The Bible speaks of animal sacrifice, slavery and polygamy. However, a religious community in search of God begins to understand that these are not eternal divine mandates but historic human constructs. Animal sacrifice ceases; slavery and polygamy are outlawed with good "religious" reasons. The scriptural texts that speak of kindness to animals, of human freedom, of forgiveness and understanding testify against those texts that preach the opposite.

In other words, we must learn to look at the overarching divine principles of love and justice and learn to use sacred texts that teach the values of equality, human dignity and fairness to critique those texts that do not. We must understand the few negative biblical references to homosexuality in light of those verses that counter such statements by affirming that all people are created in the image of God and that celebrate human companionship.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/113054-6897-021.html

[jpgray]

11. Exactly (nt)

[hellhathnofury]

12. No!

I wonder who the 6 are.

[David Zephyr]

13. Bingo!

Revealing, isn't it?

[hellhathnofury]

16. I'd image that some are freepers, but still.

[sandnsea]

14. The Pubs are going to pull you out anyway

Nope. Don't ever back down. The only thing I'd ask is whether gay marriage is worth losing civil unions. We can win civil unions. Gay marriage, I don't know.

[Kipepeo]

15. No way

That makes about as much sense to me as asking people of color and feminists to go back in the closet and be quiet so the Dems can win in the south.

What we need are more Democrats talking about the "Southern Strategy" and how Republicans employ politics of division to pick up votes from white southerners. As long as they can convince you that people of color and women and gays and lesbians are getting "special rights"(!) they can distract you from the fact that their policies hurt you just as much as *those people* (whoever *those people* are to you).

Jesse Jackson said recently that white southerners need to start voting their economic dreams instead of their racial fears. I think this could be applied to the silly fears conservative voters have of gays and lesbians too. We need our party to start talking about how Republicans depend on those fears to keep people from looking at their policies: their cuts in education, health insurance, and their destruction of the economy & the environment.

[burrowowl]

18. Welcome to DU Kipepeo!

Good reply.

[diamondsoul]

17. Holy Moly, Man!

Don't DO that to me! I almost blew a gasket that would have had me tombstoned for sure! LOL

My answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT! Everyone in this country is entitled to mate with the partner who suits them, provided both are capable of consent, period. (I know I'm not in Freep-land here, but I've heard it so many times it's habit now)

[brainshrub]

19. I would rather lose the election than force gays into the closet.

My brother is gay, and any party that doesn't want his vote sure as hell isn't getting mine.

[Seldona]

68. My sentiments exactly.

Let the Repubs cater to the bigots.

I would rather go down, right and swinging, than win on a platform like that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. Junior announced his support for bigotry on Tuesday.

And Cheney applauded him, no less. I hope to Hell his daughter disowned him. I think we got a good chance of getting the votes of the Log Cabin Republicans after this expression of hatred from Team Bush. We have an excellent candidate running who just happenned to sign a civil unions bill as governor. A guy whose record of fiscal responsibility is already attracting some sane conservatives. Would the LCR's vote for Dean? I believe they would.

Now after that, as I said in that other godawful thread the other day... the key is not to let the 'Pukes control the debate and code it in their sickening language of "destroying the American family"

Shit... George Bush & Dick Cheney have destroyed 500 American families and Allah knows how many Iraqi families since last March. Cheney's destroying his own family by attempting to write homophobia into the fucking constitution. They are no champions of family values by any stretch of the imagination.

Just my 2 cents as a "straight but not narrow breeder" :)

[AndyTiedye]

32. The Republicans ALWAYS Control the Debate

They Own the Media.

But turning our backs on gay people would not only be morally bankrupt,
it won't stop the Republicans from using homophobia (and every other kind of bigotry) against us.
The bigots aren't going to vote Democratic anyway.

The Catholic church has obviously decide to assist in the new homophobia offensive
to distract people from their child-abuse scandals, and ensure continued
leniency from the Justice Department. A different AG might invoke RICO
against a church hierarchy that went to such lengths to protect such
heinous criminals for so many years.
They are further motivated to stump for Bush* by their hope of getting rid of Roe v.Wade, despite the fact that most Americans support it.
We need to expose the hypocracy of their position. Hopefully that will
minimize the number of votes that they will deliver to Bush*.

We are going to need all the help we can get.
We all have a great deal to lose if Bush* gets reSelected.

[cally]

21. No

If that's what this party ever promotes, then I don't want to be a part of it. Sometimes you just have to stand up for what's the moral stance. We have to promote civil rights and not bow to the bigotry and hate of the other party.

We all know that Republicans will try to use GLBT rights as a wedge issue. Too many times in the past Dems tried to not take a stand and our party looks weak and in some ways is. The answer to Republican divisiveness is to make it clear that the Dem party stands for civil rights for all.

[kentuck]

22. No, not at all, but....

they should outsmart the Repubs...Gays should understand that they have a friend in just about every candidate that is running. What do they have to do to validate that? Do you trust them to be on your side? If so, you should not demand that your issue be upfront and center, if that is going to affect the nominee negatively or help the Repubs positively. Keep on fighting but don't go back in the closet. Just put on your camouflage and be ready to do battle like everyone else. Do you want progress or do you want the attention?

[dsc]

23. We trusted Clinton

and we didn't get a lot for that trust. I honestly am not sure I trust either Edwards or Clark. Neither have track records on this issue at all.

[kentuck]

24. That is true, dsc.....

But most folks, including most gays and lesbians, I think, feel that the stakes are much higher this time around? I could be wrong.

[dsc]

30. I know that

but that doesn't mean I have to vote against my interest in the primaries. Dean stood up for me and he has my vote no matter what happens before Ohio. After that, if one of Clark or Edwards get the nod I will want some idea that they do care and have a reason to care about this issue.

[corporatewhore]

25. i would never shut up about the injustices i face because of my skincolor

or my sexuality

[Democrats unite]

26. To the nine of you that have voted...

"Gays & Lesbians Are Jeopardizing the Democrats to Win in November." So far. You can kiss my Lilly white ass. I see am glad to see you didn't post your comments. I hope your happy in your bigoted little closet.

[Padraig18]

27. Not even with a gun held to my head

I am who I am, and discrimination against me for my sexual orientation is just as wrong as discrimination against someone for the skin color, national origin, etc. . I will NOT be 'quiet' and fade into the background. as the saying goes, "I'm here and I'm queer---get over it!". :hi:

[mitchum]

28. No

[Sly Kal]

29. no

Never

[Mr. McD]

31. No, and if the Democratic party adopts that mentality

They F*****g deserve to lose.

[dsc]

33. kick

[arewethereyet]

34. first off, they can do as they damn well please

realistically if they wish to advnace their cause its not sensible at the national level. Work locally and at the Congressional level. Those guys are the ones who make legislation, not the President.

On the national level if you ask if gay rights are important the answer is 'no'. If you ask at more localized levels the answer can often be yes. Enough of those 'yes's gets things done. Enough of those 'yes's allow presidential candidates to embrace this without jeopardize their chances.

So the real question is, do you want attention or do you want results ?

The choice is yours.

[bicentennial_baby]

35. So who are the 12 cowards?

Hm? Pipe up follks, let's hear why you voted for Option #1...I'm all ears. :mad:

[arewethereyet]

36. see 34

If I were in this camp I would prefer results.

[DFLer4edu]

37. I didn't vote because this is a push poll!

I firmly believe that gays & lesbians should never subjugate their voices against injustice. I don't think that gays & lesbians will cost the democrats the election if they speak their mind about their quest for equal protection under the law. However, I don't think it is smart for our presidential candidate or our party to make it a main issue in the 2004 presidential election because it's not what we can likely win on. America is divided on the issue and it is a fight we are unlikely to win in the campaign(key word campaign). Should it be that way, no. Is it ridiculous, unjust, and bigoted? yes! However, it is the way it is. America is divided on the issue and it isn't one we are likely to win in a campaign (key word campaign). If you want to rule you have to win.
That is the campaign. If we win the election and can pass laws that give gays & lesbians equal protection under the law, then I am all for it. A president has a lot more power than a candidate. Fight the battle and win it!
This is a push poll. The first option is ridiculous! It says: "Gays & Lesbians Are Jeopardizing the Democrats to Win in November." If a person's vote is hinging on whether or not the candidate supports gay marriage or civil unions, THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO GAYS OR LESBIANS! This is a push poll.
And to those who are calling the people who voted for the second option cowards, do you really think you're advancing your cause by calling them cowards? If you think they're wrong, debate the issue with them. If you think I'm wrong, debate it with me, but don't attack me personally, attack my ideas.

P.S. Which candidate do I think can do this? Dean

[cindyw]

38. Hell no.

Enough said.

[DFLer4edu]

39. Tell me why

Tell me why it's, "hell no." Don't just say enough said, tell me your ideas, if you want to change my opinion you're not going to do it by telling me Hell no! Enough said. Give me something, change my mind. I'll hear you out if you hear me out.

[Kipepeo]

42. Why the hell no

DFLer...I kind of laid out my reasoning above already, but essentially I think the answer to something like 'should gays and lesbians be quiet until we win?' is hell no because I don't think anything good comes of shunning a large part of one's base or more specifically, from shunning the rights of a large part of the American public. Do I think gay and lesbian rights should be the *main* issue in the Democratic campaign? No...I don't really think there is any *main* issue. I view all of the issues as part of the whole. The whole being that our current administration is not good for anyone....and there are a host of issues you can point to to show why, gay and lesbian rights being one of them. They fail on all issues.

But I *do* think gay and lesbian rights are a main issue in society right now because I view it like the civil rights movement....we still have a LONG way to erasing the effects of racist and sexist policies in the US but we haven't even made heterosexist policies illegal yet. If the civil rights movement is a toddler right now, then the gay and lesbian rights movement is just being born. And the Democrats need to take a stand for equality for ALL on this issue if they truly want to be the party of the people.

My 2 cents.

Edited to add: Incidentally I am for Dean also...although I did like Clark's 'come hither' appeal on the recent 'Advocate' cover. :D

[DFLer4edu]

44. That's reasonable, but answer me this...

I want to clarify that I didn't say the main issue(I don't think), I said a main issue. I agree with you on what we need to work for. Where we differ is how to make it happen. So here is my question to you:
Do you think it would help or hurt the democratic candidate(once we only have only one) to put a spotlight on the issue of gay rights? Why do you think what you do?

P.S. Glad to hear you support Dean! Here is my stance on campaigning and political strategy in regards to Dean's stance on gay rights. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=169307&mesg_id=170869&page=

Edited to add: Do you think this is a push poll? Why do you think what you do?

[Kipepeo]

48. For DFLer4edu

Sorry I didn't respond earlier...I didn't see your response. You're right; you said "a main issue," not "the main issue," but I just heard it wrong.

In answer to your question though (about putting a spotlight on gay and lesbian rights) I am still not sure I understand because I don't see any of the issues as spotlighted, but that as a whole the Democrats beat Bush on ALL of the issues. I guess what you are asking might have more to do in my mind with how a candidate presents themselves to the south (where I am from). And in that regard I think they shouldn't try to hide their record on gay and lesbian rights...I think that is akin to hiding support for affirmative action, for example, and I think it only gives Republicans more long-term ground if we seem ashamed or reluctant to take a stand for an issue like that (see my very first post in this thread).

I think we need to be unabashedly supportive of equal rigths for all BUT I don't think we need to play on their (the Republicans') field. For example, when they try to make us seem craaaAzy or out of touch for supporting abortion rights or affirmative action or gay and lesbian rights, I think we need to TALK about how they DEPEND on votes of fear in the south to win....how they depend on people to vote their racial and homophobic and sexist fears instead of their economic dreams. We need to turn the spotlight on how their policies are bad for all Americans and how they try to keep people from noticing that by turning the focus on some kind of drummed up "Those people (women or people of color or gays and lesbians) are getting special rights!" charge.

I hope that answers your question. And I'm down for Dean because I think he's the one to fight the Republicans on our turf, and not on their fear issues.

edited to add: I am not sure what a push poll is! Sorry.

[DFLer4edu]

52. Push Polls

A push poll is where the author of the poll has a specific ax to grind and words the poll such that it is one sided. They are looking for a specific result in the poll, not what people actually think. The wording of this poll is ridiculous as I pointed out in my first post. To say nothing of the title of the thread and what the author of the poll writes before they give the poll. The author of the poll makes no qualms about stating his opinion while giving the poll. That is a push poll.

As for does that answer my question, no, sorry, it doesn't. I'm not saying hide their record, I'm saying that gay rights shouldn't be a main topic of their stump speech(that would be putting a spotlight on it). And in principle I agree with you, but I think that it is currently not a sound political strategy. Your answer doesn't make clear whether you support it because it is the right thing to do(which it is) or because it is sound political strategy. When I ask the question below I'm not asking about what is philosophically right, I am asking what is going to get the candidate elected. NOT what is the right thing to do.

Do you think it would help or hurt the democratic candidate(once we only have only one) to put a spotlight on the issue of gay rights? Why do you think what you do?

P.S. Does that answer your question on push polls?

Edited to add: I just realized that the hell no I responded to wasn't yours and it wasn't a response to my post. In which case, I understand the hell no. Whoops, well, it's still an interesting discussion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. Funny, America was ready for gay rights when Clinton promoted them

[DFLer4edu]

57. Give me something to back that up

Sorry, but the Bush Presidency is the first one I have been "politically awake" for, so I don't know whether there is any truth to what you just said. The thing I do know about Clinton and gay rights is that he is responsible for don't ask don't tell. Give me something to read and I'll consider what you said.

[MrSlayer]

40. An emphatic "Fuck No!".

Why should the Gay community minimize themselves? It's ridiculous that we even have to refer to them as a "different" community. Americans are Americans and everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. Again this is a BASIC right under the Constitution. We should have been far beyond this years ago. Humanity disgusts me.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Terry McCauliffe wants gay money, but wants gays to sit quietly

in the back of the bus.

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. Hell No!

The republicans would like nothing better.

I have been astonished by the nearly hostile nature of many of the posts here suggesting that queer people like me will cost the Democrats the election in November if we do not "shut up" about our quest for equal protection under the law.

Whoever posted that crap should be ashamed and the next time you see that kind of post....call them on it! Do not let it slide. That is a reprehensible thing to say!

[jsw_81]

45. We shouldn't go back into the closet

But we shouldn't do anything stupid, either. We need to remember that tens of millions of Americans are extremely uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, mostly because of childhood religious indoctrination (I would call it brainwashing, but that debate is for another thread) or absurd stereotypes (e.g. Queer Eye), and we shouldn't do anything to make the situation worse. In other words, no more crazy parades in San Francisco or New York, no more extreme, in-your-face confrontations, and no more heckling of Democratic candidates who don't agree with us 100 percent of the time.

We should instead follow the lead of people like Tammy Baldwin and help Middle America understand that we're not the evil, dirty child molesters that so many Republicans say we are. We need people to understand that we're their brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and co-workers. We're the young gay couple trying to start a business on Main Street. We're the elderly lesbian couple who have been together for fifty years. We're the friendly, middle-age man who goes to the Unitarian church every Sunday and volunteers down at the homeless shelter. We're doctors and lawyers and and professors and police officers and engineers and factory workers. Once Middle American understands that, they'll also understand why we deserve the same rights and privileges that everyone else takes for granted.

[Jerseycoa]

47. Of course not

:eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

49. Haven't you said that you didn't care about marriage as long as

you could have a civil union? I mean the singular you, David Zephyr, not the plural you (gay people.) I don't want to misquote you but I don't think I just imagined your saying to KoKo1 a while back that you didn't care about calling your partner "husband" or your relationship "marriage," that it was rights that were important.

I think that's a practical stand because same-sex marriage is far more socially and politically controversial than civil unions.

Same-sex relationships aren't new, of course, and I've heard it said that the Church of England, and possibly the Catholic Church, blessed such relationships at some time hundreds of years ago, though I don't know how much evidence there is for that. I think the claims are based on the work of only one or two researchers, not proven beyond any doubt. If it did occur, it seems to have been an uncommon and short-lived practice, and I can't recall hearing of any evidence of legally recognized same-sex unions, making this a weak argument.

In any case, Western societies have rarely, if ever, accepted polygamy or polygyny, either, so marriage laws don't only exlude same-sex couples. Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman, even if Dubya said it. Any change in one man-one woman marriage law or tradition would be a major change, perhaps much bigger than racial integration or womens' equality, and neither of those have been fully achieved.

Using interracial marriage as an argument in favor of same sex marriage is weak, too. Few of the dominant race in the U.S. (whites) today would argue that non-whites are inferior races (or a different species of animal, as was once believed.) But males and females are quite different and one of each is normally required to create a child, which has always been a main purpose of marriage.

Not many people would argue that an adult who is hospitalized shouldn't be able to have any visitor he or she wants to see, especially if the sick or injured person is in danger of dying, and even if the parents of the patient object. I can't imagine many seriously arguing that an adult shouldn't be able to leave his or her property to anyone he or she chooses, either, or include whoever he or she shares a home with on an insurance plan.

So I think the best course is to argue for rights, not rites. In other words, argue for rights and not for legally redefining the word marriage to apply to same-sex commitments. Legalized civil unions would neither preclude having a religious commitment ceremony, in faiths that choose to allow it, or calling it a religious marriage, for that matter. But just as seperation of church and state means that churches can't control the state (thought they can lobby it), separation of church and state also means the state shouldn't tell churches they must perform ceremonies uniting same-sex couples, or that they can't.

[IndianaGreen]

51. If a rabbi or Episcopalian priest wants to marry a gay couple

why should the State be prevented from issuing a marriage license simply because some fundamentalist puke is losing sleep over the issue?

Isn't legislation like DOMA using the law to impose a sectarian view on marriage? The same argument could be used to force gays out of certain professions such as teaching. Is that what we want?

[DemBones DemBones]

63. So Howard Dean is a "fundamentalist puke"

because he admits to being "uncomfortable" with gay marriage? It's not only fundamentalists who have difficulty accepting same-sex marriage.

He's the hero of GLBTs now for signing that Vermont bill legalizing civil unions, but he's not indicated he's going to lobby for same-sex marriage.
The one time I've seen him asked about the issue was on a Larry King show months ago, and he was waffling all over the place, trying different dodges to avoid a yes or no answer.

DOMA is about protecting a long-standing societal definition of marriage, accepted by atheists as well as the religious for centuries. Hardly a sectarian view, just a basic social definition that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Neither polygyny nor polygamy has been acceptable in Western societies. Marriage between siblings or between parent and child has also been forbidden.

I'm not particularly in favor of amending the constitution for any reason myself but I don't think it follows that DOMA would result in forcing gays out of professions such as teaching. It wouldn't impact civil unions for same-sex couples, either, as far as I can see.

[dsc]

64. Please get your facts straight before posting in the future

First, the Constitutional Amemndent, which is what we are discussing here, would end civil unions and domestic partnerships at the state level. Every single expert on this has said exactly and precisely that. The only people claiming it wouldn't are the people who are proposing it. In short, you are absolutely, wrong on this.

Further, he didn't dodge on Larry King as you claimed. He gave a clear, unambiguous answer. He would make states give the rights but they could call it what they wished (marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, etc). Again, please try to be informed before posting.

[David Zephyr]

61. You Remember Correctly & Why Originating Post Here Mentions Not "Marriage"

Man, some people actually read and remember the words, not just the impression. Thanks DemBones DemBones.

Thank you for remembering that post. I have not changed my opinion, although I am probably in a minority within the G&L community on this.

For the record, I worship at the altar at the wall of separation between state and church.

Did you come up with that: "Rights not Rites"? Interesting.

:hi:

[DemBones DemBones]

66. Yes, I remembered that post of yours, maybe because

it reflected a more moderate position and I think it's realistic and pragmatic to be moderate at times. It never seemed sensible to me to insist on fighting for something that's very controversial if you can get what you're after in another, less controversial, way, especially if you get beat up less, too.

As a woman who's old enough to have entered the work force when the want ads were still segregated into jobs for men and jobs for women, I've had some experience circumventing the rules --- and getting along with (and around) men who stood in my way. And the Rolling Stones told me "You can't always get what you want, But if you try, sometimes, you get what you need."

Yes, "Rights, Not Rites" was my idea. It seems that rights are the main issue and talking about rites complicates it and creates more opposition, too. And I think that a lot of the "opposition" is not so much being against gays as it is befuddlement at the entire concept of marriage (man and woman, bride and groom, etc.) being radically changed. Change is hard to deal with. Civil unions are a new concept so people don't have to change the ideas they've held all their lives. It's like "Same-sex marriage? What the?" vs. "Gay civil unions? So what?"

If you say "gay rights" people think "special rights" but if you ask "Shouldn't independent adults be able to leave their money or house to whomever they choose?" or the visits in hospital question, people think "Yeah, that's only fair." Then you point out who is being denied fair treatment. It's all in the presentation. IMHO.

:hi:

[KoKo]

70. DemBones you and I are in agreement here, and that's why I was puzzled

with David's post and replied below. I felt he was a Rights not Rites
advocate. Your reasoning is much more eloquently stated than my question to him. And, I like the "Rights not Rites" idea, although I know that isn't satisfactory to some folks now who truly want more. There would be much wider approval if the focus was on "Civil Unions," instead of allowing the issue to be framed negatively by Wingers and those who don't understand the difference.

Thanks...:-)'s

[Doomsayer13]

50. No way

Compromising to win is one thing, but to ignore the blatant bigotry and human injustice that the gay community suffers year in and year out would be contrary to the Democratic party that fought and still fights for Civil rights. This is one priciple where I wont bend.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Don't talk about gays. Don't talk about the war. Don't talk about

affirmative action. Don't talk about abortion. Don't talk about anything that isn't "safe". Convince everyone that you're a "moderate" and willing to compromise on everything. Don't mention the "L" word.

Everyone knows that the American people prefer pablum. Don't be passionate, don't tell the truth, and, for God's sake Don't Scream!

IMO, the idea that the only way to "win" is to mimic the "moderate" republicans is to become "moderate" republicans(D).

We had 8 years of a "moderate" Democrat who spent his time in office compromising, triangulating, being bi-partisan. What did we get? Someone who was "not as bad". Someone who folded on Universal Health Coverage, someone who backed "don't ask, don't tell", someone who watered down environmental laws, etc.

If you want more of the same, vote for the DLC wing of the party. The ones telling us that the war in Iraq is just being "run badly". That the Patriot Act has "good points". That love to talk about the economy and little else.

Pardon my "harumph". Or, maybe that should be a Scream.

[KoKo]

55. I didn't see the posts you are talking about, but I did reply to one post

about "issues getting derailed" here last night. And, I said that arguing about "Gay Marriage instead of focusing on the legal right to Civil Unions" would derail us just like getting caught up in the "Gun Issue."

I wasn't clear, David what your destinction is? Do you mean that holding candidates feet to the fire over Marriage in Church (which is still very controversial and a hot button) is more important than achieving legal rights for "Civil Unions?" Are you comfortable about the way the message is being put out there by the RW'ers in such an inflammatory way?

I just don't see how falling into the trap of having the issue portrayed as "Gay Marriage" will help us get a Dem President? It would allow the RW to focus on "Gay Marriage" with most folks thinking that means the Church Ceremony (which government can't legislate) rather than what the issue really is of legal recognition of Gay Union for benefits. I thought they were separate, but the RW'ers will fuse it and cause the BFEE issues to be totally lost in a National Debate over whether Gays should be married in Churches.

At least I thought that's what the issue was? :shrug:

On Edit: I voted No.....I figured you would know that...but others here might not.

[goobergunch]

56. Option #2

And to the 15 that have voted Option #1, _|_.

[IronLionZion]

58. A Democratic president will support civil rights

Bush won't, so the key is to beat Bush by any means necessary.

Terminology is extremely important in this election so instead of "gay marriage", they might campaign in favor of "civil unions" or instead of "gay rights" it might be "civil rights" or "equal rights". Gays will have their rights with a Democratic president, the only difference is the terminology used to win the damn election. My favorite is "human rights" because it encompasses all rights and is loosely defined.

[OhioStateProgressive]

59. i think Moderates should go back into the closet

but I am not gay, so I guess it isn't fair for me to make a choice...I mean, to deny someone of his or her right to express themselves politically is a bit of lack of what America is supposed to be about

PS....I voted yes to piss people off

[NashVegas]

60. No, Don't Go Back in the Closet

But I really wouldn't mind if *some* people would at least consider what photo opportunites they make in Gay Pride marches.

[morgan2]

62. they shouldnt

and neither should straight people. I don't see how anyone could support a candidate who says gay marriage should be a "states" issue. Anyone with have a sense can see they're just saying that because they don't want to take a position. Its similar to what people used to say about slavery. Let the states decide. Obviously its not as severe, but its still the same idea. These cowardly politicians don't deserve anyones support. Just because its only affecting a small part of the populations rights doesn't make it any better.

[Forkboy]

65. A perfect of example of why I dont believe

"winning is everything".

[DFLer4edu]

69. From an idealist

to an idealist. As much as I agree with you, the exception is politics. If you want to rule you have to win!

[Enjolras]

67. Selling out your principles is NOT victory!!

We should ignore the issue of gay marriage and gays in general, to better our chances of victory in November. We should ignore the issue of abortion, to avoid offending southerners and catholics and thus better our chances of victory in November. We should ignore the issue of reversing all of the Bush tax cuts, to keep from looking hostile to the middle class and thus better our chances of victory in November. We should nominate a guy with a rock solid record on national defense, wheter we like him or not, to avoid looking weak on security and thus better our chances of victory in November. We should pray loudly and publicly at every opportunity, in front of every TV camera, to keep from alienating the evangelical community and thus better our chances of victory in November.

Why do we keep hearing this Bush-it? It sound so painfully ..... Republican!!

If we still have a soul, it is not worth selling it just to win one presidential election. I promise you there will be life after the November elections, even if Chimpy gets another term. And if he doesn't, we have to live with whomever we managed to install for at least another 4 years. Do you really want it to be Bush lite, and not much lighter at that?

Don't we want to be able, even in defeat, to tell America that we at least stick to our principles? I believe we will be thankful down the road if we can do that. Again, there will be life after November, no matter what happens. Please keep that in mind. :think: