Liberalism use to stand for more than Gay Rights and Abortion on Demand...

[WCGreen]

American Liberalism has it roots in the progressive movements that sprouted up around Abolitionists, who, if you remember your history, were mostly motivated by a belief in the All Mighty and a deep conviction that Slavery of any kind was contrary to the Biblical teachings of Jesus...

From abolitionist victories came the fight against corporate power, then called trust. This was the focal point that pulled in the Suffragette movement as well as those calling for public schools, public health programs, a federal income tax and a federal Food and Drug Administration to regulate the safety of the food system. People were dying, after all.

One key factor in all of this was that this urge to reform came from eastern Republicans and Midwestern populists. All through this spasm of “do-gooderness” ran a thread of religion, especially Catholic and Jewish, but also the more liberal protestant sects such as Unitarians. The Union movement was embraced by the immigrant Catholic and Jewish workers.

Now, Liberalism seems to have forgotten its roots. The first word out of any Liberal should be how to recapture lost workers rights. For if our men and women can’t go to work and be treated with respect and are paid a living wage, what matters if they are gay or straight? What matters if you have the right to bear arms if you can’t even afford to purchase one?

Second, we need to reenergize the fight against monopoly ownership and support candidates who are willing to stand up for the corruption that consolidated corporate power has wrought upon this great country.

That’s it. All else will fall into place.

After the 1994 election, I went to a progressive convention in Detroit to find out how we could re-energize the Democratic Party. It was good idea, I thought, cathartic even. But after the initial bitch and moan session, they decided to break off into small working groups. The folks on stage, and this was a huge hall, about 1,500 people, started to count off the various caucuses and where they would meet. Gays over here, Lesbians over there, Pro-choice down in front, Hispanics over by the podium, you get the drift…. And they went on for a while and I it dawned on me right then and there why we had lost. I remember raising my hand, an out of place white guy in a suit, and the “facilitator” called on me and I said, in a half hearted attempt to bring a little humor to this wake, “Excuse me, where do the slightly pissed off white guys go?”

The three days were spent in workshops that were right out of a Newt Gingrich attack ad. A lot of feeling was discussed with little to no agenda developed.

It was then that I knew the Democratic Party was going to be in the wilderness for some time.

The people who were the backbone of the party were nudged out, the workers, the Catholics, the middle class were literally jettisoned in favor of lifestyle politics that was as foreign to them as America was to their immigrant ancestors.

Don’t get me wrong. I am strongly pro-choice and for the rights of gay couples to join in any union they wish. No one should be denied rights in the country, period.

But if we continue to be held captive by special interests groups that demand absolute fealty to their cause, we are doomed as a majority political party. And just where does that get our agenda.

People who claim, on this board, that Harold Ford or Bob Casey are the second coming of Hitler because they are Christian or Pro-Life or are against Gay Marriage had better wake up and smell the coffee.

Ask yourself this, would you rather remain forever in the minority, fighting the windmills in your mind, or would you rather have a seat at the table. Your choice.

[JeffR]

1. Thoughtful and well-argued

And a lot of truth spoken. I expect some fireworks to come, however.:hide:

[Zhade]

69. Gee, ya think? Someone dismisses equal rights as unimportant, you expect fireworks?

Why would you ever think that?

Sheesh!

"But if we continue to be held captive by special interests groups that demand absolute fealty to their cause, we are doomed as a majority political party" is just code for "throw whoever we need to under the bus in order to win".

Well, as someone whose rights are being denied, FUCK THAT.

[JeffR]

83. I'm absolutely on your side about rights

but I don't read this as code at all. I'm not happy with the wording of what you quoted, but there's a reality on the ground in parts of this great sick country that the OP highlights pretty well. For someone my age, the choice came down to molitov cocktails or electoral politics. I chose the latter, a little reluctantly. If real change is ever going to come to Amerika, it ought to start with getting the Democrats back into a majority in both houses. Then retaking the White House. Then, gradually, retaking the Supreme Court, appointment by appointment.

If this doesn't happen, we're all going to be permanantly yearning in vain for rights that are already guaranteed by the Constitution, as the Republicans rescind them one by one. It's bad now, but with these bastards retaining control, it'll get a lot worse.

This is retail politics, on the ground, in districts so different from one another it's hard to believe sometimes it's all part of the same country. And the big tent needs to be made even bigger before any one of us gets to move into the mansion on the hill. My two cents.

[pnwmom]

143. Retail politics, indeed. Good post, JeffR.

[LostinVA]

164. Yes, it IS code, and we all know it -- we've been hearing it for years

[JeffR]

176. I can only imagine the evil hate-filled crap you've been hearing, LVA

and I'm for equal rights for everybody. I really don't want to speak for the OP and didn't believe from the outset that everything set forth was correct, but by the same token I don't feel that the OP's opinion needs to be read at anything other than face value.

Certainly people are going to disagree on DU, but it's unfortunate to see people immediately inferring things about each other's motives and agenda. This is between you and the OP so I'll cut it short. But to reiterate what I said elsewhere, if the choice is between positioning ourselves as progressives to where we can get something done about making this country what it should be, or remaining shut out of power permanently, I'll take the former. That entails working with people who aren't as progressive as we might like. It also entails listening to their concerns and trying to grasp their point of view as we would hope they listen to ours.

[nofurylike]

117. very well said, Zhade. thank you. "FUCK THAT"! yes. eom

[pnwmom]

145. Oh yes, the profanity always strengthens any argument.

[nofurylike]

246. please follow the thread. that message was one of support

and appreciation for, and to, Zhade, not an "argument."

thank you.


peace

[TechBear_Seattle]

199. I agree entirely

As far as I'm concerned, the statement "real politics" is an excuse, not an explanation. It is the pious mouthing of people who wants to appear like they care without having to commit to actually doing anything.

[JeffR]

204. Retail, not real, politics was the issue

Winning majorities in Congress. Would we rather work on incremental progress with a party that has some receptiveness to it, or would be rather cede control to a party that has virtually institutionalized hatred, divisiveness and bigotry? That may be a lousy choice, but what other choice is there?

[TechBear_Seattle]

205. "Would you rather slit your own wrists or be murdered in your sleep?"

From my point of view, that is the choice being offered. I reject both options.

[JeffR]

208. That's how you see the choice? Really?

Find a way forward or flush everything else down the drain is how I see it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

222. For the most part, yes, as do many gay people

A great many of us are still very bitter over the way President Clinton signed the "Defense" of Marriage Act, making unconstitutional bigotry into federal law. We are still very bitter over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which has caused more harm to gay men and women in the US military than the previous policy. We are still very bitter at the way Democrats, on the whole, see nothing wrong with continuing to to ignore civil rights problems, especially problems THEY THEMSELVES BROUGHT INTO BEING.

I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the one and only campaign promise being, "We won't kill you outright." I'm tired of constant betrayal. I'm tired of being ordered to vote a given way, as if my vote was not mine to give as I see fit, as if I didn't even have a fundamental right to the elective franchise. Each and every election, Democrats spend less time trying to woo gay voters into bed with them and instead just rape us because, after all, it will be much worse if the Republicans remain in control. I'm easy but dammit all, at least make a pretense of foreplay!

I want to vote Democratic, believe me. But I demand respect, too. I demand to be a part of the process, to have my voice listened to and honestly considered, not just dismissed as irrelevant. As long as the Democratic Party continues to marginalize me and mine, I will not vow my unquestioning loyalty.

[JeffR]

227. Beautifully said

And you're right; this party dropped the ball on civil rights a long time ago. Ironically, the OP was also making a point about inclusiveness and alienation, before getting into that "gay agenda" stuff, which turned my stomach.

The struggle to reform the party never ends, while the struggle to oust the Republicans is an immediate problem in front of us.

The party power structure, especially the DLC types, are so shortsighted they don't realize that inclusiveness under the banner of equal rights for all people is precisely what would cement majority status for Democrats. The rank-and-file Democratic voters, especially women, gays and people of color, have paid the price for this myopia.

No-one's vote or voice should be taken for granted. I hope you vote (D) this year, for what I think is a way forward, but if you don't - for the reasons you've explained - no thinking person could blame you for it.

(God, it's getting impossible to keep up with this thread, even with high-speed!)

[Solly Mack]

248. Notice how when other people's rights are denied

they become "special interests groups"

See, for some people, there are human rights(and they mean white, male and straight)...and then there are those other people's rights...you know, those "special interests groups"

[WCGreen]

266. In the real world of politcs, several people and many organizations

put draconian strings on there endorsements and or financial support. It seems to those of us who have run for office and have worked on campaigns for twenty or thirty years that the all or nothing approach is more about getting a specific agenda in the spotlight and damn everything and everyone else...

That is not how you win an election that depends on bringing several diverse coalitions to the table...

In my personal experience, it was the Pro-Choice political organizations that demanded far too much from candidates who had districts that were polling heavily pro-life...

Here in Cleveland, the Gay, Lesbian and transgender organizations are involved in all aspects of the political process and have worked hard to get a place at the table and are now an intregal part of the primary process, forcing reluctant politcians to attend meetings, meet with leaders, and promote Human Rights....

[JeffR]

87. I'm psychic. I'm Kreskin. I'm Jeanne Dixon. I'm Nostradamus.

:popcorn:

[LostinVA]

162. Tell you what, YOU give some of your rights up for good

And get back to me. What's that? You wouldn't?

Yeah, duck into that fucking chimney -- you should be ashamed of yourself. As should the OP, but we already know what HE'S like.

[JeffR]

179. read my response to you above (and forgive me this silliness here)

:hi:

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. You've sure swallowed the Republican memes

How disappointing.

[WCGreen]

7. No, I haven't....

Over the years I ran for office in areas that should have been strongly Democratic only to have them abandon the party not because of Gay Rights or a strident Pro-Choice arguement but because they felt abandonded...

Before there was Move On, there was the AFL-CIO...

Before there was Emilies List, there was SEIU...

[The Magistrate]

19. That, Ma'am, Strikes Me As A Rather Pointless Comment

Whether you agree with the gentleman or not, he is obviously speaking from his own experience and perceptions.

The idea of "Republican memes" to dismiss discussion of the many difficulties in popular perception the Party actually does face is of no use in any case, and greatly over-rates the oppositions. Propaganda does not work widely unless it connects with something people already feel: indeed, the whole art of propaganda is to say things that will make the hearer say "That's just what I think!"

[Der Blaue Engel]

30. That, sir, strikes me as extraordinarily naive

This thread is full of right-wing talking points, and if you think it's pointless for me to recognize and draw attention to that, we greatly differ in our political philosophies.

edited for typo

[The Magistrate]

43. It Is One Of The Pleasure Of Age, Ma'am

To be called naive: it is about all that makes me smile nowadays....

It is a fact that the people of the country by and large view the left as being detatched from their everyday concerns, and occupied with items that strike them as frivolous and even other worldly. If we do not correct this, we will remain an essentially powerless minority within our nation's political life. A refusal to engage in honest self-criticism, emblemized by denouncing any pointing out of a real problem as just a product of rightist propaganda, or even as evidence of rightist allegiance, guarantees a dark result.

[Der Blaue Engel]

55. Frivolous

This is what I'm talking about. Civil rights are not frivolous. A woman's right to her own body is not frivolous. Sure, you're not saying they are, you're just saying the good people of middle America are, and we need to "be sensitive" to that.

This is not honest self-criticism. I think it's appalling dishonest, sir.

For what it's worth, it makes me smile that you seem to think I'm some young, idealistic hothead. It's nice to be mistaken for young once in a while.

[The Magistrate]

65. My Comment, Ma'am, Spoke Only Of My Own Age

Not of yours, and left untouched matters of temperament....

Like it or not, we exist politically in an electoral democracy, in which the business of gaining power is the business of getting the largest number of people to actively identify with your side and its standard bearers. This cannot be done successfully without taking into account the actual views of great numbers of people.

[Der Blaue Engel]

72. There are some principles that one must stand by regardless of popularity

because of convictions of the soul. For me, civil rights for all and a woman's right to choose are such principles.

(Darn it. I thought someone mistook me for young. Oh, well. :blush: :silly:)

[The Magistrate]

79. Perhaps, Ma'am

But that is something only to be done with clear understanding the consequences may well be victory for other views that will do great harm in power when they hold it, harm that may extend much further than simply denying the particular items you feel worth the sacrifice.

[Der Blaue Engel]

94. That is a false dichotomy

The choice is not victory for "my" cause versus victory for the greater good. (Though that appears to be the argument of the OP.)

These are not just "particular items," these are the fundamental questions of human rights.

[The Magistrate]

97. It Is Not A False Dichotomy, Ma'am

It is one you do not wish to engage. That you wish it did not have to wrestled with does not make it false.

[Der Blaue Engel]

101. I don't agree with you

That doesn't automatically make you right. I believe it to be false, and I am stating that even if it were so (which I do not believe), it still wouldn't make it acceptable to sacrifice anyone's human rights in hopes of winning more votes. That is the slippery slope being sold by the right to justify the Patriot Act and other erosions of our fundamental liberties. "If you don't sacrifice a little freedom, they may hit us with a nuclear weapon." No, I don't think so, but if it ends up being so, conceding certain rights in exchange for safety is still wrong.

[The Magistrate]

108. Nor Does Your Disagreeing Make Me Wrong, Ma'am

We take different views of the matter we are discussing, and must therefore necessarily each view the other as being mistaken, and proceed from that conviction in our exchanges.

[pnwmom]

99. But it often is a real outcome. For example, most progressives

including myself, were thrilled when the very liberal George McGovern won the Presidential primary.

Then he lost 49 states to Richard Nixon.

We would have been better off with a less liberal candidate who could have beaten Nixon, IMO.

[Der Blaue Engel]

105. But you see, you're using more liberal/less liberal

and I don't think it is that kind of issue. We're talking about fundamental human rights. I'll vote for a moderate candidate in a heartbeat, but I will not concede ANY human right as being negotiable.

edit for typo (again)

[nofurylike]

109. "but I will not concede ANY human right as being negotiable." yes!

well said, Der Blaue Engel.


peace!

[pnwmom]

110. ALL civil rights are NOW NEGOTIABLE, in this new Bush-world we're

living in. Civil rights for gays, for straights, for men, for women , for atheists, for people in non-acceptable religious faiths, etc etc.

The Constitution is up for grabs. The Bill of Rights is in shreds. Habeous corpus underlies all the other civil rights and Bush signed it away last week.

WE ARE IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY. This maybe be our last chance to stop the neo-cons. Maybe it's already too late, but we have to try.

And yes, I meant to yell.

[Der Blaue Engel]

114. I find myself wondering what MLK or Gandhi

would say about this topic. I can't see them advocating compromise on issues of human rights, no matter what the stakes. Maybe I'm mistaken about human nature in general. This thread is really depressing.

edited for spelling

[The Magistrate]

120. Doctor King, Ma'am

Made a point of refraining from demonstrations while "Bull" Connor was running for re-election, feeling that they would only increase the chance he would win.

It is a mistake to treat tactical considerations as questions of principle: they are different fields.

[Der Blaue Engel]

127. Another unequal comparison

Postponing taking to the streets in an act of disruptive civil disobedience does not equate to acquiescing to bigotry on major points of human rights as a matter of party policy.

How long do you propose that I keep my mouth shut, exactly, about the right to visit my partner in the hospital when she is dying, the right to be a parent to children I share with my partner, or the right to make medical decisions about my own body, to choose when or whether to bear children? How long do you want me to sit in the back of the bus, sir?

[pnwmom]

131. All I'm hoping for is that the NJ legislature will wait another 14

days before they bring the new marriage bill up for a vote. When it is actually more likely to pass than if the legislators had to vote on it tomorrow.

After waiting all these years, don't you think they can wait for two more weeks?

[Der Blaue Engel]

135. That is hugely different

from the sentiment in the OP and most of the rest of the thread. Of course I think it could wait two weeks. That's a reasonable request (although I don't think that such legislative decisions are made that simply). I'd have no problem with that if it were up to me to decide.

Personally, I don't believe this decision is actually going to have much of an impact on the election, but, sure, I'll give you that.

[pnwmom]

146. Thank you. That's all I ask.

I hope some people in NJ will call up their legislators.

[The Magistrate]

144. It Illustrates The Point, Ma'am

That not pressing a matter to the hilt at all times does not necessarily demonstrate a lack of commitment to achieving it. Wherever there is conflict, considerations of tactics and strategy cannot be ignored. There is a will opposed to yours in this matter, actively and skillfully pressing to achieve its desires, and it must be overcome for you to have what we both want.

[ThomCat]

224. But any right that get delayed

keeps getting delayed. Tomorrow never comes.

It's only when people get fed up and say "Right Now, Damn It," that things change. Who here is on the side of delaying rights indefinitely, and who here is saying "Right Now, Damn It?"

[Pithlet]

257. Exactly.

"It is a mistake to treat tactical considerations as questions of principle: they are different fields." Very well put, Sir.

I'm not convinced that the decision in NJ will hurt us all that much. I absolutely think it was the right call to make. But, I'm dismayed at the treatment of some people who feared this. It's a valid concern, and feeling that way doesn't make a person a homophobe, or willing to compromise on civil rights. It is reasonable and rational to assume that this decision could enrage bigots and drive them to the polls because of the timing. I know how elated many are about NJ's decision, and I'm sorry that the responses have put a damper on that. But that's as much the fault of the bigots who may indeed rush out to vote as it is for those pointing that fact out. I think the accusations of bigotry and claiming their views are RW talking points are unfair.

[The Magistrate]

288. In My View, Ma'am, That Is A Good Decision

And will have no measureable impact on the election. It does not, in itself, cause anything: it simply directs the Legislature to do something within a term of months to bring the state's laws into conformity with the state's constitution. It will be the legislature's actions that will spark a political brawl, if one occurs, but that will probably not be until the spring.

[pnwmom]

133. MLK was a pragmatist. He wouldn't want to see all our

Constitutional freedoms destroyed and our divided power government replaced by a one-party dictatorship. That's what I really believe we're facing .

You think your rights are limited now? Just wait till you see what the religious right has in store for you, if their party secures a permanent lock on power.

[ThomCat]

249. I think you're wrong.

He took people into the street to change people's perceptions of what was possible. He was guided by what was right, not what was offered.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

255. MLK believed in relentless non-violent resistance.

If you think the civil rights movement rolled over and waited for a safe time, then I suggest you go watch the documentary "Eyes on the Prize." Then, get back to me with your view on what MLK would have done in this case.

[ThomCat]

177. People who think civil right are negotiable always seem to

other people's civil rights on the table.
x(

[JeffR]

181. In the face of the evidence, I can't quite agree on that point

Mcgovern was the first Democratic candidate to be swiftboated, essentially. His campaign team was also a disaster. Plus the Nixonites cheated.

[Unvanguard]

157. But that perception is not so much based upon what the Left does advocate

as it is on what it does not.

In particular, the lack of an effective class analysis and a staunchly pro-worker economic policy erodes the capability for it to attain mass appeal.

Too much of the good stuff on the subject these days comes from highly marginalized groups whose political influence is negligible and who tend, unfortunately, to subscribe to a doctrinal fundamentalism that harms their cause and erodes their credibility.

Abandoning the cause of equality for gays and autonomy for women is likely to change absolutely nothing in this respect.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. But these particular talking points happen to be partly true, which is

why they have worked.

The Democratic party often acts as if behavioral issues are the sum-total of its platform, and the Republicans love to pretrend that this is so, because it fits in with their talking points.

If the Democrats were to rediscover their economic populism and their fervor for Constitional rights, they would disprove the Republican talking points.

[Zhade]

62. For starters, we're asking for EQUAL, not "gay", rights.

The OP's subject line opens with a blatant rightwing mischaracterization. Now, it may be unwitting, but it sure doesn't lend the poster's arguments any credibility.

[The Magistrate]

71. My Views On That, Sir

Are probably indistinguishable from yours, and the formulation you use here, of equal rights, is certainly a superior one: "Equal rights for all!" is a proper slogan, and the best way to pitch this particular fight. But that is not always how agitation on the subject comes across, and that can be a problem where it is necessary to collect large and broadly based coalitions of voters behind a Party and its candidates.

[Erika]

123. If you condone selling out, just state it.

Flowery language doesn't hide the intent.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

147. Show me where he condones selling out.

"Equal rights for all!" is a proper slogan, and the best way to pitch this particular fight.

Explain how that constitutes selling out.

"But that is not always how agitation on the subject comes across, and that can be a problem where it is necessary to collect large and broadly based coalitions of voters behind a Party and its candidates."

Now I know there are a lot of words in that sentence, but I suspect you can follow it just fine. In case you can't, let me help you out. He's describing the difference between his views and those of others who don't necessarily share them. It's the same point he has made in his posts throughout this thread.

I call bullshit on your attempt to mischaracterize his statements and smear him as a rightist.

[nofurylike]

130. "EQUAL, not 'gay', rights" - exactly, Zhade! thank you for your

strength and courage to persist in trying to reason on this scary thread!

i must go, but please know i admire you, and please feel my support.


peace and solidarity

[TechBear_Seattle]

201. Indeed n/t

[Sensitivity]

3. Reggae Culture is typically Anti-Abortion and not supportive of gay rights

-- Very conservative on those counts, but rather liberal in other respects
e.g. class struggle, equal rights, personal freedom, marijuana use

[Erika]

14. Yes, they would condone abandoning women and gay rights

Nothing I'm interested in, to be republican lite. In fact, if the dems want to be the minority party, let them announce they are no longer for women or gay rights.

[Sensitivity]

40. Miss the point -- Liberal, even radical is not equated with those issues

in much of the world.

Positions one way or the other on those issues should not define an
overall ideology or political party. Positions on these issues are
often a matter of faith, superstition and personal sentiment.

[Phredicles]

4. I'd point out that this emphasis is largely in response to the right's

obsession against abortion and gay rights.

If you want to widen the parameters of the debate, talk to those people. Enjoy!

[WCGreen]

8. We need to get elected first....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. But they harp on abortion and gay rights because we did first--

and even though I'm for these things, the Dems walked right into the Republicanites' trap by emphasizing these issues at the expense of the economic and political issues that had brought the New Deal coalition together.

The Dems were pushing issues that were offensive to the way many working class and rural people had been brought up, and they weren't offering them anything in return, such as aid for struggling farmers or protecting workers' rights, issues that would have been the heart of New Deal-type policies.

[Erika]

5. What are you talking about?

The democratic party has always been the moderate party.

[WCGreen]

9. Yes we have have...

Workers rights, in a modern industrial economy should be moderate...

But they are not...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. This is fascinating, and very well written!

I especially respect the way you blend some of your personal history into the larger picture.

We must take the long view if we are to become a dominant party once again.

I am more than ready for a seat at this table.

K&R.

[Erika]

10. A republican lite party is not one I wish to condone

They've put this country into hell.

[WCGreen]

12. It's not republican lite to not embrace the whole Gay Agenda

or think that Abortion is wrong...

As long as you stand up for workers, protect the people from the government, show them they have a real stake in the United States, all else will fall into place...

[Der Blaue Engel]

15. The Gay Agenda??

No, you haven't swallowed the memes at all. Did you really just say that?

[WCGreen]

20. I did say that....

I probably should have made it more clear that pushing for Gay Marriage is not the way to go...

Civil Unions is a way that wouldn't trample on the religious feelings of people and still attain the main objective; the legal protection of gay couples...

[IntravenousDemilo]

66. We have gay civil marriages up here in Canada and the sky hasn't fallen.

A majority of provincial appellate courts have ruled that discriminating against homosexuals in the realm of marriage is unconstitutional, going against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Supreme Court has agreed with them. The last Parliament, under a Liberal government, passed appropriate legislation to establish gay marriages as a fact of law. If they'd done otherwise, the Supreme Court, the final arbiters of jurisprudence (and why not?), would have struck down the law.

And I for one am happy that they're called marriages, because gay people deserve not just a pound, but a couple of tons of flesh, after centuries of oppression in the form of beatings, psychological terrorism, and murders. Moreover, religious organizations are not required to marry gays if they don't want to, and straight people are not forced to marry others of their own sex. But civil officials such as JPs and registrars, regardless of their personal feelings, are rightly required by law to do their friggin' job and issue marriage licences to gay couples. A perfectly equitable compromise.

BTW, screw your "gay agenda" crap. There is no "gay agenda". I mean, FUCK! There is no more irritating phrase than "gay agenda", unless it's "cut and run".

[WCGreen]

80. Okay, then what do you call a group of people gathering together

to work for a goal...

I'm sure they have an agenda....

[IntravenousDemilo]

90. Don't play at words. You know precisely what I'm saying.

The term "gay agenda" is insulting. Stop it.

[WCGreen]

138. It's insutling....

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

150. Extremely insulting.

And just like white people don't get to tell black people what they are allowed to be insulted by, straight people don't get to tell gay people that we're wrong to feel insulted, after they just slapped us in the face with RW talking points.

[The Magistrate]

96. Someone Has Posted The Gay Agenda Here Several Times, Sir

If recollection serves, it includes a good brunch, among other things, and devotes no more than an hour in the mid-afternoon to taking over the country....

That persons should be treated decently and equitably, not made objects of mock and worse, is simply right. that should not be lost sight of in discussions like this. There is a good deal to what you have said, that a few items of personal liberation may not be the best lines of definition for what liberalism or liberals are all about, but like the lines you are criticizing, this one can be pressed too far.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

148. Civil unions are not equal.

Sorry to see that you feel it's okay to consider gays second-class citizens to avoid trampling on the feelings of some fundies. It's a phrase that's unfortunately had to be said too many times on DU today, but too many people here think it's perfectly acceptable for the fags to sit on the back of the bus. Hey, they're on the bus. What are they complaining about?

Also, I suggest you look at this commercial and say you don't believe in pushing for gay marriage.

http://www.gardenstateequality.org/

Then, click on GSE's Marriage Equality Commercial.

[pnwmom]

220. What have we gained

by pushing so hard for the word "marriage" in the states -- as opposed to pushing for the rights, which can be had in civil unions -- if the effect is a backlash on the Federal level? A backlash that delays even longer the day when we will have the changes in the Federal law? No one even in Massachusetts has true equity because of the Federal law. Are people in MA that much better off than people in VT? I don't think so. Not when the Federal law doesn't recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

283. I'd prefer to see all marriages be civil unions, as is the case in

both most of Europe and Asia.

America is one of the few countries in the industrialized world that makes marriages legal simply through a religious ceremony. In most countries, it is registering at city hall that makes a marriage legal, and the religious ceremony is optional.

I'd like to see the civil union system put in place here for both same-sex and heterosexual unions, so that we could get rid of the red herring of conservative religious groups squawking about being "forced" to perform same-sex marriages--a red herring because clergy have always reserved the right to refuse a religious ceremony to any heterosexual couple whose union they disapprove of for whatever reason.

[WCGreen]

51. Perhaps I should have used Gay Marriage...

Which does seem to be the main concern for a many folks...

[nofurylike]

64. no, try it using "equal rights." how's it sound now? eom

[Erika]

18. BS. Next? Deny blacks equal wages

because the rabid right would find it popular? It might get the party more votes? No thanks, I don't identify with your party at all.

[WCGreen]

23. Give me a break....

[Erika]

31. You are endorsing a sell out of minority rights to win an election

You give me a break.

[WCGreen]

38. No I am not....

I am just saying that perhaps it shouldn't be a reason to dismiss a democratic candidate just because they don't fully support Gay Marriage....

[ThomCat]

212. Yes, you are.

You're saying that instead of pushing for democratic candidates who understand the need for civil rights, it's more important to accept Liebermans just to get into office.

Nobody get elected unless the stand for something. You're saying it's okay if they stand for something other than civil rights, as long as they get elected.

So what we'd end up with is corporate democrats. You might benefit as a straight person, but what about all of us that you would deliberate leave behind? It's nice of you to say that only your rights are important.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

234. Not Liebermans, no

because Lieberman is a behavioral conservative who is ALSO a corporate shill.

I think WCGreen is talking about behavioral conservatives who are anti-corporate and for the little person, like Minnesota's Jim Oberstar or Oregon's Peter DeFazio, both of whom get elected again and again on very economically liberal platforms from districts that are "supposed" to be conservative.

[ThomCat]

239. "for the little person"

But only as long as they have can exclude us. :eyes:

You couldn't say any more clearly that we aren't full citizens.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

259. You're saying that GLBT people are never "little people" in the

sense of being economically disadvantaged and powerless?

My lesbian "landladies" a few years back were economically disadvantaged because they both worked in low-paying social service jobs and couldn't make it through the month without subletting the upstairs of the house they were renting. Wouldn't they benefit from higher wages, more equitable tax rates, and universal health care?

[ThomCat]

260. No. You did.

By excluding civil rights for us while concentrating on "the little people" you are explicitly denying us a place. All the rights you would give to "the little people" won't benefit us because you would let it still be legal to discriminate against us.

You could elevate the vast majority of the poor people in this country, and you would still deliberately leave us behind.
x(

[Lydia Leftcoast]

267. On a nationwide basis, GLBT rights are slowly but surely winning

I have not seen anyone on this thread saying that the Democrats should dump gay rights on a nationwide basis, only recognize that there are still places in this country where the issue is absolute electoral poison.

These are usually districts where voters' self-images will not allow them to admit to themselves that GLBT people live in their area. (I saw the same phenomenon in the era of the racial civil rights struggle. A friend of my parents who lived in a small, all-white town in central Minnesota complained that the new minister in her church had preached several sermons on racial equality. It annoyed her because there were no racial minorities in town but there were plenty of other social sins that he could have preached on, such as the way unmarried pregnant teenagers were made to feel lower than sewage.)

At the age of 56, I've seen tremendous changes in social attitudes toward GLBT people. When I was growing up, everyone was so deeply in the closet that I didn't realize there was such a thing as homosexual orientation until I was 13 or 14, and I didn't meet any out gay people till I was 23. In those days, any hint of GLBT content earned a movie an X rating.

The trends for GLBT rights are only positive, even though it may not seem so to younger gays and lesbians. Social acceptance is light years ahead of where it was forty years ago. If someone had told me forty years ago that I'd live to see Gay Pride parades, uncloseted celebrities, popular TV shows and movies with gay characters, same-sex couples having their unions blessed in the church I attend, same-sex couples adopting children, or states and countries recognizing gay marriage, I would have wondered if they had ingested some of the then-popular drugs.

I'm cool with all of that. I've spent my adult life in three environments with a lot of GLBT people--academia, the performing arts, and liberal churches--but a lot of people haven't. My mother, aged 85, just can't wrap her head around the concept of same-sex relationships and once wondered aloud to me why a certain gay man of her acquaintance wasn't married when there were so many "cute girls" (her words) working in his office.

I repeat, no one wants the Democrats as a whole to jettison gay rights. But it may not be the best policy to push them to the forefront at the expense of economic issues in districts, especially rural districts, where voters think the issue is irrelevant to their daily lives but constitutes some vague sort of "corruption" from the "big bad city."

As I said in another post, in such districts, behavioral issues should be at the bottom of the list, with economic issues pushed to the forefront. And if a Republican accuses the Dem candidate of "promoting perversion" or some other ridiculous phrase, the Dem candidate should say calmly, "Why are you obsessing about people's personal lives when so many Americans can't make their money last to the end of the month and don't go to the doctor because they don't have health insurance?"

[ThomCat]

271. As a middle aged gay man

I have to say that while more people are accepting of gay people, our legal status is still crucially second class. Tolerance is all well and good, but it can be taken away at any time. It often is taken away at any time.

Tolerance is a privilage, not a right.

Until we get actual civil rights we are still second class citizens and we can be excluded, harassed, harmed, and scapegoated at any time. In fact, that is exactly what happens.

And when a bunch of guys decide to go on a gay bashing spree and kill someone the cops still often don't bother to investigate unless public outrage forces them to.

[LostinVA]

165. Exactly!

[nofurylike]

29. "Gay Agenda"? twisted. bye. eom

[Erika]

37. A gay agenda? I can't believe a dem would post this thought

There is no gay agenda. There is a people's agenda.

We knew that the closer it came to election, people's motives would truly come out. How sad that some would sell out to be GOP lite rather than DEM open tent strong. But we knew they would be there. No surprise.

[nofurylike]

52. i'm confused. if i implied i believe there is a "gay agenda," i

apologize for being ambiguous.
i'm a dyke...

i just found the OP using that term very offensive, and was startled by it.
i do agree with what you posted here.
"How sad that some would sell out to be GOP lite rather than DEM open tent strong...."


peace

[nofurylike]

115. thank you, Erika, for your courageous effort to reason with those

on this scary thread who would trade rights for power ("become a fascist to fight fascism"?!).

i must go, but i just had to thank you for trying so hard, and well.


peace!

[Erika]

125. Thanks and peace to all of us n/t

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

149. Actually, it is Republican to even use the term "Gay Agenda"

Jesus Christ, talking points from Bill O'Reilly are not something one expects to see on DU. It's sickening.

[Raster]

173. "...the whole Gay Agenda"??? I'm a GAY man and I'm unaware of

any "AGENDA." Since I obviously must be out of the loop, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to what "agenda" I'm supposed to be embracing or pushing?

And the issue is not now nor ever was abortion. It's about CHOICE. The right to choose. No one is "pro-abortion," but MOST OF THE COUNTRY IS PRO-CHOICE!

on edit: And the number one right-wing rethuglican strategy is divide and conquer. It seems to work very well here. Equal rights for EVERYONE irregardless of sex, color, race, religion and sexual orientation is not an option. No one is truly free unless EVERYONE is truly free.

[pnwmom]

26. It's the radical right wing of the Republican party

that has led the country into hell. The Lincoln Chaffees -- what used to be called the "Rockefeller" wing of the party -- are a different animal.

It used to be that there was plenty of overlap between various groups of Democrats and Republicans, and lots of compromising across the aisles. The conservative Democrats would vote with the conservative Republicans. People would vote together on one issue and take opposing stances on the next issue. That's how people like Kennedy and Hatch came to be friends.

Then along came Newt Gingritch and Karl Rove and they had a different idea.

In the new model, Republicans and Democrats are supposed to be bitter enemies, following their party's leadership in lockstep. I'm not at all sure we're better off with this new model of governing, with most Republicans and most Democrats throwing knives at each other from opposite sides of the room.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. You're thinking of liberalism purely in behavioral terms,

which is exactly how the right wing caraciatures it, and which is why the Dems have lost support among the people who should be their strongest supporters.

If working class people think that the Democratic party is ONLY about abortion and gay rights and ONLY for people of color, why would they vote for it?

The original New Deal coalition was built on economic liberalism, increasing opportunities for all Americans to succeed economically. It needs to rediscover that heritage.

[WCGreen]

41. Stated elegantly...

[ScreamingMeemie]

172. Then you may have mine...if we're throwing people under the bus...

No K&R here... Just a tear and some vomit that so many are willing to be okay with no equal rights for all.

[pnwmom]

11. Thanks for the thoughtful post, WCGreen.

I agree that we should be trying to figure out where we stand together, rather than just being a conglomeration of one-issue groups.

I had a sense of what it must be like to be you (just a "slightly pissed off white guy" ) when I went to one of my son's pre-college orientation meetings, for students interested in careers in the medical field. The ENTIRE canned speech, delivered by three speakers one after another, was about how much of a need there is for more minorities in these careers, how minorities should prepare for the careers, etc., etc.

And they went ahead and delivered this canned speech even though my son and I -- two obvious white people -- were the only people who had bothered to turn up for the meeting!

Normally, there would probably be a mixed group in a meeting like this (my son's chemistry class is 2/3 Asian), so perhaps the administrators had not realized how skewed their talk was. But how could they not feel the irony, as I did, when there was only one student in the room -- who wasn't exactly feeling welcomed by his new college. (And I wondered why they couldn't have tossed their notes away and just asked us if we had any questions.)

To make a long story short, that's how I feel on DU sometimes. People like us are not politically desirable. Oh well.

[WCGreen]

16. And I support the new liberalism....

It just can't be the main focus of our coalition...

There are more universal issues that need to be addressed...

[nofurylike]

13. gee, getting a little more than "slightly pissed," now that the white

guys don't OWN (unearned, at that) the whole table?

'bout time. the rest of us needed you very pissed along with us, for a long long time now.


peace

[WCGreen]

33. Since 1989 when Bush I beat Dukakis

[nofurylike]

107. why then, you wrote you were "slightly pissed" in 1994? no need reply.

i'm off soon, anyway.
off to pedal my lezzie agenda

of equal rights for all.


peace

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. There is economic/political liberalism and behavioral liberalism

A person can espouse either or both.

The New Deal coalition was made up of economic/political liberals, some of whom were also behavioral liberals, some of whom were not.

Many current Democrats are strictly behavioral liberals, but they see little wrong with Republican economic policies and in fact, benefit from them.

When a politician says, "I'm socially liberal but economically conservative and pro-business," that raises a red flag with me. It means that said politician is actually veering toward the right-wing libertarian end of the spectrum and is likely to vote for the bankruptcy bill and other measures that hurt the poor and working class and agree that taxes should be low and government "should be run like a business." In other words, there is very little to distinguish such a person from a moderate Republican. Such a politician is likely to be a yuppie or an affluent subrubanite who wants to be free to do what he or she wants to do but has little knowledge of or interest in the poor.

In a primary election, given the choice between a "socially liberal but economically conservative and pro-business Democrat" and a "socially conservative but economically liberal and pro-labor Democrat," I'd take the latter every time.

Even though abortion rights and gay rights (both of which I'm for, by the way) may be important to individuals, their presence or lack is NOT what is ruining this country. The real danger to every single American, not just women of childbearing age, not just gay people, not just people of color, is the rise of the modern robber barons, who are destroying democracy, waging unmprovoked war, and dragging our economy down in the direction of Third World standards.

Ideally, a candidate will be liberal in both the political/economic sense and the behavioral sense. But what we need most are candidates who will fight the robber barons and have the courage and vision to undo their depredations, and if they're not liberal on a couple of issues, I can forgive that.

[WCGreen]

22. Well stated...

[Erika]

24. Your post is like the Germans saying if Nazism can be defeated

who cares if 6 million Jews are killed? Insanity.

[The Magistrate]

32. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Ma'am: What Does That Mean?

[pnwmom]

39. Good question!

[Erika]

46. The Germans allowed discrimination by groups

They held their tongue and did not fight against the propoganda. Certain people here are joining their arena of thought. Thank you sir.

[The Magistrate]

75. That, Ma'am, Is Not Even Close To What You Said Above

Not that it is much of an improvement on it, for it boils down accusing anyone who disagrees with you on what the proper line for the Party is in present circumstances is a Nazi, which on reflection, you would probably agree is a considerable exaggeration....

[Erika]

113. I disagree with your logic totally

I will say those who negate rights of American citizens for being out of the mainstream are Nazi in their thinking.

[The Magistrate]

122. You May Say It, Ma'am, But It Is Incorrect Just The Same

That is, after all, hardly a thing that was invented and put under patent by A. Hitler in 1921....

[ThomCat]

241. I hope you two can agree to disagree.

Personally, I agree with her and I think you are wrong. Setting up anyone as a second class citizen, no matter how "practical" ones motives sets us up with at least the potential for what happend in Germany.

[pnwmom]

34. I don't think your analogy holds water.

She's not saying anything like that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Nnnnooooo

I'm saying that individual politicians who are staunch supporters of economic and political liberalism (such as Jim Oberstar in northern Minnesota, who votes anti-choice, or Peter DeFazio in Oregon, who always votes against gun ctonrol) should be given a pass.

I'm also saying that if you think that abortion, gay rights, and other behavioral matters are the ONLY important issues and the ONLY hallmarks of a true Democrat, and that it's okay to be all "bipartisan" about the desperate economic circumstances of so many Americans and leave the military industrial complex in place and not speak up when the Republicans destroy our Constitutional rights, then you're actually more of a Libertarian than a Democrat.

[nofurylike]

121. yes, it is. eom

[casus belli]

270. Terrible analogy. n/t

[Mme. Defarge]

21. I am profoundly disappointed

that Democratic Party's notion of "liberal" is is just as consumer-oriented and distorted in the arena of individual rights as is the "conservative" pathological over-emphasis of property rights and laissez-faire economics.

Thanks for your post.

[WCGreen]

25. Good point...

[Erika]

28. Exactly, sell out minority rights to get elected

It is disgusting. Hitler sold the same theory.

[pnwmom]

36. Nobody is saying that.

[Erika]

42. May I suggest you look at the gay agenda remark?

Thank you.

[Der Blaue Engel]

44. Not outright

But that is the implication: "'Those' issues are marginal and are dragging the party down. "'Those' issues are the only ones anyone is paying attention to." (Hogwash.) "'Those' issues can wait because they are less important than other more traditional issues."

The term "Gay Agenda" was used in this thread. Are you okay with that?

[WCGreen]

47. You know what... I'm tired... I have had a very long day...

If you are going to focus on that, then so be it...

[Erika]

57. Maybe your day isn't as long as others who have to tolerate

your "gay agenda" remarks.

[pnwmom]

86. You know, Erika, I had to tolerate some "breeder" remarks

today that I didn't appreciate. People say the wrong thing sometimes, when they feel attacked.

[Erika]

98. And?

Who said anything here about breeders? I did hear that the democrati party should not be for women's rights or gay rights. Maybe they all contributed to Liebermann.

[pnwmom]

102. And -- I think the poster who used the words "gay agenda"

was feeling stressed when he used it, as was the person in another thread today who accused someone of being a breeder.

Everyone is probably getting very tense about the election. I KNOW I am. I can't wait for this to be over ... except that we will probably we watching over months of lawsuits.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

151. Well, if you're stressed, you may slip up *once* and use it.

If you use it *repeatedly,* even after being told it's insulting, that is being malicious, not stressed.

[WCGreen]

139. What are you talking about....

You make no sense...

What intolerable cruelty have you suffered from someone proclaiming a Gay Agenda...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

152. It's a RW talking point used to demean gays and deny them equal rights.

I can't believe you've been on DU this long and you don't know that. Honestly, WCGreen, you've disappointed the shit out me with this thread. I expected better than you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_agenda

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by social conservatives to describe the goal of increasing LGBT acceptance through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. Most often, the term is employed by social conservatives in reference to what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to at least one of its organized participatory bodies<1>, which views the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Sometimes those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.<2><3><4>
Contents

Use of the term

James Dobson, director of Focus on the Family and a regular social Christian conservative commentator in the popular media, describes the homosexual agenda as follows:

Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.<5>

Alan Sears and Craig Osten, president and vice-president of the Alliance Defense Fund, offer another characterization of the homosexual agenda:

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called 'After the Ball,' where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make the victimizers look bad... Get funds from corporate America.<6>

The term appears in many forums from political commentary to talk radio, and even once by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in his dissent in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas that the "law-profession culture... has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.".<7> The majority opinion of the Court contained no reference to this term.

Opposition to the term's use

Some critics of the LGBT movement argue that gay rights supporters have tried to keep the agenda a secret;<6> others believe that there is a homosexual agenda, but don't describe it as secretive.<8> Groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deny the existence any secret or subversive agenda. Mainstream LGBT organizations do not support changing age of consent laws or legalizing polygamy. Instead, they state that their major goal is to end discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations and to achieve equality for LGBT persons. They describe the term as a "rhetorical invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister".<1> Creating such a climate is not an objective listed by any major organization that opposes the movement.

Some members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community consider their political goals to be too heterogeneous to be grouped together into one single agenda.<9>

Specific controversies

Some issues often listed as included in the agenda are hotly debated today, from same-sex marriage, to hate crime laws, to gay sex education, and more. The arguments behind these debates are subtle, and many people find themselves on opposite sides of the debate on different issues. Arguments from religious opposition to homosexuality and from civil rights principles are common in these discussions.

[WCGreen]

153. And I of you....

I used it as a rhetorical point...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

155. Hey, I'm not the one declaring people 2nd class citizens

(albeit in denial about it). Oh, and check out the edit to my post above.

Rhetorical point (which I don't think you used it as) or not, you used it repeatedly; knowingly offending and hurting GLBT DUers. The last thing a gay DUer wants to see is to long onto DU and have somebody throwing the "Gay Agenda" in their face.

This is how the Gay Agenda is used:

Mission:America-Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools

This is the list of articles linked to on that page:

Risk Audit to Measure Homosexual Promotion in Local Schools

Risk Audit Endorsing Organizations

Amerika the 'Gay'

Orwell in Orlando, as the NEA Constructs Fascist, Anti-Child Policies

When Tolerance Creates Violence

NEA will promote homosexual, polygamous marriages to students

More Groups Endorse Mission America's RISK AUDIT

Fairy Tales Don't Come True, Part II

A Safe Place for Kids to Learn Homosexual Sex

Pro-Family Groups Announce Support for Homosexuality School Risk Audit

The Ten Big Myths of Pro-'Gay' Beliefs

Bullies Call for a Stop to Bullying

Fairy Tales Don't Come True: Impressionable Kids and Homosexuality

Banned Books Week: Smoke Screen of Hypocrisy

Homosexual Clubs: The Rest of the Story

15 Frank Issues to Raise in Homosexual Diversity Training

Just Say No to these Pro Homosexual Materials at School

Who's Doing the Censoring?

"Veil of Deception: The Impact of Same Sex Marriage on American Youth"

Zero Tolerance For Traditional Marriage in Schools

Mission America Student Survey Results

Josh is Taking Matt to the Prom

GLSEN Encourages Youth Experimentation

The Top 10 Reasons to Protect Students from GLSEN's Deceptive 'Marriage' Curriculum

The Top 20 Skirmishes in the Battle Over Homosexuality in the Schools

The "Dirty Dozen" Checklist: Does Your School Promote Homosexuality?

What "Gay" Marriage Will Mean for our Children

GLSEN and PFLAG - Why We Must Stop These Groups from Influencing Youth

Student Survey of Middle and High School Students

No "Equal Access" for Homosexual Clubs

What "Gay" Clubs Will Bring to Your School - and Sample Letter for Schools to send to Parents

Gender Terrorism: The Transgendered Agenda

Resources For Challenging the "Gay" Agenda in your School

Child Sexual Abuse: The Risk of Homosexual Activism in Our Schools

Tolerance Lessons in Schools: Anti-Christian Bigotry in Disguise?

So don't go telling any DU gays that they're wrong to be offended by your language.

[Der Blaue Engel]

68. Yes, I am going to focus on that

because I believe it is a key element of the kind of thinking evidenced in your post. You may choose to see that as nitpicking, but I think it is very important.

[WCGreen]

77. Good for you.....

[Erika]

50. No, I am not ok with the term gay agenda being used

You think human rights are a lessor value in the democratic fight?

[Der Blaue Engel]

73. You and I are in agreement n/t

[LostinVA]

168. Me too -- it's a derogatory and RW term

I've had it rammed down my throat for the last 20 years. That, and "special" rights... both are in the OP. Jesus Mary and Joseph.

[pnwmom]

81. I bet the poster regrets the unfortunate use of the term "gay agenda."

But I think we have three issues that outweigh everything else.

The integrity of elections.
The preservation of the Constitution and the dismantling of the imperial Presidency.
The war in Iraq.

We have to elect a Democratic House, and begin to put the reins on this runaway trainwreck of a Presidency, or the future looks bleak indeed. Every other issue, in my opinion, takes a back seat to this priority.

[Erika]

88. Sorry, I won't elect anyone who throws gays and women's rights

under the bus. If you want to, fine.

[pnwmom]

106. The good part is you probably don't live in a state where

you'll have to make that choice. But there are some Red state DU'ers who will -- and I'd hate to discourage them from voting for Democrats. It's not as if the Repub opposition would be any better on abortion or gay rights.

[WCGreen]

136. Precisely....

[1932]

198. ***No successful campaign has ever satisfied every constitutuent***

If you name a Democrat whose victory you believe was very important for America, I'm sure we could find an interest group whose very legitimate intersts were thrown under the bus so that that Democrat could pull together a winning coalition (for example, FDR made concessions on civil rights in order to win the votes of Southern Democrats -- yet, African Americans benefitted from his New Deal programs and the successes civil rights experienced in the 60s were, perhaps, due to the wealth and power Black america accumulated from New Deal programs).

[LostinVA]

206. Gays aren't an "interest group."

[1932]

211. If they're not a consituency with particular interests, this thread would

not exist.

However you want to define the constiuency, the point and the question in my post still stand.

[LostinVA]

215. Again, gays are not a special interest group asking for special rights

They are American citizens asking for basic civil rights.

This thread exists because of the disgusting threads and posts appearing on here the last 20 hours.

My exchange is finished with you, because you're starting off from a fundamentally flawed argument.

And hey, thanks for wanting to take my rights away! Very Democratic of it! Oh wait... it fucking isn't.



RIGHTS DELAYED ARE RIGHTS DENIED. -- MLK

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

217. Are you stuck in 1932?

Gays are people, who deserve EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS. How does that make them a "special interest group?"

[ThomCat]

178. That is EXACTLY what is being said.

x(

The people who don't see that are the people who won't have to pay the cost.

[Mme. Defarge]

48. Huh?

[The Magistrate]

59. Hitler, Ma'am

Sold by politicized violence an ideology of racial supremacy and ultra-nationalism requiring conquest by the superior of the inferior, and sold it to a people maddened by defeat and privation that had broken their pride to despair. "Selling out minority rights" to get elected had about as much to do with it as a boy making choo-choo sounds has to do with a locomotive.

[Erika]

67. Please tell me how the GOP has not spewed the gays

are inferior in every sense of the word, and should be thought of a scourge to be eliminated.

[The Magistrate]

85. Even If That Were Granted, Ma'am

It would fall so far short of the Hitlerite view of Jews, and the eternal struggle between Aryan and Jew, as to constitute comparing a hangnail to the loss of an arm at the elbow. There is really no good served by dragging Nazis into this....

"Once you have gilded it, it no longer is a lily."

[pnwmom]

89. And you weren't accusing the GOP in your analogy, you were

accusing another DU'er.

[Erika]

93. Sir, I have visited the Holocaust Museum in DC

and felt utter revulsion for those who would denigrate fellow countryman to a second class citizen and an enemy status.

[The Magistrate]

100. A Rather Pallid Lesson To Take Away From That, Ma'am

Industrialized extermination was the name of the game....

[Erika]

103. I was shocked that Jewish hair was shorn and sold, Sir

and there was a market for the sales. Made good mattress and pillow stuffing. I see this same hatred in the GOP for the gays, and am shocked that the democrats are now talking negatively about a "Gay agenda".

[Lyric]

279. I do not believe in moral absolutism.

I am a relativist. I understood the need to vote for my Democratic governer, even though he's pro-life. I understand the need to vote for Robert C. Byrd in 2 weeks, even though he doesn't support equal marriage rights. I have supported *many* Democrats with my vote who have publicly stated that they believe marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, because deep in my heart, I've always believed that they didn't *really* think that. They were just holding their noses and saying what needed to be said in order to avoid having their entire campaign hijacked by that single issue. Therefore I held my nose and voted for them.

We have been complacent, understanding, and done our moral duty for a very long time now, with almost no reward. We have taken many heart-blows over the years, even from members of our own party, and we have still managed to turn the other cheek and look toward the future. We tell ourselves that things will get better as soon as the Democrats take over. "We'll get to you as soon as we're in power", we hear them promise.

Unfortunately, once the Democrats get a chance to "take over", we start hearing new lines. "We'll get to you as soon as we get this budget passed." "We'll get to you after the midterms". "We'll get to you as soon as the primaries are over." And then the whole cycle starts all over again.

The reality of the situation is this: there is NEVER going to be a "convenient time" to fight for equality. It wasn't convenient when Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony did it. It wasn't convenient when Dr. Martin Luther King did it. But they did it anyway, regardless of the inconvenience, regardless of the threats, regardless of the unpopularity, regardless of the fact that the majority of the population was against them.

Sometimes there are issues that are so glaringly crucial to the continuing health of our civil liberties that they cannot be marginalized or shushed-up any longer. The Democratic Party cannot continue to snuggle up to the bigots in our nation. The Bush Administration has managed to villify the judiciary so much that we cannot count on them anymore to do the dirty work that our politicians are too fearful of losing power to do. There are worse things than being a minority party. One of them is being the party that tried to drink from every trough and wound up welcome in NONE of them.

I am nobody's cart horse. My rights are nobody's goddamned albatross. Democrats are either wholeheartedly *for* the Constitution of the United States of America, or they're for appeasing the barbaric bigots for another fifty years. I want to know which choice it's going to be.

[IntravenousDemilo]

112. Please bear in mind that the Jews do not own the Holocaust alone.

There were hundreds of thousands of Slavs, Roma, left-wingers, and yes, homosexuals interned in the death camps, and they share ownership along with the Jews. Thus the analogy is AOK.

And the quotation from King John is "To gild refined gold, to paint the lily."

[The Magistrate]

116. Since The Point, Sir

Is that this whole line of "arguement" is utterly pointless and wholly irrelevant to the matter under discussion here, you may forgive me for regraining from engaging in any greater detail than already mustered in illustration....

"I'm going home now. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

[IntravenousDemilo]

124. Perhaps you'd like "Frog à la pêche"

Basically it's a frog, covered in boiling Cointreau, with a peach stuck in its mouth. It's certainly better than "Pêche à la frog".

Did you put "arguement" in quotes because you thought I'd spelled it that way?

[Erika]

118. Yes, Hitler hated the gays and "their agenda"

In his experiments on Jewish pregnant women, he also had doctors sew up their vagina so the baby being borne could not be borne. No, I have zero tolerance for groups denying gay rights or women's rights.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. You obviously don't know that much about Hitler to be making that comparison

Name for me one Democrat that has said that every single problem in America is caused by gay people and women that have abortions. Hell even the religious right won't go as far as to directly say that. Replace gay people and women that have abortions and you have what Hitler sold.

[Erika]

76. Any Dem who who says the gays have an agenda that should

be abandoned by the party, is promoting hatred of gays. Any party who is willing to give up women rights is promoting a regime ripe for takeover by extremists.

[WCGreen]

78. You are right... I just hate gays and so I am going to be a republican

[Erika]

84. You thought they have an agenda...your words

Want to share their agenda with us?

[WCGreen]

140. Basically, as Iook at it, an insistance on Gay Marriage

and not in Civil Unions...

That's what I mean...

That and taking over the world and forcing everyone to be gay..... SARCASM in case you missed it...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

154. Well, civil unions and gay marriage are two seperate things.

And they are not equal.

[pnwmom]

221. They're equal on the Federal level.

Neither matters a bit on the Federal level.

But the day when gay marriage will be recognized got pushed back even further when so many Republicans got swept in during the 2004 election.

[ThomCat]

243. That's nonsense, and I challenge you to

provide one shred of evidence that civil unions are the same as marriage on the federal level.

Civil unions vary from state to state, and the benefits vary from state to state. They are not recognized at the federal level.

[WCGreen]

141. Basically, as Iook at it, an insistance on Gay Marriage

and not in Civil Unions...

That's what I mean...

That and taking over the world and forcing everyone to be gay..... SARCASM in case you missed it...

[casus belli]

274. Responses Like This Harm The Fight For Equal Rights

every bit as much as those who oppose them entirely. It is clear that if you had read the article, REALLY read the article without super-imposing your own ideas about where he was coming from, that it would have been clear to you - as it is to many of us - that there is nothing homophobic about his viewpoint.

That said, the fight for civil rights would never have been won if MLK had been so defensive and easily offended. Comparing those who are supportive of progressive legislation and ideas is no to Nazis is no way to further the cause.

[pnwmom]

91. That includes ALL Democrats then, because the Democratic party

no longer is pushing for the Equal Rights Amendment. Is it?

[Erika]

95. Is the Democratic party no longer for gay rights and women's

rights?

[pnwmom]

104. The Democratic party is no longer endorsing the

Equal Rights Amendment, as far as I know. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[loyalsister]

214. In some states......

There is a 3 state strategy to get it passed. Three states are needed to ratify. Not all Democrats get behind it. In fact in my state legislature, the opposite of what the OP describes has happened. The fact is sponsoring tax breaks and voting for tax examptions brings in greater fundraising.
AND, they have been recruiting anti-choice (who won't commit to the ERA), pro-gun, fundamentalist candidates as a "win" at all costs Republican lite strategy.
I am not convinced it is actually "winning" even if they regain a majority.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/viability.htm

[benEzra]

290. Being anti-gun is NOT a core Democratic value...

and it really only dates to the late 1980's/early 1990's, when the DLC successfully lobbied to make banning nonhunting guns the party's de facto top legislative priority. Thankfully, the party leadership has realized that the ban-more-guns approach is a loser, and has largely dropped it.

Prior to the late '80s/early '90s, banning more guns was NOT on the party's agenda, so being pro-gun is NOT a "repub lite" strategy by any means. A third of all gun owners are registered Dems, and at least a quarter of Dems own guns.

[Hippo_Tron]

92. I'll agree that's a fair argument

The direct Hitler comparison, however, was not.

[Tyo]

49. I don't think Dems stand for anything less than they used to

Let me qualify that up front by saying fuck the DLC.

That out of the way, the problem with the Dems is that they've forgotten how to organize. As a Brit friend of mine says, we couldn't organize a piss up in brewery. But that's not to say that we achieve victory by throwing one group or another under the bus. How about harnessing that energy rather than disparaging it and throwing it away?

[WCGreen]

53. They don't organize....

They let the Unions do the work, at least hear in the midwest...

[Erika]

82. When they want to throw gay rights and womens rights

under the bus to get elected, they are no different than GOP lite. I wouldn't give a cent to any Dem who would toss human rights out the window to get elected.

[nofurylike]

128. i admire your courage before this truly frightening thread. i am

quite shocked to find much of this at DU, some from fairly long-time DUers...

scary. heartbreaking, really.

please feel my support and admiration for your great courage in saying it like it sadly is.


peace and solidarity

[Hippo_Tron]

54. That's part of the story

The other problem is that the GOP has created a large part of their base from middle class voters that actively support economic policies that hurt them. I'm not talking about people who vote for Republicans based on abortion and gays and accept the economic consequences, I'm talking about middle and working class people who truly think that doing things like giving tax breaks to the rich and repealing the "death tax" will help them economically.

When Saint Ronnie came to power he not only won over many middle class voters based on abortion and gays but he also brainwashed many of them into believing that the social welfare system was the cause of their economic problems. As ridiculous as it may seem, idea that "Welfare Queens" were the reason that hard working people couldn't get ahead actually resonated with a lot of voters. I'll admit that Democrats must take some responsibility for this as well. Clinton had an incredible opportunity laid out infront of him to overturn a lot of what Reagan and Bush had done but instead he chose to accept a lot of it and move on.

[MiaCulpa]

56. Liberalism use to stand for more than Gay Rights and Abortion on Demand...

I find your wording -- and perhaps your point -- insulting, frankly. 'Gay rights' are human rights, there is a segment of our society that still is not allowed basic human rights, there are places in the world that hang them until they're dead simply because they are.

'Abortion on demand' the way you phrase that is disturbing. Abortion is a medical procedure. Women have a right to health care, and to have a say in their own health care, also basic human rights. Remember as you teeter on this line, there are people even in this country who still believe one should not have sex unless it is for procreation!

Decide what century you want to live in. Just because certain groups within the nation want to tag basic human rights as 'gay rights' and pick a particular medical procedure that someone (who the fuck decided abortion was questionable and ran with that meme, anyways?)doesn't mean Liberalism needs to be realligned to accomodate them.

Any party that doesn't have human rights in its foundation has a major problem.

[Erika]

61. So tell us when you would allow abortion for women

The Democrats have said it should be safe and rare.

[MiaCulpa]

70. When "I" would allow it?

That's up to a woman and her health care provider. Shouldn't be anyone else involved, imo.

[Zhade]

60. They're EQUAL rights, not gay rights.

When you open with a wrong premise, why bother to read the rest?

[WCGreen]

74. Then don't....

[casus belli]

276. Like Saying, It's HUMAN Rights, Not Civil Rights. Waste of time.

You're arguing semantics, which accomplishes nothing. If you refuse to hear the arguments of those who agree with your viewpoints, but have a slightly different take on them, then how do you expect to win the hearts and minds of anyone else?

[Odin2005]

111. Great post.

I hate the Ideological Purists just as much as I hate the DLC corporate whores. I've HAD IT with the lynching of canidates that don't pass a 1000-page-long litmus test, I just about snapped when Obama started getting bashed because he talked to some evangelicals.

US politics is dominated by 2 parties, but American politics can be divided into 4 quadrants (socially conservative left-wingers, liberals, libertarians, and conservatives), we have to get voters from 2 quadrants to win. The purists stupidly think we can win with just the liberal quadrant without getting voters from the socially conservative left-winger and libertarian quadrants , which is pathetically moronic beyond belief.

[pnwmom]

142. And a very good post yourself!

[BootinUp]

119. Hey call me when you need another S.P.O.W.G.

nice post.

[RoyGBiv]

126. Go back a bit more ...

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here, but it needs an even broader scope.

American Liberalism goes back to the Founding Fathers, to the people that signed their names to these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That is liberalism in a nutshell. I suspect some of the disagreement up-thread is based in part on the perception of an improper definition of liberalism, not to mention a poor and confrontational method of pointing out the initial disagreement by the individual offering dissent. Abolitionism, in and of itself, was not a liberal movement because it was a varied movement with varied philisophical constructs underpinning it, some of which were not at all reconcilable with the kind of liberalism that forms the foundation of this nation.

[Change has come]

129. I'm an American...Just like you

I'm not a special interest. I resent my life being equated to a symposium you attended.

[Der Blaue Engel]

134. Oh, stop being such a purist

Can't you just stop thinking about your civil rights for a little while?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

(Let me add: Sarcasm. Heavy, heavy, bitter, depressed, and demoralized sarcasm.)

[LostinVA]

169. Get over yourself -- why do you need civil rights?

I think blacks and women should also give up their right to vote -- man! We could win ALL kinds of election then, huh?!

[NMMNG]

132. AFAIK,

The only people who claim Liberals are merely about "abortion on demand" and gay rights are the Republicans. And since they can't seem to think about anything that isn't wrapped up in a neat bumper-sticker style talking point why should we let them define us? We are about health care for all, an end to hunger and homelessness, better and more accessible education, living wages and less unemployment, and so much more. Gay rights and choice are just two of the things we stand for, and it's asinine that some have tried to claim that they are all we stand for.

[pnwmom]

137. But how do you square that, Buffy, with the posters

in this very thread who say they would never vote for anyone who didn't support their positions on abortion or gay rights?

For most of us living in blue states, we'll probably never have to worry about that. But what about people living in Red states? Tennessee, for example. Isn't it better to vote for Ford, with all his faults, than to let Corker win? But some of the posters here don't seem to think so. They'd rather let the Republican win than do anything that might compromise their principles.

I'm with Molly Ivins. Half a loaf isn't as good as a whole loaf, but it's a heck of a lot better than an empty bread basket.

How are you, by the way?

:hi:

[NMMNG]

156. A few (or even several) posters on DU does not all Liberals make

Some people will let a vote come down to a single issue while others won't. The Democratic Party is not a monolith with everybody acting and reacting the same way to everything.


And I'm doing fine. How about you?

[pnwmom]

213. I'm feeling stressed about about the election.

Will be glad when it's over.

[cali]

191. Alas, you're delusional if you

think the national dem party give a flying fuck about poverty. Poverty in this country is the great lost topic. Remember Katrina, and how shocked people were to see the face of poverty exposed for the world to see, and how poverty would once again become an urgent national concern? Hah.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

247. It's true that Republicans are the ones who characterize

Democrats as "only about abortion on demand and the gay agenda," but for too many of the posters on this thread (and people I've known in real life-space) , it seems to be the case.

If the Dems are indeed about "health care for all, an end to hunger and homelessness, better and more accessible education, living wages, and less unemployment," then they need to shout it from the rooftops and PROVE their devotion to these issues by imposing party discipline on anyone who votes for the Bush agenda. They ought to spread a unified message about economic opportunity and fairness for all instead of letting the Republicans define them.

I don't believe in ditching gay rights or abortion rights, but putting them in the forefront is not the way to win back the Reagan Democrats.

If I were managing a campaign, I'd have my candidate run exclusively on economic issues, especially in a district where people like to think of themselves as "not needing" abortion rights and believe (erroneously) "We're all straight here."

If an opponent brought up the questions of abortion or gay rights or any other hot button issues, I would want the candidate to be ready with answers that made the opponent look stupid.

"With the country in the shape it is, why are you obsessing about other people's personal lives? We have to deal with the issues that affect every individual American every day, the ones that make it hard to have any money left over at the end of the month, the ones that make young people lose hope of living as well as their parents."

That's the ideal situation for candidates in behaviorally conservative districts.

Barring that, I'm willing to accept a Jim Oberstar (pro-labor, pro-environment, anti-interventionist who votes anti-choice in a district full of Eastern European Catholic immigrants) or a Dennis Kucinich (who voted anti-choice until the women in his life straightened him out), because in the end, it's not the behavioral issues that are destroying this country. It's militarism, environmental destruction, corporate predators, and the Reaganite attitude of "I've got mine, screw you" that are destroying this country. Now. At this minute. Bit by bit.

As such, a Democrat who loudly proclaims support for gay rights and abortion rights and yet never met a weapons system he didn't like, thinks that "too much" environmental regulation destroys jobs, supports "market-based reforms" for the health care crisis, and wants to "run government like a business" is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Ideally, you are going to get a pro-labor, pro-environment, anti-interventionist who is for universal access to higher-quality education, health care for everyone, reigning in corporate power, AND gay rights and abortion rights.

But if you can't get everything, the candidate who goes after the issues that are right now wrecking this country will receive my vote. In real life, I don't have to make that choice. I live in a very blue urban area and my Congressional candidate is the total package. But somebody in rural North Dakota may have to accept a behavioral conservative who still calls forth that state's dormant tradition of economic populism.

I don't think WCGreen or anyone else defending him is saying, "Hey, kids, let's adopt the Republican positions on gay rights and abortion nationwide!" Not at all.

[Lasher]

158. A point well taken, we need more focus on New Deal types of issues

The predictable flak from the Semantics Police helps make your point.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

160. Does it offend you when people use derogatory terms towards you?

Or people of other races? Was calling Allen out on his 'Macaca' comment being the 'Semantics Police?' I'm just asking, because the "Gay Agenda" is just as offensive to a gay person, as the examples I provided.

[Lasher]

161. Good question, thanks for asking.

I don't usually find a word or phrase objectionable unless malice or reckless inconsideration are involved. Allen knew the meaning of the racial slur he used with deliberate intent to demean. The term "Gay Agenda" is not a slur, but it has been adopted as a slogan by those who imply that homosexuals have some sinister plan to take over the world or whatever. I suppose that's why some people find it objectionable.

The potential of this phrase to offend is not as widely understood as 'Macaca' and it doesn't seem that WCGreen had any hostile intent in using it in his post #12. It would have therefore been more appropriate for one person to have politely told him how they feel about it and why, instead of reacting like he had just called someone a 'Macaca'. It's not the same thing.

When I made my comment about the Semantics Police, however, I was mostly thinking about the silly discussion of the use of "equal rights" vs. "gay rights". I think my observation was appropriate.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

167. Well...

he continued to use the term, even after he knew he was offending people. That's pretty malicious.

Secondly, it makes more political sense to frame the "gay rights" issue as an "equal rights" issue. Gay rights fits into the right-wingers idea of "gays want special rights." No, we don't want special rights, we want equal rights. It's less threatening to focus on the equality part than the gay part.

[Lasher]

170. He used the term once more, and only in reference to the initial use.

You, I, and others have also used the term in reference.

I agree there are times when it might be a good tactical consideration to frame a discussion with an "equal rights" label. But it would be clumsy to never use the term, "gay rights". After all, there are times when we want to discuss unique GLBT issues such as gay marriage. Are you saying you find the term "gay rights" offensive?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

174. No, I don't find gay rights offensive.

I just use the phrase equal rights. I've been through a bunch of media training, non-violent resistance training etc, so I'm generally more aware of how things should be presented to the public eye than the average person, from what terminology to use to how to look when you're arrested with a camera on you.

[Lasher]

175. Well good, maybe you can help the rest of us out with your skills

Everybody has something to offer.

[Lexingtonian]

159. And Labor/Unions isn't a 'special interest'?

Smells of majoritarianism to me, this whole argument. And the history involved is also inaccurate, in that light, and contains that selfcongratulatory view of American Christianity that the record doesn't bear out so well.

I belong to a Quaker community, and Quakers have had a part in the beginning of many, if not most, major social justice movements in American history. I think you vastly overrate the initiative to social justice of most of American Christianity; indeed, as today, most of it has been reactionary and resistant to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that assert the spiritual realness and seriousness and importance in Divine eyes of all people. American churches schismed over theocracy, over monarchy, over slavery, over womens' rights and race, and these days they schism over gay people and multiculturalism. Despite Jesus's teachings about these things being clearer than day. They've usually needed a lot of prodding from outside by Jews, Quakers, and American Indians, and an environment of crisis to respond in favor of social justice for other Americans at all.

At one level you're right. Our present fight, about which the two Parties have polarized, is about equality of opportunity and fair treatment by powerful entities. The violations/abuses of workers and the violations/abuses of people based in race and gender and such are violations of the same piece of the Constitution- Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. You are perfectly correct that our efforts and problems are complementary rather than competing or exclusive. We can all get what we want/need by getting the political system- courts, executives, legislatures- to agree to live by the letter and spirit of 14/1, and enforce that. So our bickering is foolish. Conservatives and Rightists even have a theory that judges who refuse to enforce 14/1 guarantees properly duck behind- it's called "strict constructionism".

But there are two problems. One is that every bloc- gay rights, ex-felons's rights, religionists vs atheists, economic rights- consists of people raised in a world in which the caste partitions were rigid, and that inequality or nonresponsibility across caste/group lines which everyone was raised to respect and taught to not dare challenge is deeply engrained. We were easy to turn against one another, quick to abandon the alliance for financial or political advantage. We were easy to wedge, easy to bribe, and easily turned on one another with bigotry at the start. It's taken a lot of misery and degradation inflicted on Democrats of all stripes to break down this behavior, bias, vulnerability to what seems a sufficient degree. And conservatives gave most aggrieved groups a charitable sop of some kind which was often taken as serious progress. In 2004 a lot of gay rights groups discovered that all these piecemeal concessions over 30 years were mostly just charitable fob-offs and, in the dust of the gay marriage controversy, often revoked. Equality had to be earned thoroughly and completely, at high cost.

The other problem is that the two blocs at the left end of the spectrum, the classical Left and the Liberals, disagree about priority of economic versus social justice. Your view is essentially that of the first, the priority of economic gains.

History says that Liberals are right, and progressive social law changes precede true progressive economic gains. The Civil War had to be fought and slavery abolished before slaves could actually own land and other property with permanence. Some slaves were permitted to gain wealth and buy themselves and family out of slavery before the Civil War, that is true, but it was a tiny number. Many in the process of doing so lost their wealth and small freedoms given them at the outbreak of the War. We've seen during our own times that workers got wages that let them be lower middle class or middle class for a time, and then politicians used their vulnerability to social wedge issues and legal loopholes permitted for social hierarchy reasons to split them, break their power, and reduce them to low blue collar levels of material inability and desperation again.

For social wedge issues to not work, there has to be consensus achieved about the just side of the issue, and there have to be laws made that limit the acceptable range of behavior and politicking to what is sensible. I.e. create a convention that works.

We have two great social issues at the moment. One is the deprivation of rights of non-white people, and the technical issue there that creates a whole slew of problems- screws up elections, immigration management, racial group power imbalance disproportionate to numbers and abilities etc. - is voting rights disenfranchisement of former felons and selective criminalization of undesirable things non-white American groups do because of the situation they're in. That's the low end of the so-called Culture War, which is about people trying to keep American wealth and power concentrated in white hands.

Gay marriage is not important because of the number of people involved per se, or what particular sexual things go on with the blessing and rights of marriage. Gay marriage is simply the far border fortress of women's rights, the 'extreme' outpost and right which puts the far more daily and immediate rights of straight women to equitable treatment and autonomy beyond question. It's the last fight of the Gender War. (Abortion is a wierdo of an issue, I'll bypass it here.)

The same judges and legislators and governors that knock out the disenfranchisement laws and gay marriage bans under fair readings of 14/1 will also reexpand workers' rights, given the chance. But for that to happen, organized workers will have to start voting for other peoples' rights and against the bigotries they've liked. So will the more liberal white collar sorts.

These two ideas- unity between Left and Liberals about the problem being nonextension and nonenforcement of 14/1 guarantees, and the necessity of changing social laws before economic arrangements- are hard sells on the street. Too abstract, and we're too used to blaming each other for the pain we're in. But it will all continue until we can put our selfinterest and unwillingness to listen to each other aside for long enough.

[JeffR]

188. That's a cogent analysis

and a much better response & rebuttal to the OP than pretty much anything else in this thread. I hope everyone takes the time to read this. You should post this on its own thread, really.

[LostinVA]

163. Special interest groups? Oh, you mean American citizens

who deserve equal treatment under the law.

What a fucking 'phobic joke this thread is... and it's being allowed to stand. FUCK.

[ScreamingMeemie]

171. Liberalism used to be about standing up for everyone regardless

of "how it looks at election time".

Your brand of liberalism was perhaps accepted back in the days of the rich, white landowner. My brand is and always will be all inclusive. Everyone's rights are just as important as mine. I'm sorry, but your viewpoint has never and should never be the Democratic Viewpoint. If it is, I want no part of it.

It's sad to me that so many names that I respected at one time are coming up with this drivel.

It's easy for you to say WCGreen, because your rights are wholly protected by what's dangling between your legs, your color, and your choice of life's partner. How 'bout looking outside the walls of your home? :(

[Hell Hath No Fury]

251. That is my brand of liberalism, too.

Human rights for all, not just some. And not just when it is politically convenient.

There was a time when it was unpopular to be against slavery, yet that didn't stop those who would fight it. There was a time when it was unpopular to be for women's sufferage, yet that didn't stop those brave men and woman who said women must be given full rights. There was a time when it was unpopular to demand action against those who would keep black Americans second-class citizens, but that didn't stop the wave of righteous Americans who said no to racism.

Basic human rights is the idea from which all other liberal views flow.

Basic human rights beget worker's rights. Basic human rights beget women's rights. Basic human rights beget fair and clean elections. Basic human rights beget environmental protections. Basic human rights beget sane a foriegn policy.

As a liberal, I choose to embrace basic human rights -- including the rights of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to full participation in our system. I do this because it is the right thing to do, and I do not run from it because it may be unpopular or for fear of political repercussions.

As a woman in the United States, someone once fought for my right to full participation -- I would be a coward and a hypocrite if I did not answer the call for this new fight for basic human rights.

[ThomCat]

180. I usually like your posts.

You usually have good, well thought-out things to say.

But I find this post short-sighted and homophobic. It seems that you are willing to sacrifice some of us for some greater good. Never mind that those of us you would sacrifice would be excluded from that greater good.

Even if the Democratic party went back to pro-labor populism (as if the party every really supported that position without guns held to their collective head) the prejudice you would allow would make many of us so vulnerable that we could easily be de-facto excluded from the gains.

Gay people have often been fired simply because someone figured out that we were gay. Gay people are often discriminated against in hiring and promotions. Gay people are still forced to stay in the closet in most work environments. Gay people are still subject to harrassment that gets quietly condoned. It's not realistic to think these are purely labor issues, and making doing so won't help us. You can't solve problems if you don't look at them honestly. And if your vision of a problem excludes us then your solutions exclude us too.

[LostinVA]

183. I was fired by a major corporation in 1991 for being gay

The manager who did later received a promotion to Corporate. I was basically told by her that if I complained about the firing, she would give me bad recommendations when prospective employers called. I called Corporate HR, who asked if I had proof -- that the manager said I had been fired for stealing $20. I didn't press the issue. If that happened now? I would be writing up press releases and hiring an attorney so fast your head would spin. I wasn't even officially out to my family yet, so I backed off.

How did they find out? They suspected, then went into my bag when I wasn't around and "discovered" a gay-themed book I was reading.

I haven't bought a thing in a Waldenbooks since then.

And, this same thing happens every day, with NO LEGAL RECOURSE.

[ThomCat]

200. Exactly.

I have been passed up for promotions because they figured out I was gay.

I have worked in an office where I faced daily hostility and harassment because they figured out I was gay.

I had no recourse except to leave. The people who discriminated against me and harassed me were protected, but I wasn't. That is what some people want to enshrine as our top priority.
x(

[LostinVA]

209. Bingo

[Raster]

202. What is absolutely amazing is that everytime someone suggests

that Gays should crawl to the back of the bus, it's a heterosexual person that has NEVER been discriminated against for their sexuality?

[LostinVA]

207. Yeah, I notice that too, Raster -- illuminating, huh?

The lack of empathy and/or compassion in these threads is sickening.

[ThomCat]

210. Right, because more rights for them is practical

but more rights for us is not. :eyes:

x(

[cmd]

182. I'm selling out my principles this year

I'm working for, contributing to, and voting for candidates who do not share my view of abortion, gay rights, gun control, immediate withdrawal from Iraq and I suppose a few more issues. Why? Because the alternative is worse. The object, as WC is pointing out, is winning. I'm never going to be able to do anything to help on the above issues if I'm in the perpetual minority. To all you one issue, party of one voters, how do you think you are ever going to win by losing?

[ScreamingMeemie]

184. Where do you see one issue people?? Where?

I'm for equal rights for all. I'm for saving innocent Iraqis and our men and women in uniform. I'm for protecting my children's future. I'm for not playing the game of "Election Time" anymore basically. How do you think we'll succeed if we keep selling our fellow citizens out?

[LostinVA]

186. Jinx! We posted at the same time

Thanks, MrsG.

See, facts make too much sense for those willing to sell us out. They have to make believe they're doing it for a NOBLE reason, because being homophobic doesn't make them look good.

[cmd]

187. Sorry, you put the wrong pin in me

I'm not homophobic. I have a choice between voting for someone who hates gays and a someone who believes in gay rights, but not gay marriage. Shall I vote for the gay hater? Would that make you feel better?

Edit: I should have said civil unions instead of gay rights. I do understand that marriage is a right. I don't think it is going to happen for gay people this year. I going for the best that I can give you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

189. Is it really a belief if you're constantly telling them to hang on? That

it's just not important enough and will cost votes? Do you really think people are going to hang on when, time and again, their right to be treated equally isn't a good issue to tackle right now. The best that you can give just isn't good enough.

[cmd]

194. And my choice is?

I can stay home and pout. I can vote for the the best possible candidate. I can vote for the worst possible candidate. That's what it is down to. I only have the power of one vote. I must put it to the best possible use.

That IS the best I can do. Take it or leave it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

195. I'll leave it, thanks. I'm out there, working for change.

It started with educating my husband...my children, my neighbors. It continues with refusing to campaign for, support or re elect hypocrits. Your choice? To stop posting in threads rationalizing homophobia and start posting for change. Sure it's fine for you...it doesn't affect you. Therefore, nothing to worry about.

[JeffR]

196. Those are good things, MrsG

But they won't get the Republicans out of power. Absent that achievement, even civil unions will be out of reach and the country will continue its slide into the Dark Ages. And that affects us all, whatever our gender or color.

[ThomCat]

203. The choice is to fight to expand the debate.

"Rights delayed are rights denied." Martin Luther King Jr said that, and he definitely knew what he was talking about.

[cmd]

230. I'm talking about my immediate choice this election

I will always be working for full gay rights. Right now I have to take what I can get for the good of all.

[ThomCat]

265. At what mythical point would you step in

and demand civil rights for everyone? If you keep settling for the choices that are offered, and don't demand better choices, then you will always be taking the immediate choice, and you will always be leaving people behind.

[cmd]

272. You have no idea

how much better off you will be with the choices I will make this year.

[ThomCat]

273. Well Geez! Then I guess I'll just have blind faith

that a person who's willing to throw GLTBs under the bus for short term gain really has our best interests at heart.
:eyes:

[cmd]

281. Long term gain, Thom

And I'm not throwing you overboard. I am working in your interest. And, yes, you are not first in line. There are dying people ahead of you that I want to help.

[ThomCat]

284. I'm sure you won't be surprised

know that we've all heard such paternalism before. Everyone who has fought for civil rights knows that you believe in such benevolence when you actually see it, and not before.

A lot of well-meaning people say they'll eventually support civil rights, and then eventually never comes. At some point we accept that we can only count on those who are committed now, especially when those who claim they will be committed later are urging us now to settle for less than equal rights.

[pnwmom]

216. You still haven't addressed the issue of

why half a loaf isn't better than none. At least you're not dead.

[ScreamingMeemie]

219. Yaaay...not.

Because it isn't a half a loaf when some are getting nothing.

[pnwmom]

223. A civil union may not be the same as a marriage -- even with

the same legal rights -- but it's still better than no legal unions.

Tell the people in Vermont that their civil unions are "nothing." I bet most would disagree with you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

225. This isn't what is being discussed. What is being discussed is whether

the right to even have a civil union should be brought up before an election, that it would be far better if we left it alone for another time... another time that never comes.. Thank you.

[pnwmom]

228. I don't see that as the issue in the OP.

[ScreamingMeemie]

237. "Liberalism used to stand for more than Gay Rights..."

"But if we continue to be held captive by special interests groups that demand absolute fealty to their cause, we are doomed as a majority political party. And just where does that get our agenda."

People who want to be treated equally demoted to a special interest group...


Edited because one comment was not very nice.

[ThomCat]

226. Because only straight people get that half a loaf

and we get crumbs.

Half a loaf says that you get yours, and we get pushed to the back of the bus again. Yes, we want democrats to win, but we also don't want to be the sacrifice you make to win.

Would you be willing to sacrifice your own civil rights to ensure that other democrats benefited?

[pnwmom]

232. Half a loaf is getting civil unions now, and marriage later.

The problem with the MA decision in 2004, timed as it was, was that it helped sweep even more Republicans into office. The ONLY way to get true equity is when change occurs in the Federal law to recognize same-sex marriage.

How much have we gained if we achieve "marriage" in a few states, rather than "civil unions" -- if the end result is a backlash that helps Republicans get elected, and causes the delay of when we finally have Federal recognition of same-sex marriage?

[ThomCat]

238. We would have achieved quite a bit.

Because decisions that stand in the states tend to spread and become federal rights and then get enforced on the remaining states. It is very rare that any right starts at the federal level.

By backing full marrage rights at the state level we set the precident. We create an example that everyone can point to and say, "See, that has become normal, and it works, and it hasn't created the disaster that the republicans predicted." That cuts short many of their doomsday arguments and gives us a strong foothold to expand to other states.

If we take a tepid step and push for watered down rights then that is all we will get.

[pnwmom]

242. I think we would have achieved more, and faster, if the

backlash hadn't occurred and the Vermont model had spread. People would have realized that civil unions weren't causing any problems, and they were the functional equivalent, and why not call them what they are -- marriages.

But instead we got sidetracked into the whole argument of whether the Courts were doing the legislating, etc., etc. and the Republicans solidified their majority in Congress.

[ThomCat]

245. I don't think that is what happened.

It's not a matter of what we would have achieved but what we are working to achieve now. It's not a matter of whether it happens throught the courts or the legislature but of what happens.

The republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent GLBTs from being anything more than societal cast-offs. It's up to us to fight and hard as we can for civil rights. If we stop half way and say, it's not really that important, then the republicans are going to succeed in constantly pulling things to the right.

That is what they do. They latch onto anyone in the middle who is willing to give-in and give-up and they pull things to the right from there.

You may not be willing to fight for civil rights, but please don't stand in the way of those of us who are.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

278. Nobody wants to stand in your way

(I'm taking the time to discuss this with you because I greatly respect your contributions to the Feminist forum.)

I'm just very wary about one-issue voting or any group that insists that it will pick up its marbles and go home if its particular issues are not agreed with to the letter. In Oregon, single-issue voters (abortion rights) gave us Bob Packwood, who cynically exploited the abortion issue and proclaimed himself a great champion of women's rights, so much so that the average woman voter didn't look closely and see that he was sexually harrassing employees and, more important for the fate of the entire nation, screwing the middle and working class with the 1986 tax "reform." I talked myself blue in the face when I lived in Oregon, because even though Packwood's Dem opponents weren't anti-choice, they didn't make it a prime component of their campaigns, and so the one-issue voters kept putting that sleazeball Packwood back in office.

I feel the same way about a candidate who loudly proclaims his support for GLBT rights and even votes against the Defense of Marriage Act (and actually, that's the only time Congress has voted on GLBT issues, as far as I remember) but still votes for all of Bush's economic and military initiatives (and there have been Democratic defectors, and consistent ones, on nearly every such vote). Such a candidate is a wolf in sheep's clothing, like Packwood.

Ideally, I'd like to see a candidate who believes that his constituents won't accept gay rights or abortion rights per se to put those concerns in terms such as, "I believe that other people's personal lives are none of my business" and "I believe that all Americans should enjoy exactly the same rights under the law."

History is on the side of the GLBT struggle, certainly in the Western countries, and there are stirrings in the rest of the world, too. It's all a matter of what a candidate chooses to emphasize. A candidate for an urban Congressional district who emphasized farm price supports in his campaign would annoy voters, even though he might be knowledgeable about them. A rural candidate who campaigned on building urban light rail systems would annoy voters, even if he believed in them. To go to farmers who are worried about losing their farms or macho steelworkers whose plant has shut down and put gay rights in the forefront of one's campaign shows the same sort of cluelessness. A smart candidate emphasizes the issues that are most important to the constituents, in so far as he can do so in good conscience.

I would want the DNC to condemn and withdraw funding from a candidate who actually campaigned on anti-gay bigotry, but I'd cut some slack to a candidate who simply chose not to mention gay rights.

[LostinVA]

185. Who here is a " one issue, party of one voters"?

I think there is ZERO wriggle room on basic civil rights.

Holding your nose and voting for a candidate is indeed different than selling out American citizens... fellow humans. And, slamming them with nastiness in the process.

Will eb be advocating for the return of a ban on interracial marriage soon? Not one iota of difference.

Kinda telling you don't see the difference...

on edit: take that fucking union avatar off your posts. We'd bring in even more people without that Left wing garbage.

[pnwmom]

218. I don't know what you mean by zero wiggle room.

But if you mean that you will withhold a vote from the Democratic candidate, because he is only for civil unions and not gay marriage, and instead stand back while a more conservative Republican is elected, then you're a one issue candidate.

[semillama]

240. exactly.

I'm voting for Sherrod Brown, even though he voted to gut habeus corpus. Why?

because the alternative is MIKE DEWINE.

as i've said in a post elsewhere, first you elect a democratic majority, then you lean on them to push progressive issues.

[LetsGoMurphys]

190. You have put all of my thoughts

into a well written post. Thank you.

[RedEarth]

192. Excellent post.........

[Armstead]

193. Amen -- You nailed it -- False linkage undermines every issue

Every issue that liberals care about are undermined by the larger issues of Wealth and Power.

That's not to say that social and personal issues are not important. But even with those, the ability to debate and deal with them on their own terms is undermined by the structire of the political and economic system.

It is perverted that people feel they have to make a choice betweeen their opinons on issues like gun control and gay rights and the real issues of Wealth and Power. They should be apples and oranges in a political context.

[Politicub]

197. Spoken like a true heterosexist

Why don't I just go to the back of the bus to make it more convenient for you?

"Don’t get me wrong. I am strongly pro-choice and for the rights of gay couples to join in any union they wish. No one should be denied rights in the country, period."

Mmmm mmmm thank you. Your crumbs are so delicious.

[closeupready]

229. This thread is really offensive. Yet another

"dems are the lesser of two evils, so vote for them" thread.

Shame! :mad:

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

258. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

233. IF DEMS WOULD STOP COMPROMISING ON

issues which actually MATTER to most voters - i.e., economic issues, job security, health care, etc. - MAYBE GAY ISSUES WOULDN'T BE THE HOT TOPIC.

But as it is, there is little opposition to the Republican Agenda, so what gets talked about? These controversial issues that sell papers and increase viewer numbers.

Don't blame gays for weak leadership - they ain't in charge.

[Raster]

235. Thank you. A scapegoat is a scapegoat, no matter if you put it in a

prom dress or wrap a coathanger around it's neck. Shame. Shame. Shame.

I've asked for this thread to be locked.

[LostinVA]

253. Me too -- along with the rest of the homophobic threads

Ain't happening yet.

[pnwmom]

236. The Bush/Rove policy is to lock Democrats out of any meaningful

impact on any issue. The policy is to push the agenda as far to the right as possible, with just enough Republican votes to guarantee passing a bill without any help from the Democrats.

And Democrats control no committees.

Compromise isn't something that happens anymore, because Bush/Rove couldn't care less about building a concensus -- just passing bills with a "majority of the majority."

[Lasher]

261. Quite an astute observation there, pnwmom

You must have been reading the Rolling Stone. Here's an excerpt from an article I've been reading in the hard copy version:

American government was not designed for one-party rule but for rule by consensus -- so this current batch of Republicans has found a way to work around that product design. They have scuttled both the spirit and the letter of congressional procedure, turning the lawmaking process into a backroom deal, with power concentrated in the hands of a few chiefs behind the scenes. This reduces the legislature to a Belarus-style rubber stamp, where the opposition is just there for show, human pieces of stagecraft -- a fact the Republicans don't even bother to conceal.

"I remember one incident very clearly -- I think it was 2001," says Winslow Wheeler, who served for twenty-two years as a Republican staffer in the Senate. "I was working for Pete Domenici at the time. We were in a Budget Committee hearing and the Democrats were debating what the final result would be. And my boss gets up and he says, 'Why are you saying this? You're not even going to be in the room when the decisions are made.' Just said it right out in the open."

<snip>

One of the most depressing examples of one-party rule is the Patriot Act. The measure was originally crafted in classic bipartisan fashion in the Judiciary Committee, where it passed by a vote of thirty-six to zero, with famed liberals like Barney Frank and Jerrold Nadler saying aye. But when the bill was sent to the Rules Committee, the Republicans simply chucked the approved bill and replaced it with a new, far more repressive version, apparently written at the direction of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

<snip>

When bills do make it to the floor for a vote, the debate generally resembles what one House aide calls "preordained Kabuki." Republican leaders in the Bush era have mastered a new congressional innovation: the one-vote victory. Rather than seeking broad consensus, the leadership cooks up some hideously expensive, favor-laden boondoggle and then scales it back bit by bit. Once they're in striking range, they send the fucker to the floor and beat in the brains of the fence-sitters with threats and favors until enough members cave in and pass the damn thing. It is, in essence, a legislative microcosm of the electoral strategy that Karl Rove has employed to such devastating effect.

<snip>

"This Congress has thrown caution to the wind," says Turley, the constitutional scholar. "They have developed rules that are an abuse of majority power. Keeping votes open by freezing the clock, barring minority senators from negotiations on important conference issues -- it is a record that the Republicans should now dread. One of the concerns that Republicans have about losing Congress is that they will have to live under the practices and rules they have created. The abuses that served them in the majority could come back to haunt them in the minority."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/1

Edit: I left out one <snip>

[Lydia Leftcoast]

256. We need to look at why Republican memes are successful

Have you ever noticed in your real life that the people who go around censuring other people's behavior are the types who have rigid jaws and frown lines frozen into their faces? Have you ever met a calm, happy person who felt compelled to go around shaking his/her finger and saying, "Look at what THOSE HORRIBLE PEOPLE are doing"?

A lot of the success of Republican gay-bashing and woman-bashing comes from the fact that people are stressed economically and materially and don't understand why, so when the Republicans present some ready-made scapegoats for them, they latch onto them.

It's the same technique that medieval lords used when the peasants started grumbling. "It's the witches' fault that your children are dying. God is letting you starve because you allow Jews to live in this area." And sad to say, both in the Middle Ages and now, scapegoating works on people who aren't savvy to how their political and economic system operates.

It's no coincidence that the racial civil rights movement enjoyed its greatest successes during the period when everyone's incomes were rising and most Americans enjoyed a quantum leap in living standards.

Let living standards start rising again in America, and most of the population will be too happy to worry about other people's personal lives.

[Raster]

262. Yes, and let pigs fly. NO! The reason the rethuglican memes are so

successful is that there are PLENTY OF PERSONS WILLING TO ASSIST IN THEIR DISSEMINATION AND PROMULGATION! rethuglican memes are so successful because otherwise good people allow themselves to be deceived into thinking just a minor amount of intolerance now will lead to more tolerance and acceptance for all later. Do you really think the average German started out thinking "I know, let's murder all the Jews, that will fix things"? rethuglican memes are so successful because selfish people are willing to sacrifice someone else's well being to promote their own.

[ThomCat]

268. Absolutely right

and a lot of people here would be lined up to help them rationalize the tiny steps downward.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

269. What is selfish about wanting better economic opportunities for all?

And the references to Nazi Germany that you and others make is a false one.

The sin of the average German was not blocking the granting of equal rights to Jews. The sin lay in accepting the subtraction of existing rights that Jews had always had.

If WCGreen and those of us who actually understand what he is saying were to say, "Let's win by putting in the Democratic platform that no GLBT people may practice licensed professions" THAT would be analogous to what the Nazis proposed and what the German people acquiesced to.

[ThomCat]

275. The fact that they aren't "for all."

The fact that people are willing to sacrifice the rights of gay people in exchange for economic benefits is a chilling situation.

How much money are our lives worth? :eyes:

And are there really, truly, no ways to get economic benefits that you would lower yourself to share with us?
x(

[Lydia Leftcoast]

280. You're inferring things that I didn't say

:shrug:

[ThomCat]

282. No, I think I'm accurately seeing the implications of a policy

that has been used against every installment of the civil rights movement. Many people are willing to sacrifice others "temporarily" for some greater good. The claim of Fighting Poverty has always been used this way.

It's always a greater good that will not be shared among everyone because the decision was already made to sacrifice some people to get it.

And the temporary delay always grows longer and longer.

And then, even if some economic gains are made, they are unstable and tenative because they are selectively offered.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

286. I'm not sure you understand what my actual position is

:shrug:

I'm not sacrificing anyone. I'm just for allowing candidates to choose what to emphasize in their campaigns. The tide is in your favor. A few hold-outs in socially-conservative districts are not going to stop that.

When the Dems get into office (on the basis of their economic platforms), I hope that they show the same boldness as Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson (not the "I hope I don't offend the Republicans" timidity of Clinton). Truman integrated the military racially by calling in the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, warning them what he was going to do as commander in chief, and telling them that anyone who voiced objections would be court-martialed for insubordination. (Clinton's mistake lay in not dealing with critics in the same way.) I'd also like to see the Dems add "sexual orientation" as a protected category under the Civil Rights act, probably an easier maneuver, realitically speaking, than a separate GLBT civil rights act, judging from the trouble the Equal Rights Amendment for women has had over the years.

I sincerely hope they do these things. Candidates in urban areas or other areas with large populations of GLBT people and behaviorally liberal people would do well to campaign on these issues. Candidates in behaviorally conservative areas would be better off emphasizing economic issues.

In the end, it's what they do when they're in office that counts.

For all of Truman's boldness in racially integrating the military, do you think he actually campaigned on that plan in Alabama and Mississippi in 1948? I don't know for sure, since I wasn't around, but considering the reactions to the civil rights movement that we saw in the late 1950s, he probably would have been assassinated for suggesting it in those states.

[ThomCat]

289. Truman only integrated because he felt he had to.

He was facing race riots and military manpower problems. Lincoln was willing to support slavery until he was forced into opposing it. Codified equal rights for women hasn't happend yet, dispute lip service about equality, because no president has been forced to support it.

Presidents who get the credit for civil rights advances didn't come into office advocating those advances because they didn't believe in them. They were forced by people like us to support them.

No president will take the bold position of supporting equal rights for GLBTs unless we force them to. And we won't force them to if we keep compromising. Civil rights advances when people refuse to compromise!

[casus belli]

277. You Forgot Education.

There is a reason that Education is one of the first things to be cut when Republicans are looking to axe spending on a program or two. That aside, good post. :)

[sampsonblk]

244. All else will fall into place!

Going back to the roots, as you call it, would restore our party's natural majority for a long time.

[ThomCat]

250. But if we do that by sacrificing LGBTs

what will we accomplish? If LGBTs are sacrificed now, like they have been in the past, then we will be sacrificed again, and again, and again.

At what point will conditions be so ideal that straight dems can be bothered to support civil rights for the rest of us?

[mmonk]

254. Rights aren't lifestyle politics.

If anyone's civil rights are attacked, they should be defended and people who describe rights as lifestyles are calling rights that in order to pretend or make an argument those rights aren't really rights.

[LostinVA]

264. Thank you -- sincerely n/t

[Arugula Latte]

263. ... said the heterosexual male ... n/t

[kiahzero]

285. I'm sorry I'm not going to shut up and let myself be thrown under the bus.

Liberalism is harder than conservatism, because we're not authoritarian power-worshippers.

[AtomicKitten]

287. The Constitution does not discriminate on the basis of sexuality

... and neither should we. And we especially should not kowtow to the implied "conventional wisdom" that pursuing equal rights for all Americans is somehow bad timing at any given point in history. IMO it is never a bad time to refuse to give up a seat on the bus.

[Moderator]

291. Locking

This has devolved into a flame war