What is the best approach to the issue of Gay Marriage?

[Mass_Liberal]

which is more important? Recognition of equal rights for all, or winning the GE? We all agree that Bush is bad, monstrously bad. We also know that the majority of people in this country are anti-gay marriage. So we can assume that gay-marriage would be a pretty effective wedge.


The ultimate question: IS IT WORTH POSTPONING (PROBABLY FOR A LONG TIME) THE LEGALIZATION OF GAY MARRIAGE IN ORDER TO BEAT BUSH BY AVOIDING THE WEDGE?

[emanymton]

1. I Am For Equal Rights PERIOD

The GOP were so loud about states rights. Here is one for them.

Leave the issue to the 50 states. This is not a fedreral issue in any way.

[Vernunft II]

2. I don´t understand the whole issue

but that might be my limited knowledge on how such things are handled in the USA. Here in Germany the civil union is the legally binding ceremony and only those of faith who wish a church ceremony can have that afterwards. It´s both considered a "wedding" and while churches cringe it is possible for 2 guys or 2 girls to get married and have the same protection as I and my wife have.

[MercutioATC]

3. Give "marriage" to religion. Establish "civil unions" as the only legal

form of joining people and make it available to everybody. This could be soft-pedaled to the right by explaining it's just like a marriage license...essentially, we have the differentiation NOW, we just need to make it available to the GLBT community.

[library_max]

5. Yup, that's the answer. /nt

[AP]

30. This is absolutely right. Make it an issue of workers material rights ...

and issue of making sure people can live together, save money, and have an easier time amassing wealth by giving them a SET OF RIGHTS which have nothing to do with religious, having sex, love, or spirituality.

Leave that stuff to your religion. The government should only be in the business of meidating your material relationships with each other and with the goverment and in the context of employment.

[IndianaGreen]

40. A marriage license is a civil document issued by the state

it has nothing to do with religion. Jesus did not establish marriage! Atheists get married. People marry outside the church.

To say that the state can deny a marriage license on the basis of sexual orientation is to give a blank check to the state to deny a teaching license to gays.

[markus]

43. Simply stop issuing marriage licenses

and compel everyone who wants the legal, rather than the spiritual, benefits of marriage to submit to a civil union. Nothing will prevent the happy couple from celebrating their marriage in any way their religion will allow.

[AP]

48. Not only that, a lot of same-sex couples who think of marriage as a stigma

will get the civil unions, which will give them rights they would otherwise forego, and this will make them wealthier and happier.

They can say they're not married if they want to, but at least they'll be protected and wealth and power can flow their direction.

[AP]

47. Only partly true.

The marriage license isn't enough. You have to have a ceremony to complete the deal. Either you can have a civil ceremony or you can have a religious ceremony.

There isn't any other legal relationship in America -- not birth, not death, not divorce, not the formation of a coporation or a partnership, not the purchase of a house, not ANYTHING -- where the governments looks to religion to establish a person's legal rights and duties.

That's what has to stop. We have to say churches can marry whomever the want, and that the only thing the government can do is establish the legal rights between two people (without regard to whether they're married, or whatever).

[Laughing Mirror]

4. No postponement, there's been enough postponement

I haven't been marching in the streets 35 years for my constitutional rights to have them cast aside any longer.

Suppose I had decided to postpone paying my taxes for 35 years? Do you suppose I would have made it this long?

And how do you know that America would never put in a president who said he was pro constitutional rights for all our citizens? I'm not so sure most people really care one way or another. I think most people are just worried about putting food on their families.

[election_2004]

6. What I think...

As a gay male, I'm willing to vote Kerry/Dean/Edwards/Clark in November and wait a little longer for my marital rights to be granted, as long as the Democrats don't roll over and allow the Federal Marriage Amendment to pass.

Otherwise, no Democrat will have my vote ever again.

[Laughing Mirror]

7. How old are you?

How long are you willing to wait?

[election_2004]

41. I'm 22

And I'm willing to wait a few years for civil unions (5-10 years at most)...although I want to see them granted everywhere possible as soon as possible.

I'm willing to wait 10-20 years for full-fledged same-sex marriage.

[Laughing Mirror]

42. So you're willing to wait until you're 42, the absolute limit

And then what? What will you do, now that you have passed twenty years as a second-class citizen in your own country, while for the past 25 years you would have been a first-class citizen with full rights in every other reasonable country around the world?

How do you envisage you might respond then?

Just something to think about.

[election_2004]

52. Well...

I want the right to marry as soon as possible, so I'll be involved in the fight for same-sex marriage for as long as it takes.

But the entire movement for same-sex marriage will be squashed like a bug if we let the Federal Marriage Amendment pass.

[mondo joe]

8. Short term: States Rights; Long term: Split Civil and Marriage

Short term: This is a states rights issue.

Long term: Government performs only civil unions, same sex or mixed. Churches, temples, etc can perform marriages.

[BurtWorm]

9. Number one: Oppose legislation seeking to define marriage.

Argue that the definition of marriage cannot be legislated. The more relevant issues for government to deal with are equity and discrimination, and make a stand against discrimination on the basis of sexual preference and against making inequity the law. If someone asks flat out, should gays be able to marry, answer that it is not for the president of the United States to settle that matter. Do not answer that question any other way! In fact deride the idea that Congress or the President have the wisdom to make a definitive ruling on any complex social issue.

Of course if anyone had the guts to answer the question "yes" and damn the consequences, I would be positively amazed. But there's no reason to hang the nominee on an issue the red-meaters want to hang him on.

Just don't play their games!

[Brian_Expat]

10. The same logic always gets brought up. . .

. . . we cannot do it now, wait until later.

We cannot do it now, Sam Nunn is attacking Clinton! Let's do it later.

We cannot do it now, Newt Gingrich is attacking Clinton! Let's do it later.

We cannot do it now, Bob Dole is attacking Clinton! Let's do it later.

We cannot do it now, Al Gore is running a close election with Bush! Let's do it later.

We cannot do it now, George W. Bush is a popular president! Let's do it later.

We cannot do it now, national security is the big concern! Let's do it later.

We cannot do it now, we have to focus on beating Bush! Let's do it later.

And if the Democrat does win. . .

We cannot do it now, the GOP House and Senate are attacking the Dem president! Let's do it later.

Wow, 12 years are past in the blink of an eye.

[Mass_Liberal]

12. WOW!!!!

I didn't intend for any slant to cloud my post. As a matter of fact, I am hugely conflicted on the issue myself.

[Product of Evolution]

25. Don't side with idiots like Romney and Bush...

Make the progressive choice!

[Mass_Liberal]

51. look

It's hard for me to choose. For one thing, I passionately believe that all people are equal. That's a given.

But I also think Bush is evil. I mean completely soulless. I am scared shitless as to what he might do to this country given 4 more years.

But I agree, it would be evil of us not to do everything we can to secure marriage rights, and civil rights for gays.

But I also think that Gay Marriage is a potentially effective wedge issue. Most people in this country, are bigoted. They are against Gay Marriage and against Civil Unions.


So, this+that= I'm in internal torment

[Edge]

11. Equal rights is equal rights...I support it fully.

If anyone wants to take away equal rights of certain individuals just for their own gain, then he/she will not get any respect from me nor my support. It's that simple.

[emanymton]

13. YES!!!

Equal rights.

How can any be confused on such a simple issue? One is for equal rights or one is not.

Equal Rights.

[AP]

32. Why do people want an equal right to have the government mediate your

spiritual relationships with others?

Why don't people want to get the government out of the marriage business and contain its influence in your life to defining legal/material rights rather that spiritual relationships?

[NashVegas]

14. Best Approach: Don't Run, Don't Hide

Stand firm. Doesn't matter whether it's CUs or marriage, if those politicians who are sympathetic to to them are too afraid to take a firm stance either way, they'll be bulldozed by the right.

[library_max]

19. Yes, stand firm, stand tall,

get killed in every election, and let the Republicans do the actual deciding. Great "strategy."

[Mairead]

15. A nice start would be to stop calling it "gay marriage".

That's a loaded, right-wing term that makes it sound as though we're after some special right.

So how about not helping them?

[Mass_Liberal]

21. I think very few of us

are conflicted morally. But many think, and perhaps they are right, that repubs can use this as a wedge issue to cut the Democratic Party off from joe shmoe,

[Mairead]

29. Sure! As long as it's called "gay marriage", you bet it can be abused as

a wedge issue -- because it sounds like Special Rights!

Don't hand-wring and obsess, re-focus on what's really at issue: equal rights for everyone, no special rights for anyone!

During the civil rights struggle in the '50s and '60s, people didn't talk about 'Black rights', it was about 'equal rights'. No 'special' drinking fountains, lunch-counter seats, schools. One provision for everyone. Everyone eats at the same counter, drinks from the same fountain, studies at the same school, sits in whatever bus seat is open. No 'special rights'. No 'special provision'. No special anything. Simple equality. The same rights for everyone.

[emanymton]

38. It Is Equal Rights or No Rights For All

[Deansspecialinterest]

16. Win with courage, not cowardice

First of all, while I think it is true that most of the country is against gay marriage, I don't really think this is a swing issue for mainstream voters, and I don't really think it would affect their vote. I think it might affect the votes of the extreme right wing (who I can't see any Democrat winning over, no matter what) and fairly left-leaning liberals who are angered to see Dems just rolling over on a civil rights issue. Of course, this is all political speculation. If any of "our" candidates don't think that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals deserve equal rights under the law, then I can't accept them as "our" candidates. Whether or not civil unions fulfill the rights of citizens may be up for debate, but I desperate hope that the Democrats won't hide or run from this issue. A constitutional amendment taking rights away from citizens isn't just wrong, it's a blight on the Constitution. The Democrats should say so. The idealist in me wants to believe that most voters would find this idea more palatable than Bush's extremist bigotry. If not, perhaps the gulf in this country IS just too great to overcome.

[rucky]

17. Three Steps:

1) Identify it as a GOP Wedge issue.

2) Put it into perspective: Not a big deal to most people. A VERY big deal to the GLBT population.

3) Take a strong stand. Don't straddle the fence.

Rinse. Repeat.


How many times are we going to fall into this trap?

[library_max]

20. Step three doesn't follow from steps one and two.

In fact, it seems to be directly contradictory.

Unless by step two you mean that nobody is passionately against it except Republicans. That, I'm afraid, is at best a very innocent position. Religious people all over the country, not all of them Republicans by a long shot, are angry at the idea that their churches could be forced to perform the sacrament of marriage for same sex couples.

We need to separate the legal issue from the religious issue. The way to do that is civil unions.

[Jersey Devil]

18. gay marriage - "or the legal incidents thereof"

The proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages would read, as I understand it, as follows:

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'

This proposed Amendment, as worded, could in my opinion ban not only gay marriage but also gay civil unions which could easily be argued as the legal incidents thereof, especially since it is stated in the disjunctive.

marital status and legal incidents - designates one status, being married and all its legal ramifications.

marital status or legal incidents - designates two different statuses ('stati'?), married and situations with the legal rights of a marriage but not the marriage itelf.

By stating it in the disjunctive and thereby separating 'marital status' from 'legal incidents', does that not signify two different situations? 1 - actual marriage and 2 - civil unions?

I don't know how anyone else might see it but if there is a possibility the proposed amendment could be construed to ban both gay marriage and civil unions I can't see how any of the candidates, even the ones who have said they favor civil unions but not actual marriage, could possibly support it.

Is Kerry waiting for the lawyers to tell him what it means?

[library_max]

22. Nobody has proposed this specific wording to Kerry

and he hasn't said anything about supporting any marriage amendment regardless of wording. He has said he supports civil unions and full legal equality between same sex and heterosexual couples.

[mondo joe]

23. What Wording Would Make the Amendment Acceptable?

But what wording could possibly make such an amendment acceptable?

[library_max]

33. No wording.

But the wording dodge helped Kerry finesse the issue. He reiterated his support for civil unions and equal legal rights while avoiding producing a sound bite ("I would oppose any such amendment") for a Rove ad painting him as anti-marriage.

It's easy for you and me to be unequivocal about this issue. Ain't neither of us running for president.

[nancyharris]

24. If the Democratic Part does not stand for equal rights for all,

then the Party is of no value.

I am very upset about Senator Kerry’s remarks on NPR that he does not support gay marriage. I am not sure I can vote for someone who does not have the courage to support gay marriage.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. Framing it as equal protection under the constitution is the best approach

That is why I didn't take issue with Kerry's statements yesterday. He took the word MARRIAGE out and framed equal protection as a constitutional issue.

No it isn't worth postponing so that straight people may sontinue to have protections and rights that gay people don't have.

The only place where I differ is with the rhetoric.

[Nicholas_J]

28. Framing it as a tax issue is best

Gays pay for to support the very services they are denied access to. The buildings, the paper on which the licenses are printed, the salarie of the court officials. The works. That is the main nut to crack the entire issue on.

[corporatewhore]

27. EQUAL RIGHTS ARE NOT A WEDGE ISSUE THEY ARE A STAND YOUR GROUND ISSUE

[library_max]

34. Yes, when you see a steamroller coming, stand your ground.

That's smart. That's the way to win elections.

[corporatewhore]

37. yeah who cares about equal rights anyways

:eyes: you see dems could win votes of disenfanchised people by standing up and not letting the republicans shape their positions

[library_max]

54. They'd lose a lot more than they'd gain.

It's possible to be courageous once in office without being stupid in the campaign. The campaign won't change the law, no matter what any candidate says or doesn't say. It's what they do in office that counts. In office, Kerry voted against DOMA and earned a 100% rating from HRC.

[emanymton]

36. We Stand For This Or we Stand For NOTHING!!!

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. If it's worth postponing scrapping NAFTA, repealing Taft-Hartley

and other Democratic principles, sure why not? Domestic partnerships would be a reasonable compromise in my opinion.

[IndianaGreen]

39. This reminds me of the old argument of telling desegregationists

to wait in order to not offend Southern Democrats.

The old signs that said "White Only" have been replaced by signs that say "Hetero Only."

[kiahzero]

44. Pull a Bush

Play at a moderate position, then go with a vastly more liberal position that still fits the vague framework you set up in the GE.

Turnabout is fair play, right?

[IndianaGreen]

45. And use gays as a political football?

No thanks!

[kiahzero]

46. Do you think the Religious Right complained

when Bush posed as a moderate? No, they knew they were getting what they wanted, so long as they were patient.

Unfortunately, a significant number of the American people (I don't remember if it's a majority or not) do not support gay marriage. Therefore, if you want to openly and vigorously campaign for this issue, you are going to have to wait until opinions change.

So there are the practical options. We can talk centrist vagueries in the GE, and then implement a liberal policy, or talk about that liberal policy in the GE and hope to hell that it doesn't backfire.

I think the former is the way most likely to result in success, therefore I support that option.

[LynneSin]

49. Oppose the Marriage Amendment and work at the state level for change

If we try to pass a federal mandate for gay rights it will not pass and we will only lenghten the great divide between homophobes and openminded folks.

But if we start at a state level where the states decide what is best for Gays & Lesbians, I think you'll see equal rights spread throughout the country and we won't win over all homophobes, but there are many sitting on the fence that will realize they have nothing to be afraid of by embracing GLBT rights.

As more and more states accept marriages/unions/equal rights, the easier it will be to create national civil rights on a federal level.

I think we're heading in the right direction, hopefully we can all do our part to push this country in the correct direction (I don't want to say right direction because to me the right is wrong)

[arwalden]

50. I Don't Know The Answer To That Question

but I do know that I would support the Democrat regardless of their view on that particular issue. I'd look at the candidate as a whole... and then I'd make my vote based on which candidate (as a whole) is better for the nation. Even though that issue is very important to me, I'm not a one-issue voter.

-- Allen

[emanymton]

53. One Does Not Have To Be A Lawyer To Read ...

the U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is a winning issue for the people. The Democratic Nominee (DN) will when he/she answer the question simply and eliquently. It is an equal rights issue.

To oppose this issue is to advocate the return to separate but equal and slavery.

Equla rights are always a winner!

[eridani]

55. Diversion

Just say "Will the proposed constitutional amendment bring back any of the 3 million jobs lost?"