Would this be a valid reason not to support a Democratic candidate?

[TechBear_Seattle]

My question is about House Resolution 2012, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA. If passed by Congress and signed by Bush, this bill would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1965 by prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity nationwide.

The House is currently holding hearings on the bill, and there is a good chance that it will be sent to the House floor and pass. If that happens, it will be sent to the Senate for debate and hopefully passage.

The three leading Democratic candidates for President are all senators and will very likely have the opportunity to vote on passage of HR 2015 before the end of the year. Assuming the bill makes it to the Senate floor, Clinton, Obama and Edwards will have three choices: AYE (a vote to support equal rights for gay and transgender people), NAY (a vote in opposition to equal rights for gay and transgender people) and PRESENT (a vote which is neither support nor opposition but is counted towards the quorum needed to conduct business.) This assumes that the senators are not too busy campaigning to even show up for the vote, a habit that has been depressingly common so far.

Let us assume that ENDA makes it to the Senate floor for a vote. It is safe to assume that the right wing will use this vote as a litmus test to determine their willingness to support the Democratic candidate, which will put pressure on the candidates to vote according to the dictates of the right wing and possibly cause the bill to fail. Would it be acceptable to tell the candidates, in no uncertain terms, that the support of the left wing is equally dependent on their vote and that the lack of a vote, or a vote of NAY or PRESENT, will eliminate all possibility of support regardless of who wins the nomination?

Is there any place where we can draw a line for our support, and would support or opposition of legal discrimination be a valid place for us to draw that line?

[Bjornsdotter]

1. Cripes!

...that was the longest question for a poll I've ever seen. I almost had to make a chart :rofl:

:toast:

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Heh, sorry about that.

I wanted to lay out the issue and hopefully avoid ambiguity. I also wanted to cover all of the responses so as to avoid the "Other (please explain)" response that no one ever explains.

This question is very serious to me. Here is an opportunity -- an actual, unambiguous vote stripped of all possible election year rhetoric -- for the candidates to share their opinion of the indisputable discrimination against gay, bisexual and transgendered Americans. As I see it, a vote of AYE is a vote in favor of equality. A vote of NAY is a vote in favor of continued discrimination. A vote of PRESENT is a vote of cowardice. And not showing up for the vote is gross dereliction of duty. For me, three of those four possibilities is irrefutable proof that the candidate is entirely unfit to lead this country.

Yes, I am getting very bitter on the issue. I am getting very tired of getting thrown under the bus, much less being refused a seat even in the very back. For me, this is the last straw, my last stand as a conscientious voter. Quite frankly, I am out of optimism. I want to make that very plain, and see if anyone else feels the same.

[Bjornsdotter]

8. I agree

...I think that this issue along with abortion needs to be addressed, now...in plain English.

Either the candidates are for equal rights for everyone, across the board, or they aren't, but they need to answer the question.

You probably know about this site, http://www.vote-smart.org/ it looks like a good place to keep tabs on important issues. The founder gave a speech at my daughter's university and it made quite an impression on her.

Cheers :toast:

[ZombieNixon]

2. Edwards is no longer a Senator.

Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd will have a vote, though, as will Kucinich in the House.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Thank you for the correction

I keep forgetting that political titles are forever and not a matter of currently holding office. He is always referred to as "Senator Edwards," so it is easy to forget. :blush:

[bobbolink]

7. Yes, Edwards will "miss" the vote.

It would be rather... unique.... if he voted.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Just like 2003 and 2004

;)

[bobbolink]

11. .

:crazy:

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. ;

[MonkeyFunk]

5. I believe ALL the candidates running

support ENDA and will vote to pass it.

[SharonRB]

6. As do I.

I think it's a non-issue.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. We will have to wait and see

The proof of the pudding, and all that.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. well

which candidates do you think will vote against it, and why do you think so?

Every candidate has already said they support it.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_candidates_positions.pdf

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. And I expect the candidates have hedged their bets when speaking to more "moderate" groups

Like I said, a vote on ENDA would be a clear, definitive action stripped of election year rhetoric. And while I do not expect any Democratic candidate for President to vote against, ENDA, I will lay money that all of the candidates (except Kucinich in the House) will either vote Present or be absent from the chamber the day the vote is held.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. I think you're just wrong

and trying to find a way to bash democrats for something they haven't done.

They're all on record as supporting the bill. they will vote for it.

[dsc]

16. You have a better chance of being abducted by space aliens

while holding the winning powerball ticket than having any Democratic candidate running for President missing that vote.

[mark414]

17. it's not exactly a legalize gay marriage bill...

even people who would never, ever vote in favor of or support fair and legal marriage for all, would still support a clause like this.