Convince me I should continue to support a woman's right to choose.

[Sapphocrat]

Below is a post I made in another thread. It received no replies, which I believe it deserves.

Without explanation of context, I present it here in its original form:

- - -

Countless Obama supporters keep telling me that the issue dictating the very quality of my entire life -- LGBT equality -- doesn't matter in the "big picture," and that what I know to be the truth is wrong / stupid / selfish / etc.

Here's the deal: If so many others did not vote for any of the three candidates -- Kucinich, Gravel, or Richardson -- who would have worked to give me first-class citizenship, that's far better evidence than any DU poll (or any endless arguments about McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, the Newsom snub, etc.) that most Democratic voters either don't recognize the importance of a human-rights issue in their own backyard -- or do, and really, truly don't give a damn.

Now, I ask you: Why should I continue to worry about your right to a safe and legal abortion? I mean, I'm a woman too, but I don't want children, and, as a lesbian, I'm not about to get knocked up through carelessness. Plus, as I am nearing menopause, the possibility that rape could result in an unwanted pregnancy gets more remote every year. As you can see, Roe v. Wade certainly doesn't have any direct impact on my life.

Since I've marched, rallied, written letters, blogged, and voted in support of a woman's right to choose consistently for the past +/- 30 years, yet have never received the same consideration from the majority of my fellow females when it's crunch time and my rights are at stake, why should I care about your right to choose anymore?

Go ahead, convince me I should go on defending your right to choose, when the vast majority of you have never worked to get me my rights in the first place, much less have to defend them.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Because you're better than them.

[Sapphocrat]

65. "Them" = You mean the people who don't work for my rights? n/t

[LostinVA]

2. I went bonkers when I read the thread title, then noticed the author

GREAT post. Let's what develops, you irrelevant, old, paleofeminist twinkie.

[ulysses]

3. I'll rec that.

[LostinVA]

6. As did I

[LoZoccolo]

4. Do you really want to put it in these Machiavellian terms? n/t

[nashville_brook]

26. ugh -- that makes no sense. care to explain?

[theHandpuppet]

5. I keep asking myself that same question

I've always told myself that either we all have rights or none have rights, you know what I mean? But perhaps it was just some naive "hope" on my part that most of my fellow Democrats felt the same.

[NorthernSpy]

30. why don't you just do whatever you want?

:shrug:

[Auntie Bush]

7. Later.

[CTyankee]

8. Your supporters are out there in the prochoice community!

Our prochoice community here in CT has never indicated anything other than warmth and friendship with the LGBT community. We support Love Makes a Family. We make sure LGBT issues are right up there with reproductive health issues. Maybe some old guard folks don't get it but the vast majority of the reproductive rights community does. At least here in CT. It's one reason I love living here. I consider it the best of all possible worlds...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. you have the right to choose but don't stop somebody else's rights

[Sapphocrat]

64. How would I be stopping somebody else's rights?

I didn't ask if I should work to end a woman's right to choose. If I simply withdraw my active support and do nothing, how am I "stopping somebody else's rights"?

[cbayer]

10. I would appreciate your take on Clinton's position. Link attached.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/lgbt/

[Sapphocrat]

66. I'd be happy to, in another thread.

I'd like to keep the focus of this thread narrowed to my question, and avoid going off on another tangent about Clinton -- or Obama, for that matter. There are more than plenty of those. :)

[Beausoir]

11. K&R.

I am out here. I am working for your rights. It's my most important issue.

I'm not going away and I will not quit.

[lisa58]

12. I wish I had a good answer for you....

...Richardson was my first choice - not in the cards I guess.

My husband and I were at a fundraiser for Hillary during her second run for the senate. It was a small, gay/lesbian group (we were in the minority) and at the beginning of her talk Hillary said "you know, I'm not for gay marriage" (I realize you are talking about more than marriage). My husband got to ask the last question of the evening which ended up not being a question at all. He said, "compared to everyone at this party, I'm a redneck. All they do is love each other, what's wrong with that?"

I was sooooo proud of him.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but some of us really do care.

[HeraldSquare212]

13. Well, costitutionally, the right to privacy underpins both

the right to choose and cases which have invalidated laws used against gays. If the former disappears, the latter would likely disappear, also.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

14. Does it really have to be all or nothing?

I'm pretty sure most people who support one support the other--I certainly do. There will, of course, always be those who don't.

"most Democratic voters either don't recognize the importance of a human-rights issue in their own backyard -- or do, and really, truly don't give a damn."

Or--most Democratic voters fall for the same traps the rest of the human population does, namely media circuses, and never considered Kucinich, Dodd, or Richardson simply because they never heard much about them. Most people don't do independent research on politicians, regardless of what party said people are in.

[theHandpuppet]

28. I think the issue become a matter of this (for me)...

Reproductive choice has always been a deal breaker for me. If you don't support a woman's right to choose, you're not getting my vote, Mr. or Ms. Candidate. PERIOD. But I don't see that same resolve returned in kind. When it comes to OUR human rights as GLBTs people don't seem to be willing to put their ballot where their mouth is. We're supposed to rely on the "hope" that things will get better AFTER an election, or that GLBT rights are a "side issue" or the demands of a "special interests group". Or we're simply told to be quiet because fighting for the rights of GLBTs could lose them ther bigot demographic.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Sympathy is nice, speeches are nice, but what we need are people who have the same commitment to GLBT rights as they do for choice as well as many other civil liberties we have today. And that means using your vote to back it up.

[unapatriciated]

92. I have the same commitment for both.

I will also be writing to our nominee (Obama or Clinton) before the November election to let them know what I expect. MY hope after the convention, is that our nominee will incorporate some of the progressive polices from Kucinich, Edwards, and Richardson and put forth a new agenda. One that truly makes our party the "Big Tent" of democracy. If that is done, than and only than would I actively campaign for that candidate instead of holding my nose so to speak.

I suggest we write letters and make those phone calls to demand equal rights for all, before casting our votes in November.

[Sapphocrat]

71. Wouldn't you say then...

...that if people don't take the time to do independent research, that would go hand-in-hand with not recognizing other people/things, such as "a human-rights issue in their own backyard"?

Do you think if more people were aware of the nuts-and-bolts issues of being gay in American society, they would 1) care, and 2) include LGBT equality among their list of important issues?

[mzmolly]

15. I don't vote for myself.

I vote in the best interest of the most vulnerable among us. I also don't demand that every issue I feel is important happen NOW, or else.

[Sapphocrat]

101. Well...

...wouldn't you say a group that doesn't have any federal protections at all is the most vulnerable among us? The danger to Roe v. Wade is that it might be overturned, but for the moment it, at least, exists, whereas LGBTs have no federally-mandated protections in even employment or housing.

As for "I also don't demand that every issue I feel is important happen NOW, or else": Would it be fair, then, to say that abortion rights carry a "now" sort of urgency, all the time, based on the obvious -- that pregancy is indeed a "time-sensitive" issue, but that the rights LGBT Americans are demanding are not urgent, because there is no "time-sensitive" aspect to whether or not (to name just one right we don't have) I am allowed to marry?

Let's say my partner and I are traveling in a state where our relationship is not recognized, and I am in an accident, which leaves me in a permanent vegetative coma. The state does not recognize the validity of the advance directive (a.k.a. health power of attorney) I signed in my home state, so my partner is not allowed to make any decisions about my care, or whether or not to "pull the plug" as per my wishes. Does that not constitute even greater urgency than the ability to have a safe and legal abortion?

What is the measure of urgency of any right above any other?

[mzmolly]

130. I would say that children in poverty are "the most vulnerable among us".

As for your partnership rights, the same holds true for any couple that is not wed. For example, my husband and I lived together for six years before marrying, and I would not have had a POA in the event of an accident.

I would like nothing better than to see you marry your partner and have our government honor your vows, however perahps you can share why I, as a heterosexual, should" support gay rights? After-all, isn't your criteria "why care about those unlike myself"?

[Sapphocrat]

131. I agree with you on every point.

The only difference is that you and your DH always had the option to marry any time you wanted (although I do understand the countless reasons any two people wouldn't want to at any given time).

Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. :)

[mzmolly]

133. Thanks, I agree with you as well that your civil rights are as important as all others.

I have often joked that gay citizens of the US should refuse to pay taxes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation">"No taxation without representation" darnit! I bet we'd see some changes quick like? :hi:

[LisaM]

16. I don't think GBLT issues are coming up in this campaign enough

for that matter, I don't think choice is coming up enough. Or the economy. Or the environment.

Apparently the ONLY thing that matters is if one person cast a war vote in 2002 and the other didn't which is all a moot point anyway because we're in the war and the main issue now is to GET OUT.

[MagsDem]

70. Love your post -- right on!

[11 Bravo]

17. On bended knee, m'lady, I offer you my sword.

Perhaps the reason your other post sunk like a stone is that the questions you pose are just too damned uncomfortable for many to respond to. I'm a married father of two, and have long considered myself to be a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, but damned if you haven't caused me to re-examine a few of my basic tenets.

On edit: K&R

[crispini]

18. The Democratic party is a big place.

I understand your frustration with it. And I understand that the Obama and McClurkin thing is not cool. I can only say that I worked against Texas passing that awful marriage amendment two years ago, and I have always supported the local Stonewall Dems, as do many of our local elected officials. I have marched in the local Gay Pride parade more than once.

And, I guess my answer to your question is: You don't. By all means, you need to support the issues that you feel most drawn to. As an activist, do what's right for you.

I haven't 100% made up my mind, but I am leaning Obama. I will think more about this, though. I would like to vote for Hillary. I would love to see a woman president. The misogyny that has come out against her really pisses me off. But I am concerned about her chances in the general.

[femrap]

19. Because you believe every woman has the

right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Compulsory motherhood leads to unwanted and unloved children....and eventually very angry and unhappy adults.

[Sapphocrat]

20. Self-kick.

I'm reading every word of every reply, and already thank you who have weighed in so far for some very thoughtful response.

I'd like to wait a little while and see where this goes, without my input, before I respond.

:kick:

[DURHAM D]

21. Wow - do I know how you feel.

The main difference in our personal story appears to be our age. I became a card carrying member of NARAL the first time I heard about the organization - late 60s. I too am a lesbian.

Just this past Tuesday night I had a conversation with several younger men in their late 20s and early 30s. We talked about how they see politics in terms of the personal vs. seeing policy in terms of the whole. (Their words, not mine.)

What lead into the conversation was a question to me about "Why I cared about choice since it does not impact me?"

Honestly, they just don't get why they need to think beyond the personal but they were very sweet about it. Their feeling was that their "collective personal" needs will lead to the changes they want.

Their main issues were as follows: (1) Right to an abortion (in their case they want some say over the choices made by their partners) (2) Civil Unions or marriage (3) Less government interference - which is somehow related to their desire for increased state's rights (don't ask me to explain it - I can't).

[UpInArms]

22. because I too, have been in the street for all of our causes - and your

continued support is for my child's future children and their children.

It may not be for today - it is for all days.

Many thanks for all you have done and continue to do.

UIA

[nashville_brook]

23. you hit the nail on the head.

here's hoping we dems (and Obama) evolve a bit. i believe we can overcome these "dark ages," but it's going to take a mass realization of exactly the point you make. solidarity. period.

[quakerboy]

24. I suppose

That I could make the same argument. As a straight white male(you name a privledge group, outside of family ownership of an oil mine, and I'm probably in it), why should I, with a dog in none of these fights, put any of my effort into any of these issues?

But I will anyway. I will do it because its right. You should have your full rights. Every one of us should.

[BadgerKid]

25. My guess...

Having long been marginalized by mainstream society, you've strived to gain a larger vision that is inclusive rather than exclusive. To be inclusive, you have to form a list of ideals -- rights that should be available to anyone. You have gone a step further and taken action to help defend your belief in your ideals (others' rights).

[izzybeans]

27. Same dilemma african-american feminists face within the women's movement.

I'm an Obama supporter and I would never tell you that it doesn't matter. I haven't met an Obama supporter who would say otherwise. I am sure you have. No political camp is all alike so I don't speak for them.

We should be in the business of defending each other. Period. That is a moral or value. One can't really argue with facts on that point we must believe it and honor it in practice.

I'm disappointed that this progressive moral doesn't always uphold in practice, especially in the social circles of politicians.

What can be done?

I really hope it involves a discussion of virtue and responsibility for fellow citizens regardless of biographical difference. That is the hardest democratic work of all.

[LiberalFighter]

29. By opposing or not supporting a woman's right to choose (abortion)

it makes it easier for "pro-choice" to slam your right to a relationship.

I wouldn't get down about what is happening. A lot has happen where 10 years or so it wouldn't have been thought possible. People are out openly. There are more available opportunities without having to hide the fact one is gay.

[Sapphocrat]

61. Help me make sure I understand the first part of your reply:

"By opposing or not supporting a woman's right to choose (abortion) it makes it easier for 'pro-choice' to slam your right to a relationship."

Do you mean you see my support of a women's right to choose as a means of undermining any resistance to support of LGBT rights by straight pro-choicers? Like (to mix metaphors) an ace in the hole when I come to straight pro-choice folks because I want to cash in my chits? Or a defense when I ask them why they haven't supported me to the same degree I've supported them?

Not trying to trap you -- just asking for clarification.

(Oh, I know things are different from ten years ago. But "different" doesn't always mean "better." I see us having moved forward a step socially, but two steps back -- or more -- legally from where they were ten years ago. I can elaborate on that in a whole 'nother thread if you'd like. Just not now; I'm trying to listen to everyone without too much interjection on my part.)

[avrdream]

31. Excellent point.

Missed this thread. Was it down on page 2 already? I linked to it from ruggerson's thread.

[Sapphocrat]

67. Thanks, avr. :)

And thanks for the link. Yes, it is dropping quickly, most likely because I'm not replying much yet. Right now, I'm just making sure I understand everyone's point of view first. You know -- "active listening." :)

I appreciate you helping me keep it kicked!

[printpolitico]

32. right to choose

I'm actually single 44 and not likely to become pregnant any time soon. But I will give you my opinion on this matter. Years ago as a young
small business owner I was misguided and thought that the republican agenda was the right one for me. Being fairly conservative it fit.
I didn't agree with abortion. I felt it to be cruel, insensitive, and selfish. However, living in a democratic society I am awarded the
gift of free speech and freedom of choice. I slowly converted to the democratic party, but still maintained a little pro life perspective.
Similar to the way Hillary evolved with the war, we all make mistakes and sometime base our decisions on mis information.

That was until I became friend with a young doctor whos specialty was neonatology. She explained to me that it isn't just about,right or wrong.
nor is a just about freedom. It about innocence. There are so many young girls who become pregnant and are so afraid of
their parents response that they abort. Kids don't understand consequence or finalitly like adults. It is almost an acquired gift.
She explained to me that back in the days before abortion was legal, that the young girls feared their parents so much that they would seek
out illegal butchers to abort. This resulted in death, and a far more cruel death for late stage babies. You can't govern morality you can merely try
and make it less cruel. Abortion isn't going to go away. We need to give options and more choices, but it should always be a choice.

As for your right and your battle for equality. I feel your pain and agree with equal rights, but I think they gay and lesbian community sometimes push their goal and issues in the wrong way. I've seen gay individuals before who go blazing into the straight world and try and force their lifestyle on people and they are not accepted. Then on the other hand I've seen others that don't wear their preference on their sleeve but
let people get to know them for who they are and almost always when they reveal their sexuality they are accepted. Gays tend to
try and force themselves and their beliefs on people who don't undersatnd their lifestyle. Not understanding it is not a crime. There are
many things people just don't undertsand, b ut by getting to know a gay they gain different perspectives. Just as I'm sure if you have always been a lesbian you don't understand the desire to sleep with a man.

My point here is that the gay community is pushing for marriage. That's the hang up. Marriage is seen as biblical and there within lies the rub.
On the othert hand civil union awards the rights that gays are now void of. The community should push for civil union first, which would be a victory nationwide. Then attack the more challenged issue of marriage. But why hold back immediate rights to show that I'll force it
on you whether you want it or not. Let people crawl before they walk into the world of enlightenment. I think that needs to be the immediate message.

[Straight Shooter]

35. You wrote your post with care. Your heart is in the right place, but IMHO you are wrong.

You seem to be suggesting that the GLBT community should work toward being granted full equal rights through the process of attrition. But what I'm reading between the lines is that you're telling them to be patient, to accept the gratuitous appetizers to curb their hunger, while the rest of society feasts on a banquet. Meanwhile, time goes by, someone falls ill, and their partner cannot join them at the hospital for their last moments. What do you tell them then? "Be patient just a little longer"?

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[printpolitico]

36. equal right now.

I'm suggesting civil rights now. that grants the equal right. Get the right now to inherit, be a decision maker, etc. through civil rights.
By pushing for marriage it is further delaying those. Congress often settles on issues to get a portion of one bill through. Something now is
far better than nothing. I'm not suggesting that the battle should not continue. But there are people being denied these very rights evryday, and in some
cases 2morrow is too late. Get civil union passed, gain those rights and continue to fight for marriage.

[Straight Shooter]

38. I'm at work, and cannot continue this dialogue beyond this.

There are a lot of religious GLBT individuals, people of faith. To them, marriage holds a deeper meaning than civil unions ever could.

I just can't imagine saying, "We're civil unionized." Words matter, ceremonies matter. All rights must be granted, including the right to marriage for those who desire to be married.

How cruel to deny the GLBT community what everyone else takes for granted.

Peace.

[TalkingDog]

91. So by your logic:

* Rosa Parks should have only moved to the middle of the bus. And then later, when people were comfortable with the idea, her children could try for the third row and her grandkids, the front seat.

* The young men at the Greensboro lunch counter should have stood, instead of seating themselves, to order their lunch.

* Black and whites who wanted to marry and commit the crime of miscegenation, shouldn't have pushed to have the practice decriminalized in 1967. But, instead, live together until people were comfortable with seeing them and their -in legal limbo- children. Then their kids could try to move the idea further along as people's comfort level improved.


Can you see how ludicrous your argument sounds in light of the history of this other group of people who were not afforded full and equal rights?

Here, I'm taking part of your third paragraph and substituting the language of race for the language of sexuality. Let's see how it reads:

"... I think the black and mixed race community sometimes push their goal and issues in the wrong way. I've seen black individuals before who go blazing into the white world and try and force their lifestyle on people and they are not accepted. Then on the other hand I've seen others that don't wear their preference on their sleeve but let people get to know them for who they are and almost always when they reveal their racial identity they are accepted. Blacks tend to try and force themselves and their beliefs on people who don't understand their lifestyle. Not understanding it is not a crime. There are many things people just don't understand, but by getting to know a black they gain different perspectives. Just as I'm sure if you have always been black you don't understand the desire to live the same life everybody else enjoys."

And believe it or not, the concepts are eerily similar. Blacks are too uppity, too pushy. If they would just calm down and act like white people, it would be easier to accept them.


And by the way, much like race, homosexuality is not a "lifestyle" nor a "choice" You can no more determine your inherent sexual orientation any more than you can determine the color of your skin, the curl of your hair or the breadth and shape of your nose.

If you are uncomfortable with these issues, it is your discomfort. Own it. Instead of trying to pass off veiled bigotry as thoughtful consideration.


edited: correct spelling (both posters)

[unapatriciated]

94. I used to think that civil unions was all that I needed to support until...

Someone on this board put it in very simply terms....."equal but separate". Our "crawling" was done during the civil rights movement, now is the time to stand up and take that first step. Religion did not create the institution of marriage, government did. It was done for the legal protection of assets. At first men were the only ones to benefit from marriage. Slowly women gained equality and that gave them the same rights and protections that men enjoyed. This was all done for the protection of assets and being equal in the eyes of the law, not religious beliefs. It is now time for everyone to have the same rights and protections that marriage provides.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

[LostinVA]

107. Not only that, but they don't work

We have civil unions in NJ, and many companies still discriminate with benefits (illegally) because it's not a "marriage."

I'm lucky that my company is good, but some big ones like UPS/FedEx discriminate against people with civil unions.

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Civil rights are civil rights. Period.

[Johnny__Motown]

34. It is consistent with Supreme Court Decisions, so when the court decides in your favor.....

...on other issues the entire party will be united in defending the integrity of our judicial branch.


Equality for all Americans is inevitable. It is taking longer than it should, but it will happen. Overturning Supreme Court decesions won't do anyone any good.

[Sapphocrat]

68. Let me know if I understand what you're saying.

"It is consistent with Supreme Court Decisions, so when the court decides in your favor..... on other issues the entire party will be united in defending the integrity of our judicial branch."

So, you mean I shouldn't expect support from within the Democratic Party until after full equality is granted by SCOTUS?

"Equality for all Americans is inevitable. It is taking longer than it should, but it will happen. Overturning Supreme Court decesions won't do anyone any good."

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. Do you mean that once SCOTUS decides to grant me full equality, there will be no danger of revoking my newly-granted rights?

[RazBerryBeret]

37. EVEN if you think abortion is a sin...

and should be stopped--Do you REALLY want the government in charge of this? think about it, Bush & Co. in charge of your uterus. I wouldn't trust them with my shoes (can't think of anything less consequential right now). how strictly will it be investigated/enforced...only at abortion clinics? or at your yearly pap exam? would your Dr. have to turn you in if he suspected anything? I know it sounds crazy, but 8 years ago I would have never guessed that my cell phone company would give my records to the government. think about it....

[Sapphocrat]

111. It's difficult for me to answer any of your questions.

1. I have no concept of "sin" -- I don't believe in "sin." (Recovering from Catholicism will knock the idea of sin right out of a person, you know. LOL)

2. The government already is in charge of this (abortion), isn't it? If it's not Bush & Co., it's going to be someone else who decides what rights I have to my own uterus -- or what I do with the equipment at its front door. :)

3. As for a yearly pap exam, I can't afford so much as a yearly blood-pressure test at the doctor's -- I have no health insurance.

4. I can answer this: No, it's no surprise to me that my phone records are not private; rather, I'm surprised I have any privacy at all; I've read 1984.

[Sapphocrat]

39. Kickety-kick.

I hope y'all will help me keep this kicked for the night crew, as I feel it's extremely important to get all points of view.

See also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4593703&mesg_id=4594261

[GoldieAZ49]

40. A right to choose everything

I believe the right to choose covers everything. I have the right to choose who I am going to vote for, advocate for, defend, care for, like, love or dislike.

I was a 15 year old that had careless sex that lead to pregnancy. Abortion was legal, in fact my mom insisted I have one. I refused. I had my daughter at 16, she was born with Down Syndrome. She just had her 33rd birthday this month (we had a pizza party!), in fact, today is 33 years since I brought her home from the hospital. Most of the other girls in my school had abortions or put their babies up for adoption. Each one of us made a choice, some went with what their parents or mom thought was best, I know a few regret it. I do not regret my choice.

I have been my daughters only advocate. (I never married) I have had to fight fear, ignorance, indifference, prejudice, incompetence and pity while trying to grow up and teach, train and educate my daughter, deal with her medical problems and find happiness, joy and peace in our lives together. It has given me the greatest source of pain and pride in my life, and I wouldn't change a thing. It has given me a purpose to my life that is about more than just me. It has been by putting her needs above my own that I have found happiness and am fulfilled.

My time and energy has gone into this and one other cause, as well as getting an education and working to support us. I vote, make monetary contributions, I talk to others about our options, but I do not march, organize, write letters, etc. We each put our energy into what we are most passionate about.

If someone has to convince you to do something, can you be passionate, and therefore effective, about it?

It is your choice what you want to advocate for. I hope you never regret the choices you make.

[hiaasenrocks]

42. Great post. n/t

[LadyVT]

41. This is why...

because you're better than that. :)

Never diminish yourself! The ignorance and self-involvement of the masses are cyclical...

[varelse]

43. Why, you ask? here is why

Because only path to equal protection under the law of those rights for ALL HUMANS is for all who stand for human rights to unfailingly defend them for all people - without compromise, without exception, without excuse.

Because to allow any person's ignorance, predjudice, or bigotry to blind YOU to this truth is to concede the field to those who do not recognize even the concept of equal rights for all human beings.

Because it sets you on the same path that the bigoted, the ignorant, and the prejudiced are already on, the path that leads to recognition of privilege for select groups of people rather than equal rights for all.

Because frankly, you are better than this, and you know that.

That's why.

[stevenleser]

47. Spoken like an advocate for the Pequeninos!

I'm hoping you know what I mean...

[Firespirit]

44. If your heart is not in it, you SHOULDN'T defend a cause -- any cause.

Every cause, just or not, has SOME advocates who truly care and believe in it, and will fight for it. Those who are indifferent to fighting are not needed anyway, except as voters whenever these issues are on the ballot. If you find yourself unable to care about choice because it doesn't affect you anymore....

Well, congratulations, you're human. :shrug:

[PetraPooh]

45. Can't help you here; I would rather see the removal of all marriage "rights"

for everyone. Legal issues should be handled by contracts, marriages are religious ceremonies and should not be given any legal rights. I think civil unions in contract form should apply to all personal partnerships and allcurrent marriages will have to be re-iterated in contract form to have any further rights.

Then those contracts should be required to be recognized by all parties including businesses for insurance purposes, hospitals, custody courts, etc.

[eridani]

48. Marriage is most assuredly NOT a religious ceremony, even if many also do the religious part

It is a legal contract. If you think so, explain why people don't go to church to collect child support. People who marry in front of a justice of the peace are married, period. Not "civil unionized."

If they are also religious, their religion might not recognize that as being married "in the church," and deny them access to various sacraments as a result until they have a formal church ceremony as well. They have absolutely no legal redress for that situation--if they don't like it they can either work to change their church from within or go find another church, and that is exactly how it should be. However, their church also has no say whatsoever about the legal rights they obtain by being married by a JP.

[PetraPooh]

54. My point is that it should be a solid, well defined contract, not an "I do" affair

[eridani]

56. It IS a solid, well-defined legal contract

If it wasn't, how would people ever be able to file for child support?

[stevenleser]

83. Child support has nothing to do with marriage. Non married people file and get it all the time.

The courts have in fact determined that there is no contract implied by marriage.

[eridani]

132. Now that is ridiculous. Marriage is first and formost a contract--

--regardless of what else it may be to people.

[stevenleser]

148. I think we are confusing a couple of things here, first a relevant court decision...

Grigsby v. Reid

—...The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage; marriage by cohabitation, not by contract, which created homes, and population and society from which government became necessary to settle differences in matters of private interest, to protect the weak and to conserve the moral forces of society to the support of religion and free government. A rule for the regulation of the sacred rights of marriage and the rights of families that make such wrongs possible should not be recognized in a civilized society. The term “civil contract” as applied to marriage means nothing now. Marriage is not a contract, but a status created by mutual consent of one man and one woman. It is a status ordained by God.

------------------------------------------------------------------
The courts do not recognize marriage as a contract, but as a status. If you want it to be a contractual relationship, you have to enter in another arrangement put into force by a prenuptual agreement. Otherwise, there is no contract. The vows you exchange with your spouse on your wedding day are not actionable. There is no special penalty imposed on a spouse if they seek divorce if their partner becomes sick (In sickness and in health), or poor (for richer or for poorer).

If we speak about any real contractual relationship, if you exchange verbally or otherwise, agreements that you will do something or not do something and you fail to live up to that, those breaches are actionable. That is not the case with marriage unless the marriage is supplemented by a prenuptual agreement that is the real contract.

[eridani]

150. So, how is it that people are able to collect alimony?

Social Security survivor's benefits? Have inheritance rights? Hospital visitation rights?

[stevenleser]

153. None of that requires a contract. In fact, none of those things are ever signed

written or mentioned when marrying. You get those things because the government says that you get them when you marry. Not because of any contract.

[LostinVA]

87. Marriage is a civil contract, NOT a religious contract

It has nothing to do with religion. Which is why you can't get "married" by clergy unless you already have that marriage license, and that clergy member has to be legally able to act as a LEGAL CIVIL REPRESENTATIVE or they can't sign your license.

DU's own Pacifist Patriot married me and Haruka in September, and she said none of us had to even say a word, all she had to do was sign the license, because it's a CONTRACT.

So, you're 100% right!

[casus belli]

59. Replied wrong post...please ignore. n/t

[stevenleser]

46. Well, a couple of things...

first, I'm a fairly militant PFLAG type. My main annoyance this evening was an earlier thread where someone told me that as a straight person, I had no right to advocate my chosen candidate to the GLBT community---> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4595601 . I'm not sure that person or those in the thread who recommended it and gave him attaboys would even think it is OK for me to respond to you about any of this.

That being said, there are a number of reasons you could defend a right to choose or support candidates or parties that dont go as far as either of us would like in terms of supporting GLBT equality. Take the case of the LCRs. You have to hand it to them, they have taken on a hell of a fight. They have taken it upon themselves to try to change the GOP from within. One of their board members responded to one of my articles and I told him how much I admired what he was trying to do:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_070930_democratic_party___i.htm

Even though the Democratic Party is much further along, they, their candidates, etc. still need GLBT people to change it and the mindset of the rest of the country from within. Heck, we need a lot of issues moved to a more progressive position but that can only be done from within. I know that is small comfort to someone whose main freedoms are at stake and not currently granted, but that is all I can offer.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Dude, you are so off base

Promote your candidate to anyone you want, but please avoid doing so by attempting to dictate what is a valid point of view, or by lecturing others who understand the issue far better than you do on the ways and means we should use to gain our objectives. If someone says they don't trust your candidate, you can not make them trust him. You can say why you trust him, or offer reasons to trust him, but to stand up and try to tell people how they should think and feel and how they should be activists only by your rules is in fact insulting and while not exactly bigoted, it is very much ego centric. You are some straight Obama booster. Why would I let you 'tell' me anything? Why on Earth would I assume that you share my goals if you do not allow for respecting my thoughts, feelings or methods?
What you see here is GLBT people changing the Party from within. This is what it looks like. I'm not here promoting Obama or Clinton, I am here promoting my rights, and the rights of my family and friends. Compared to my family, I really don't care much about some Senators, you know? Nor about some blogger who wants to be seen as righteous for his own ego's sake.
I think the boosters of each candidate should be taking such concerns to the candidates not to those who have the concerns. I do not owe any one my vote at all. Any politician who wants my vote has to earn it. The devotional method of electioneering is not going to cut it. Not going to bow my head for your champion. In fact, I will be looking him in the eye and speaking my mind as I do with all political public servants who seek employment from the American voter. If more of the boosters did the same, much of this argument would be long past.
This one is on Obama's desk to clear. You should be asking him to get right, not trying to force others to agree with you. Bullies are a turn off. Bully tactics get the ignore button. Bully boosters lose votes for their candidates.
Look to the plank in your own eye, the speck in the gay eye you bitch about is not really your concern. Look to yourself, if you can take it.

[Chovexani]

104. This should really be its own post.

:thumbsup:

[stevenleser]

114. No, it shouldn't

his post is a very good example of how not to react. It really had nothing to do with what I wrote.

[Chovexani]

119. Does your mom know you're online?

Don't you have fingerpainting to do?

[stevenleser]

120. This thread is proving invaluable to determining who should be on my ignore list. Bye!

[Chovexani]

122. I weep in sorrow.

Dedicate your next sippy cup of koolaid to me? :(

[stevenleser]

113. No, YOU are off base. I was asked a question and I responded with my thoughts

that is no reason to jump down my throat. I posited nothing remotely insulting, ego centric, offensive or bigoted. The only way you would get that is if you were determined to feel that way. I didnt even advocate for any particular candidate in my post. I think you have anger issues that have nothing at all to do with what I wrote.

[stevenleser]

116. Actually, you have earned my second ever DU ignore. Bye

[troubleinwinter]

49. I recall a question on DU maybe three years ago...

"what issues will you NEVER give up?"

It caused me to search myself, and I knew it was gay rights and birth choice.

On "choice", I've done all three. I gave birth adopted out (we connected and she's a Dem!). I also raised a birth child. I also have had abortions.

The other issue that I could never compromise on is gay rights. I am not gay.

I will NEVER compromise on the issues because they right and correct. I will NOT negotiate with you or anyone. I don't give a shit to convince you about your choices on womens' reproductive choice or gay rights.

Nobody will move me from my convictions.

I am 56. I won't be needing an abortion. I am not gay. I will support and work for forever the rights of womens' choice and absolute equality of GLBT whatever you do.

I want more conversations on these issues. I don't want them always in the GLBT forum anymore. Are we Dems or are we not goddammit!? Why the fuck are the GLBT needing to go in a different place? BECAUSE we do not support them.

Why? I'd like anyone to tell me why.

It makes me sick.

[Marrah_G]

50. Because I will continue to fight for your right to equality in this country,

I'm sorry you have to deal with so many jerks here lately.

[readmoreoften]

51. Because all inequality is as irrational as 2+2=5

And it sucks to live in an irrational world.

[LordJFT]

52. Bill Richardson does not support gay marriage

And he's even called homosexuality a choice, which was one of the biggest reasons I wasn't a big fan of him.

[Eric J in MN]

53. You care about an issue or you don't.

Vote for whomever you want.

Promote whatever causes you want.

[BlackVelvet04]

55. I for one probably don't know how best to help you get your

rights. I publicly opposed the Marriage Amendment in VA....working the polls, handing out literature and talking to people about why it was wrong to deny GLBT citizens the same rights that the rest of us have. I won't be a hypocrite and pretend that the GLBT issues are always in the forefront of my mind because they aren't, but when I have the opportunity, such as event of the stupid marriage amendment in VA to support your rights I do.

I won't even try to convince you that you should expend a lot of energy on other issues when the issues near and dear to you aren't being addressed. Sometimes we only have the energy for the battles most important to us. I think that's understandable.

I'm not sure how to help with the GLBT issues.....I probably don't even understand what they all are. I'm always willing to listen and learn.

[Tektonik]

57. Kick for human rights

Beautiful post, Sapph!

Maybe I'm wrong but looking at these elections, I doubt that LGBT human rights will be taken seriously at a federal level in the next eight years. Maybe if the Supreme Court takes up a case (and with its current make-up, I seriously hope they do not), we could get the future Democratic president to take up a civil rights agenda.

It's not too late, we can all still move to Canada, heck we can get universal health care there :P

[theHandpuppet]

85. Or can we all be Vermonters?

See, I think the "Virginia Is For Lovers" motto is full of horseshit. It's been Vermont all along!

[complain jane]

58. Awesome post, Sapphocrat n/t

[casus belli]

60. Because good people do for the sake of doing...

and all progress in the world has been brought about by people who expected nothing in return. The question you ask is a slippery slope that might very well cause some hard feelings. And that's not really something you should want to do to those who really do support equal rights.

I have spent the last 15 years actively engaged in issues which benefit the GLBT both directly and indirectly - have sponsored and run events which generated millions of dollars for GLBT businesses, families and causes. As a straight, married male what incentive was there for me to do it? Only that it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. When you see something that needs to be done and you do NOT act, you are part of the problem.

I have come to understand through your posts that you view support for Obama to mean that we are insensitive to GLBT issues if we have chosen him as our candidate; and I understand there are feelings among some members of the GLBT community that he is a candidate who does not represent causes which will benefit them. I just have to respectfully disagree. I will grant that he has made some very serious missteps and some outright mistakes, but there is NO candidate (or voter for that matter) who hasn't. I have. You have. We ALL have made decisions which if left to do over we would.

I guess what I am saying is this. Is it enough that we can disagree on our choice of presidential candidate, without questioning my motives, or my support for the GLBT community? Is it enough that we can do for each other, without expecting some invisible score to be evened out? I don't have a scoreboard and I'm not keeping track of where we're all at on the "you owe me big time" meter.

[AGirl]

62. k and r

[nonconformist]

63. Nailed. nt

[MagsDem]

69. You go girl! I Am right with you!!

Excellent post, and something I think about everytime someone tries to enlist me in right to choose work. I will NEVER forget, right after the election, when I had spent literally 20 hrs a week working for Kerry for months (who, truth be told, didn't exactly set me on fire)coming to DU and seeing just hoardes of people blaming the shit out of the LGBT population for his loss. Totally buying into the right wing bullshit that it was "values" voters that elected Bush, and we gay people somehow represented bad values because we're gay.

I was like, WTF??? Screwing poor people is bad values, illegitmate wars are bad values, being a fuck head rethug is bad values! I'm not bad values. And then I said, what a bunch of jerks and I didn't come back here or work on politics for over a year.

So, I'm with you. When do you all you people start sticking up for me?

What a great post!!

[still_one]

72. You should vote for what is in your own best interest, and what you perceive is best for the country

[MagsDem]

73. Just another kick, because I think this is one of the best threads...

I have ever read on DU in 5 yrs. Beautiful posts, excellent points made and feelings expressed. Almost renews my faith in humankind.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

74. Well, I don;t know what to say, because I do have sympathy for you

First, about abortion, I believe deeply that all women should have that right to choose, but I know personally I would not get an abortion, so actually, honestly, if you took the right away from me, I'm not sure I would miss it that much, personally. But, it would really bother me that other people wouldn't have the right.

And, that is the same feeling I have about LGBT issues, it really bothers me that they don't have the same rights, and every time I think about it, I have to come to the conclusion that maybe I'm in the minority, but how oculd that be the case?!

Its one of the things I care the most about really.

[dkf]

75. You want us to vote for unviable candidates?

I guess I could, but I see no point. Isn't that guaranteed failure?

I wish you could have given us more reasonable candidates, then you would have a point.

[Sapphocrat]

80. What makes a candidate "unviable"?

Or "unreasonable"?

His or her positions, his or her perceived "electability," or something else?

[dkf]

135. #1 is electability, because that goes to temperament.

#2 would be if they can raise $. The GLBT community can make a candidate viable financially if they wish it.

That is it for me in terms of viability.

And while GLBT rights aren't my first priority, I would absolutely be willing to support a candidate who was for same sex marriage.

[Sapphocrat]

145. Temperament?

Of the candidate, or of the voters?

[Hobarticus]

76. One of the smartest and most eloquent threads here in a LONG time...

K & R'd....

[Usrename]

77. I just don't understand.

Obama says that he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. It seems to me that this statement alone would be more offensive than the McClurkin controversy. It seems to me that it should be a much worse offense for him to make that public statement than allowing some clown full of hot air that nobody's ever even heard of to MC one his political events. I guess I'm just not sensitive to this kind of language, at least not in any of the right places. It's the McClurkin incident that really gets under everyone's skin, and I still don't quite know why.

Is there some different level of bigotry that McClurkin et al are guilty of? Maybe that’s the part I don’t understand. I really don't understand the intensity of it at all. If anything, the reaction to all of this seems to me to be identical to the reaction that I would expect to see from some NASCAR fans if they ever allowed Melisa Etheridge to sing the national anthem before a race. I would expect some fans to vow that they would never go to another race. I would absolutely expect it.

The NASCAR analogy is a very bad choice for trying to find some clarity in asking my question, I know this. I also know that it isn't an interchangeable circumstance, much in the same way that the behavior of Israelis and Palistinians can't be judged equally, either individually or as a group, since one group is clearly the oppressed and the other is the oppressor. In mathematics you would say that the operations don't commute. But even so, there is behavior, that if done by a person in one group it might be heroic, and yet would be considered normal if done by someone in the other group, and vice versa.

"I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination." - Coretta Scott King

When he tells us that he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, I think that Obama crosses over a certain line. I wish he shared my view that marriage should be a religious choice, base on the individual's beliefs, and that the state should just stay the hell out of it all. But he doesn't. So, I just don't see what impact you think these other events (McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, the Newsom snub, etc.) have on securing any future progress concerning gay rights issues. I don't get it. What is it that you think will happen?

To quote another poster from another board:

"70% of the people in this country support return of the government back to the people, rebuilding and maintenance of the public infrastructure for the benefit of all, rights and protections for workers, land use planning and protection of the natural world, equal opportunity and protection under the law for all citizens, and have no interest in harassing their neighbors because of their race, gender, religion, gender preference or for any other reason." - mberst

[Sapphocrat]

79. I'd be more than happy to talk with you about this...

...except that I'd really appreciate it if we could stay on-topic, and keep this thread off the specifics of Obama's position -- there are literally hundreds of other threads for that.

If you have an opinion on the OP, or a response to any of the other replies already here, I'd love to hear it. Thanks. :)

[Usrename]

84. Well, ok, but it will be difficult for me to be very persuasive.

This kind of thing works best if we can all understand why you want to stop fighting with us in the first place. ;)

But that's all right, Iceburg has provided a pretty sound answer for me. I have to mull this over a little more.

[Usrename]

100. Let me try it from this angle, but I'm sure you know all of this.

Say that the issue is abortion. If someone were concerned that the anti-abortionist would take over if we don't all vote straight Democrat (I have actually had this discussion before that’s why I’m using abortion as an example) I would try to persuade them to look at it differently. The anti-abortion movement is a small subset of the population that is completely powerless without their despotic leaders. If the despotic leaders (both parties) can be defeated then there would be nothing to fear from the right-to-lifers. They would be impotent.

Please notice how this first portion of the whole argument is advanced without taking an advocacy for either side in the abortion issue. The same is true with most issues. Once the despots are done away with, the small loud group that wants to control other people would be rendered impotent in stopping any true progress. At least that is one way of looking at the situation.

It’s incorrect (well, it’s probably correct morally, but not tactically) to argue that because certain people's rights are used as a wedge issue, we can’t include them in our big tent. It isn’t because it doesn't matter about the manipulation, it does matter, it’s because fracturing along almost any ideological lines only weakens and further marginalizes the group, or in this case, halts or slows a political movement. This only paves the way for the despotic leaders to consolidate their grip.

Do we want to actually eliminate the threat, or do we merely wish to be declaring our personal position and merely advocating eliminating the threat? (In other words, do we want to analyze the problem and use the most effective tactics, or just be "right on the issue?")

You can go right down the line on the right-wing wedge issues, and they are all dishonest and represent covert agendas. They use language cleverly to disguise the real issues involved and their true agenda - gay marriage, abortion, illegal aliens, death tax, social security crisis, war on drugs, war on terror, reverse racism, and so forth. They aren't using that language to promote a "position" on "issues" they are using that language to create a context - the only context - within which the public might support them and where they can hide the true nature of their agenda, which recently has been a steady march to fascism.

Whenever we take the opposite "side" to the issue, they win. They win, first of all, because they need opposition - if there are no demons to fight and for people to fear they have no program - and also because by taking the opposite side we have been tricked into accepting and reinforcing their agenda by giving weight and credibility to the context they are creating.

It becomes lose, lose, lose. And we can't, any of us, afford to lose any more.

(Disclaimer: This is all part of a past conversation with another poster, on another board, and some of it was not my original words.)

[Sapphocrat]

139. So, you're saying...

...that to fight them is to play into their hands?

As for your question, "Do we want to actually eliminate the threat, or do we merely wish to be declaring our personal position and merely advocating eliminating the threat? (In other words, do we want to analyze the problem and use the most effective tactics, or just be 'right on the issue?')"

Well, I don't see that what we've been doing so far has been effective in the least. And I do know that sometimes an unpopular issue must be "forced" onto the people simply because it is "just" right; if we had waited for the majority of Americans to get comfortable with the Civil Rights Act before passing it, it might still be only a dream.

Then, of course, you're going to have an extremely difficult time convincing me that marriage equality is a mere "wedge issue." I know it looks that way from the outside, but take a look at the overall impact withholding just this one thing has on real people. I've already given the example elsewhere in this thread about my partner being unable to carry out my end-of-life decisions if we happen to be in a state that doesn't recognize our relationship, and in another thread I've also mentioned the negative financial impact has not only on G&L people who cannot marry, but the ripple effect it has on the U.S. economy itself.

I'll give you another example, taken from my life: I was with a foreign-born woman for seven years, and I could not sponsor her for immigration to the U.S. This began long before the Right turned immigration into just the kind of "wedge issue" you describe (and before 9/11, after which xenophobia in general became a probem). You'd think allowing same-sex couples to live together in the same country would be the humanitarian thing to do (after all, some 17 other first-world countries provide for it, even some where same-sex marriage is constitutionally banned), but the U.S. would (and will) have none of it. (A bill, formerly the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, now called the Uniting American Families Act, has been languishing in the House since 2000.)

To make a very long story short, while having to live 8,000 miles apart for most of seven years (save for outrageously expensive annual trips overseas) wasn't the final blow to our relationship, it certainly contributed to our downfall. Over the years, I've corresponded with literally hundreds of binational couples in the same bind -- and I swear to you, not one couple has stayed together... unless the American partner moved to the foreign country (do you want to lose even one of your fellow Americans to another country, and be shown that this mythical "big tent" really does not include everyone, and never did?) or the foreign partner was able to gain refugee status here, or got into a sham marriage with a MOTOS, or simply stayed here illegally.

While the immigration problem affects "only" an estimated 60,000 same-sex couples (my estimate is much higher; most couples stay incognito for fear of drawing attention to themselves), does that make it a "wedge issue," when couples, and often entire families, are torn apart, often never to see each other again?

Fighting for the "right thing" isn't a matter of proving that we're right and they're wrong, out of some misguided, stubborn sense of pride. You do the right thing because it is the right thing -- and the Democratic thing, and the American thing -- to give everybody the same breaks you have, and not to sacrifice anybody else for your (perceived) benefit. (Ironically, that's also the "Christian" thing to do.)

I'm tired of losing too. And, at 46 years old, I can't wait another 20, 30, 40 years, until society decides my very life is no longer "just a wedge issue," and decides to give me the rights I should have had the day I was born.

If, as you say, "we can't, any of us, afford to lose any more," where do I fit into that "we ... any of us"?

We are losing, Usrename, if we sacrifice people in the name of political expediency -- which is an illusion anyway, as I don't see us winning by continuing to ignore these very real issues in the first place, and hoping they somehow work themselves out later.

What we're doing -- allowing the Right to frame the debate, and then refusing, passively or otherwise, to fight back with both barrels -- isn't working.

And we've never really tried fighting back.

As my daddy used to say: Don't tell me something won't work until you have another idea.

I know what hasn't worked.

[Usrename]

151. I agree, what we have been doing isn't working at all.

But you're making a much better argument for continuing to fight the good fight than I could ever make.

I'm ready to fight along side. My pitchfork is sharpened an my torch is lit. I just need somebody to tell me who to point it at.

I only know who some of the bad guys are. Shouldn't we start with Bush and Cheney and then start working our way down the list?

[Iceburg]

82. Why the McClurkin incident is so regugnant... an analogy

Usrename you stated above "It's the McClurkin incident that really gets under everyone's skin, and I still don't quite know why"

I will try to explain why...
Donnie McClurkin is the face of a very well known movement in the Christian community that claims and advertises that they can "cure" homosexuals or de-gay them if you will. They run cleansing camps all over the country. Children suspected of being gay are forcefully enrolled in the cure programs.

Now imagine, if you will -- one of the presidential candidates running in the 1964 primaries, campaigning with the leader of the KKK. Or worse, imagine that the presidential candidate toured through the countryside with a well known character famous for his "ability" to de-colorize non-whites. Imagine a Dem candidate parading around the country with a post 1945.

It pains me know that ALL of the Obama supporters have been blinded by the light of the shiny new object, that they are will to overlook such vile bigotry and hate -- they honestly don't see and don't want to see it. There is a reason the Obama supporters are viewed as a cult -- they are willing to turn their backs on fundamental human rights, willing to over look huge character flaws, willing to overlook the many skeletons in his closet (like the Rezko scandal for one). Americans are desperate for change just as Germany was in 1939 -- but this direction is just plain wrong. Alas,Obama supporters are "good German soldiers" following their charismatic leader into the night.

[LostinVA]

88. His "basic rights" and "tolerate" actually bother me more than Donnie Boy

[miceelf]

141. Not that it excuses anything

But I know Edwards made a similar comment several times and I am pretty sure Clinton did as well.

I am also not convinced that personal views necessarily make the difference. I know several people who believe that abortion is morally wrong, but are pro choice. If one truly believes in human freedom, one necessarily believes that people have the right to make choices that one disagrees with .

Hell, I personally would never use drugs, but I support legalization. I don't eat pork or shellfish for religious reasons, but I'd be the first in line to fight if someone were to try to ban it.

I suspect it's that kind of thing that made the "personal belief" thing kind of pass by.

[paperbag_ princess]

78. because you want to retain control over your own body

As soon as you lose the right to determine what happens in your own womb, you have set the precedent that a woman's body is not her own. This opens the door to a myriad of problems.

The future could possibly bring restrictions regarding:

who touches your body sexually
requirements to put something in or on your body (gps tags or even forcing you to get pregnant)
requiring you to have an abortion you don't want (population control, aborting a disabled baby or one determined to be genetically homosexual)
the restriction of medical treatments or the requirement of treatments you don't want

some of these may seem far fetched, but who wants to open that door? If you get imaginative then the possibilities are very scary.


edit to add: I was addressing the question at hand, but I certainly can appreciate the larger point that you are making. It is frustrating to feel like you are being stepped over for the promotion of something else first...no matter how valid that something else might be.

[Sapphocrat]

112. I know you see my larger point...

...but (you knew there'd be a "but"): Isn't everything you said 100% applicable to my (currently nonexistent) rights as a gay American?

- control over my own body

- who touches my body sexually = who is not allowed to touch my body sexually

- requirements to put something in/on my body (extreme example, but valid: tattooing HIV/AIDS patients)

- forced medical treatment (for just one example, think: "hormone washing" to turn a "gay fetus" straight)

No, your examples aren't at all far-fetched to me, as I can readily correlate each to events that have either already happened (look at Nazi Germany) or have been proposed many times (the tattooing, the "hormone washing").

Yes, the possibilities are very scary indeed.

What's remarkable (and commendable) is how you've completely blurred the line between abortion rights and LGBT equality. Which, in my mind, is very progressive.

And: Welcome to DU. :hi:

[paperbag_ princess]

136. I intentionally blurred the lines

thanks for the welcome :)

You are right...everything is 100% applicable to gay rights.

Every time a right is denied or a victory gained we win and lose together. Each victory makes the next one possible.

The idea of standing in line for rights seems contraring to the definition of the word, "right"...but it is hard to deny that most of America only tolerates change in small doses. You are right. It is just not fair....I don't have the answer...other than let's press on together.

[Sapphocrat]

81. One last kick for the morning crew.

Again, I want to thank everyone who's replied so far, and reassure you that I have every intention to replying to as many posts as I can.

For now, I just want to make sure I understand where everyone's coming from, without making any assumptions about replies I'm not too clear on. (Novel idea, eh? LOL)

:kick: for the a.m.

[xchrom]

86. recommend

[LWolf]

89. Because I, as a straight woman, worry about yours.

Unlike so many others, I vote for people who stand up for, who work for, the changes I wish to see.

Unfortunately, I won't get the chance to vote for DK in my primary, as I'd hoped. My primary doesn't happen until May 20th. At that point, I'll most likely be writing him in, or voting for Gravel if he is on the ballot.

Way too many Democratic voters don't vote the issues. They vote the polls and the media hype, to the detriment of the party and the nation.

While you make an excellent point, I'd be willing to wager that if, tomorrow, Obama began promoting a pro-life agenda, many of his supporters would suddenly realize that they, too, were pro-life.

[electron_blue]

90. Sounds like you're trying to get even.

In the end, do what you think is best for everyone.

[tbyg52]

93. I don't blame you for being less enthusiastic about defending it, at all, at all

Just don't change your views on it, and do what you can when you can.

It *is* frustrating when some don't see the commonality of issues, isn't it. As my mama taught me, "How would you like it if someone did that to you?"

[Bluenorthwest]

96. Thanks for the brilliance

of this post! As a gay man who faced the Fundie hordes with my blue round and some good training for years, I have been wanting to ask the same things. Well done as always.

[Major Hogwash]

97. Pure flamebait.

Maybe it's time you convinced the rest of us why you should be allowed to spew here at DU?

[Sapphocrat]

103. I'm very sorry...

...you perceive it as flamebait, and can think of nothing valuable to contribute to the discussion, which IMO is humming along quite nicely and calmly, with many thoughtful, reasoned replies.

Perhaps you'd like to try again? :hi:

[LostinVA]

109. Obviously, you don't understand the OP -- however, you're username is very apt

You obviously don't know the OP or their history on DU. They're a very good progressive.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Sapphocrat]

124. I don't think your posts are very productive at all.

Again, it is unfortunate you cannot find anything of value to contribute to a very substantive thread.

If you would like to argue my point in the OP, I will be more than interested in hearing what you have to say.

[LostinVA]

137. Damn -- I missed what his post said

I'm sure it was very enlightening.

[Sapphocrat]

138. Just that...

...I have a long history of "devisive" posts, and that I'm a "flamer."

I think I was mistaken for a gay man. Again. :D

[LostinVA]

147. Well, if it makes you feel any better

Haruka used to always get mistaken for a straight man.

[NMMNG]

125. Sapphocrat is a long time, respected contributor to this forum

I see no need for your abuse of her.

[Iggo]

98. That is a really good point.

I'll continue supporting equal rights for all AND a woman's right to choose, but goddam, that's an excellent point.

Kicked and recommended.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. In a perfect world, we can impose a purity test on those we elect.

In this world, it's going to come down to a binary choice. A or B.

If you think McCain will better represent your interests then you should vote for him. If you think our nominee will better represent your interests then you should vote for that person.

In the meantime, I can understand why you might feel that what you need from society is better represented by Hillary. My primary issue is healthcare, so I prefer Hillary too. But I'm not about to start working against Pell grants because the young folk don't give a shit about my primary issue.

I was going to be less charitable. I recall the poster who wasn't going to vote for Hillary because she might take the gore out of his videogames. "That would suck", you know.

[Sapphocrat]

106. It's a more general question than who I should vote for, or not vote for.

True that: "In this world, it's going to come down to a binary choice. A or B." Which ties in with a question I haven't touched upon yet, upthread, about whether the choice has to be "all or nothing."

I didn't see the post from the person "who wasn't going to vote for Hillary because she might take the gore out of his videogames." I'm glad you decided to give me the benefit of the doubt because, as I'm sure you realize (or hope you do!), we're talking about basic human rights, not video games -- although I suppose some might frame the video-game business as a "free speech" (or censorship) issue. I don't see any comparison between the two, and I am sure you don't either. :)

And again (to use your healthcare-v-Pell grants example), I never said I would work against a woman's right to choose; it's a question of: "Why should I continue to support it (actively)?"

[lumberjack_jeff]

118. You know what, I'm gonna catch some crap for this.

I work actively to support the causes I care about and matter to me. Health care, civil liberties, executive branch accountability, economic justice, prudent financial administration and the rights of the disabled are my pet causes.

I generally support environmental causes, peace, media fairness, choice and advocacy for minorities, including GLBT, but there are people better able to speak for those issues. To be candid, my support for those causes, although unambiguous, is best described as passive.

Not everything can be a person's number one cause. Perhaps, if it's not a big deal to you, you ought to concentrate your efforts on something that is.

And you're right - I'm glad you were able to read between the lines of my less than clear analogy - I didn't mean to equate choice or GLBT rights with the comparatively trivial inalienable right to video game gore.

:)

[Chovexani]

102. ...

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Sappho, you can break it down like no one else. :hug:

[OzarkDem]

105. I don't discuss wedge issues during presidential campaigns

It only hurts, doesn't help.

[Sapphocrat]

108. Are you saying...

...LGBT rights is a wedge issue, abortion rights are a wedge issue, or both are wedge issues?

[OzarkDem]

110. Abortion rights

sorry for the confusion. Its such a tired old tactic of the GOP to bring up abortion rights during presidential elections. There's nothing for Dems to gain from it.

I realize other people engage in that debate during an election year, but I refuse to. I'm always happy to engage in pro-choice arguments any other time.

[Sapphocrat]

115. Oh, OK, just wanted to clarify.

I'm accustomed to hearing that LGBT rights are a "wedge issue," but abortion rights are not. (Honest!)

[sueragingroz]

117. From one pre-menopausal dyke to another.... you go grrl!

[Hippo_Tron]

121. Read Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons

[1awake]

126. I can't say that for many years

I ever gave it much thought. The LGBT movement was always sort of.. abstract to me. I never was a very good republican to begin with, and thus understood that it "wasn't fair" how the system treated some. ... wasn't fair... makes me cringe thinking about it now. Anyway, I was all for civil unions thinking.. it's the same thing.. it's good enough for now. Then I started talking to a girl.. we became fast fiends. She was bisexual, and the topic of civil unions came up. during the discussion, I stupidly voiced my opinion on it, supporting it. The response back I got was a very quiet.. almost a whisper.. "separate but equal". It struck me with so much force I almost started to cry. Separate but equal... that conversation woke me up to more truth than almost any other.

Why should you support women's rights? Because human rights should not be denied to anyone, for any reason, and these rights should never be allowed to falter, just because they may not directly apply to our daily lives. Your right.. LGBT issues have been shunned, side stepped, smeared, and directly attacked for.. always. Some progress has been made sure, but progress does not equal right. My point is, nobody should ever be denied basic human rights from either active attack, or through silence. Much of the country is guilty of silence on LGBT suffering. The only reasons I can give you is what I've already said. I don't think I have the right to tell you anything after how the world has treated you. I believe the only one who has the answer, is you.

[omega minimo]

127. that's amazingly petty logic, isn't it?

:think:

[Sapphocrat]

128. Tell me why.

:)

[omega minimo]

129. you already know

:hug:

[Sapphocrat]

134. Yes, but...

...I can't think of a more devoted champion of women's rights who could lend such focused perspective as you can. ;)

[omega minimo]

156. every time i've connected those particular dots, it's a non-starter

:shrug:

[Sapphocrat]

158. A non-starter for, I'd guess, two reasons.

1. It's a hell of a task to connect all those dots without writing a book on the subject (which would have to include at least one very long chapter on world history) -- and few people have the attention span for anything beyond a catchy sound bite.

2. When you finally do get the whole "interconnected" concept across to somebody else, it makes them very, verrry uncomfortable. (That cognitive dissonance stuff hurts!)

[miceelf]

140. Wow

If anyone has told you that LGBT equality shouldn't matter, they're wrong. Dead wrong.

But I haven't seen many Obama supporters say this. I HAVE seen people say that McClurkin isn't the only issue relevant to LGBT issues, and pointing out that Clinton's record is pretty much the same.

[Sapphocrat]

142. I've been told LGBT equality...

...isn't as important as any other issue, more times than I can count, especially on DU -- that it's a "wedge issue," that LGBTs are such a small minority, our opinions don't count, and our votes aren't really needed. Of course, telling us we're not needed to win doesn't stop a lot of folks from blaming us for losing every election since 2000. (If only we had 1/100th the power attributed to us!)

Let's leave Obama supporters, McClurkin, and Clinton out of this, shall we? (There's a brand-new poll-thread this morning right here in GDP where everybody can re-hash the McClurkin issue.) I'd like to stay on-topic. What are your thoughts on my question in the OP?

[miceelf]

146. Well

I don't agree with what whoever told you that. (sorry, you referenced Obama supporters in the OP, which is what I responded to).

But I don't agree. I think that full equality should be an issue in this and in every election.

I think those rights (just like the abortion issue) are only "wedge issues" because we allow the right wing to define them as such.

Nearly everyone believes that at least under some circumstances women may need abortions. And a smaller set, but still a majority of people, are pro-choice, until they get mislead by the GOP.

I suspect that the reason gay rights are still an effective issue is: 1) right wing distortions not corrected strongly enough by Dem politicians, 2) people in the middle who actually don't know personally the impact of this issue on gay people because they don't know that they know gay people and haven't really thought about, and 3) the false prophets and phony preachers who use 1 and 2 to make money.

I think there ARE some things that aren't worthy fighting about. I support the legalization of drugs, but I am not willing to sacrifice the supreme court to have our candidate campaign on that issue. (although I DO think that failure to take a harm reduction approach to drugs has cost many lives). I think flag-burning laws are incredibly stupid, but I honestly am not going to put forth much effort to stop them.

I think gay rights and reproductive rights are different. Even if they DO act as wedge issues, our candidates still need to be vocal and strong about them. Indeed, the reason they work for the right is because we've largely ceded the argument to them. We hope they don't bring it up (essentially relying on their best nature), rather than confront the attitudes underlying them and attempt to persuade those in the middle of the side of fairness.

That's why I have a lot of respect for candidates and politicians who not only talk about gay rights to gay audiences, but who go into hostile environments and try to educate/change minds/reframe the discussion

I hope that makes sense, and I am sorry for going on the Obama-Clinton path.

[Honeycombe8]

143. Your stated issue is not part of the Dem. Party Platform. Right to choose IS. Big difference. nt

[Sapphocrat]

144. So then LGBT equality doesn't count...

...until (and if) the Democratic Party decides it does?

[Honeycombe8]

154. Did I say that? Of course not. Thing is, Dems can reasonably disagree on the issue, and still

be following the Dem. Party Platform. They cannot disagree with abortion rights and still be w/in Dem. Party Platform.

I'm not saying which opinion re your top issue is correct, or if there is even a correct one and the other one incorrect. I'm simply saying that pro-gay marriage is a stance that the Dem. Party does not hold, altho many of its members do. The party's position is that it is against a Constitutional amendment banning it, and that states should determine for themselves whether to permit gay marriage. I'm not sure if the Party Platform covers civil unions, or if that falls under the position of states deciding for themselves.

Most Democrats seem to hold the position that they are for civil unions but not in favor of gay marriage (or at least using the word "marriage"), although I'm not sure they are out and out against gay marriage. Just that they are in favor of civil unions over gay marriage. Anyway, that is the position I hear most often from Democrats.

[Solon]

155. See, this is one of the many reasons I'm glad to not be a Democrat...

This wishy-washy, bigoted position on marriage (in)equality, in addition to their positions on trade, the economy, the military, etc. is all centrist bullshit.

[NMMNG]

159. And that's one of the reasons I'm rethinking my status as a Democrat

and support of the Democratic party.

I've supported Democratic causes as long as I can recall and I've voted Democratic since I was of age. But the Democratic Party still fails me in very significant ways as they refuse to advocate for my rights and my needs. So I have to ask myself why I should keep giving them my money, my support and my votes if they're going to keep failing me time after time.

[Solon]

163. Being in an open primary state, I was never under any pressure to join...

So I didn't, I'm officially an "Independent" as they call them around here, or is it unaffiliated? Oh well. The fact of the matter is that on all matters of social and economic policy, I'm a far leftist, and the Democratic party is not anywhere near where my political positions are. They are a moderately conservative party, at best, compared to the Republicans, which are far right conservative.

[Sapphocrat]

157. Just trying to clarify what you're saying.

You first post, while you didn't say it, sounds to me like: If something is not an official plank in the Democratic Party platform, then Democrats are under no obligation to support it.

"The party's position is that it is against a Constitutional amendment banning it, and that states should determine for themselves whether to permit gay marriage. I'm not sure if the Party Platform covers civil unions, or if that falls under the position of states deciding for themselves."

So how do you feel about leaving the decision to the states? If it's acceptable to leave marriage equality to the states, then why not leave abortion rights to the states?

[Pathwalker]

149. I can give you one compelling reason, Sapphocrat:

Rape. Rapists don't care if their victim is gay or straight, and rapists get their victims pregnant. No female; gay, straight or child should ever be forced to give birth to her rapist's child. Ever. You're not just protecting a straight woman's "right to choose", but protecting ALL women's right to choose; gay, straight, and future women. I mean this sincerely, and respectfully.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

152. What?! As on Obama supporter: LGBT equality totally matters!

and the right too choose too!

[meow mix]

160. if you dont support choice, then your supporting human slavery.

no way around it.

[Sapphocrat]

161. OK...

What if I don't work against a woman's right to choose, but just stop actively working for it?

And what is it called when someone doesn't actively work against LGBT equality, but doesn't work for it either?

[unapatriciated]

172. on the fence

It's time for all of us get off the fence and work for Human Rights. Time to stop calling them wedge issues and call them what they are civil and human rights for all. Until we recognize that these issues are interwoven and we need to address them as one, we will not move forward.

[Der Blaue Engel]

162. I'm for civil rights for ALL Americans

Even assholes. (i.e., Not you; I mean those who don't support my rights)

[HelenWheels]

164. because without pro-choice women return to being chattel

unable to choose the course of their life.

[Sapphocrat]

165. But I'm unable to choose the course of my life, right now.

At the moment, women still have the right to choose, thanks to Roe v. Wade. But there is no equivalent of Roe v. Wade for LGBT equality. So, again I ask: Why should I keep defending something that, at least for the moment, is all locked up, when precious few are working to cement my (currently nonexistent) rights?

[DDQ]

166. Thank you Sapphocrat. I had this same discussion at work about abortion rights

and don't think anyone understood where I was coming from.

As a gay woman I will not "bounce back" after this election. I wonder if a lot of people are feeling the same way. I cannot forget what happened during this election process.

I have already voted eight times for the democratic candidate for president. I have done it even when I felt disenfranchised as a woman and in particular a gay women.

[sendero]

167. I stopped caring about the abortion issue..

... when legions of women put Bush into office. They obviously don't give a crap about their rights, why should I?

[Algorem]

168. less republians will be bornt

[GumboYaYa]

169. Because the notion that society controls a woman's body is just one symptom of the disease of

patriarchy. The male dominated control of women's bodies impacts many other areas of human rights, but is perhaps most obvious in the area of a woman's right to choose. Fighting against people who want to take away the right to aborton is fighting for human rights generally and not just the right to an aborrtion.

The exact same argument cuts the other way and it is the reason I always support LGBT equality even though it has no visible, direct impact on my life..

[MS68]

170. Pro-choice and pro-gay rights is an absolute must in a

candidate for me. For now, as long as they will fight for civil unions, which should provide the same legal rights as marriage, I'm fine with that. Baby steps....let people get used to civil unions and see that civilization as we know it will not crumble and full marriage will follow.

However, I'm not gay and I can get married, so that's probably easy for me to say.

My husband and I got married by a notary public in the state of Florida - basically we have a civil union. When she faxed sample vows to us, we struck out every reference to God or obey but kept everything else, but if we wanted to get married in a church we could have and that's a big difference.

[robbedvoter]

171. because your civil rights are as important as mine - at least I consider them so

W may think the anti-war protests were "focus groups" - to me they were the voice of the people.
Whatever any flawed candidate may think or say about anyone's civil rights - I will resist it - for your sake, mine, any anyone else's. And so should you.
Failure at the government level is not an excuse for us to lower our standards