THIS is what a Democrat sounds like. No "ex-gay" singers in sight to "reach out to"

[Bluebear]

"I realize that I disagree with many Oregon voters on this issue, and that taking this position just might cost me the election. But I cannot accept the state telling a loving, committed same-sex couple, “you have no right to get married.” The Declaration of Independence says that we all have the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” I believe that to be true to that principle, we need marriage equality."

- Steven Novick- D, Senatorial candidate from Oregon.


http://www.novickforsenate.com/

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Any equivocation is unacceptable. Good for him.

:kick:

[terrya]

2. Is this the guy who will be facing the incumbent, Gordon Smith?

God...a Democrat, in a political campaign...endorsing same-sex marriage equality.

Amazing.

[LordJFT]

29. hopefully others will learn

[NMMNG]

3. But...but....what about the religious voters?

Doesn't he have to take their views into account? :sarcasm:

[QC]

8. We need to bring them to the table.

It's a disgrace how fundamentalist bigots have been denied a voice in this country.

[NMMNG]

9. You're right. My heart weeps for them.

[QC]

11. They are martyrs, I tell you. Martyrs. n/t

[NMMNG]

16. Only in their own minds

And I certainly wouldn't tread there. :scared:

[Jamastiene]

12. Best.Graphic.Ever.

Please let me steal it.

[NMMNG]

15. Be my guest

Spread it far and wide. :evilgrin:

[casus belli]

57. LOL! Great chart :)

[theHandpuppet]

70. Love it, love it, love it

What a great mousepad that will make. You could start your own cottage industry!

:evilgrin:

[hulklogan]

4. Steven Novick in 2012!

Seriously, I would be proud to have him as my Senator.

[ruggerson]

5. You're bullying people again

:hug:

[calmblueocean]

6. Do good feelings trump civil rights? I'd like to hear your opinion.

Let's say this statement does cost him the election.

And let's say a candidate who supports civil unions could've won it.

Is that an acceptable trade off for you? The feeling of being publically embraced by a candidate, even if that candidate loses and gay couples don't get any of the rights they ought to have?

I'm being honest when I say I'd really like to understand your position on this. To me, it seems incredibly shortsighted, but I'm not gay and I don't have the insight I would like to have into that community.

[NMMNG]

10. It's more than "good feelings"

This candidate is standing up for what is right. If he does it, win or lose, he can make it easier for the next person who advocates the right thing to do so. And that will bring us that much closer to LGBTs having equal Human/Civil Rights.

[hulklogan]

13. And we shouldn't have to settle for "good enough" when it comes to full equality

Why shouldn't we support a candidate who supports us? I'm just about finished with trusting politicians who don't really care about the GLBT community, just because they're better than the alternative. I this case, the alternative actually is better, and I would support him wholeheartedly.

[NMMNG]

18. Damn straight

I'm sick to death of people who offer us a Colored Only drinking fountain and tell us to "take it or leave it" because it's better than nothing. That's often followed by the mantra, "What are you gonna do, vote Republican?".

[calmblueocean]

21. Here's some of what I'm wrestling with.

I don't see a country ready to grant gay marriage. Given the success of anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives in driving out the vote, my sense is that we're not merely an election or two away from it, but perhaps many years.

In the meantime, gay couples need to be able to be on each other's health insurance, they need to be able to make medical decisions for each other, they need to be able to inherit property just as easily and as unequivocally as hetero couples do. All those rights which I'm sure you're even more aware of than me.

Civil unions, for some strange reason, seem to be much more palatable to some people, even though they are basically marriage without the word "marriage". But the only reason to support civil unions is because you know that supporting gay marriage is so politically volatile that you can't support it yet and get elected. So supporting civil unions is a sort of "turning away" from the gay community, at least superficially.

The thing is, I think that gay marriage will come about more quickly in a world where civil unions are accepted. And gay couples go through real agonies and struggles without the rights that civil unions would bring. To me, it seems like speaking out for gay marriage right now instead of civil unions is actually condemning gay couples to spend even more of their lives without any rights or recognition of their relationships at all. It seems to me like the first, most important thing to do is move the ball down the field, so to speak, and get civil unions, and then we can focus on calling those civil unions "marriage".

Is this totally wrong in your view? What parts of my logic do you disagree with? Thanks for your opinions (and anyone else in the GLBT community who wants to answer).

[hulklogan]

23. Colorado had two options presented to the voters in 2006 -

One initative was for full marriage equality and the other was for civil unions. Guess what. They both lost by about the same margin. The fundagelical fascists in this state said civil unions were just "counterfeit marriage" and equally deserving of a no vote. I've seen this "counterfeit marriage" argument picked up in other states as well.

I prefer to believe that working for full marriage equality will get us there eventually, and it also makes us more likely to get civil unions in the meantime as a compromise. To keep it in the sports metaphor, I want a touchdown, not a field goal, but I'll take a touchdown if I can't get in the end zone this time.

The problem with working towards civil unions as the goal, in my opinion, is that it creates a separate but equal system that is entirely unfair to GLBT couples. For proof of how civil unions just don't work, check out the recent New Jersey study that found that civil unions in that state that are supposed to confer all the rights of marriage, are not in fact equal to marriage.

edited spelling

[NMMNG]

24. The people who are truly against same-sex Marriage

Are also against Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships. They don't want us to have any form of unions (and often any form of rights at all). Therefore the "stepping stone" theory won't pan out with the bulk of these individuals.

To me, it seems like speaking out for gay marriage right now instead of civil unions is actually condemning gay couples to spend even more of their lives without any rights or recognition of their relationships at all. It seems to me like the first, most important thing to do is move the ball down the field, so to speak, and get civil unions, and then we can focus on calling those civil unions "marriage".

The problems with that option are many.

1. It's been found time and time again that even while Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships may be well intentioned and designed to give same-sex couples the same benefits and rights as married couples they simply do not. Agencies, companies, states and other entities do everything they can to get around the law because the same-sex couples are not "Married". Couples have met countless roadblocks in their efforts to get health-insurance, death benefits, life insurance and other things that opposite-sex married couples take for granted.
2. CU/DPs do not provide any of the more than 1000 rights guaranteed to married couples by the federal government. They are also not portable from one state to the next, making people essentially tied to the state they get the union in. In essence, CUs/DPs are vastly inferior to Marriage in countless ways.
3. It's flat-out bigoted to ask GLBTs to take bread crumbs as some sort of "baby step" on the road to full Human/Civil Rights just because the homophobes can't tolerate the idea of giving up their hatred. Would anybody have asked advocates for interracial marriage to accept Civil Unions, rather than marriage, for interracial couples as some sort of "starter package"? No, they just made interracial marriage legal and the bigots had to deal with it.


It's time for Human/Civil Rights to trump bigotry. In fact, it's well past time.

[mondo joe]

32. Personally, I could be MORE okay with a candidate who says he or she supports

civil unions because they are politically expedient than one who says he or she supports civil unions but is opposed to marriage.

[NMMNG]

69. While I don't like the idea of Civil Unions

as a stepping stone (for the reasons I've outlined more than once), I agree with your rationale. Particularly when it's a candidate who says they're opposed to marriage because of their "deeply held religious beliefs". :puke:

[readmoreoften]

53. Civil unions don't really work. New Jersey has already ruled on this. Besides, they're unequal.

Companies, hospitals, etc. are simply telling people that they don't have any legal provisions for "civil unions" and that their corporate policy says "marriage", etc. It's subjecting people to total tax confusion (I'm as good as married on my state taxes, but single on my federal return) and it's also completely and totally unequal in substantial ways: you can't have your foreign partner live with you in the US, you don't get their social security when they die, you have to claim your partner's coverage as extra income on your taxes if they are on your insurance, you don't get military benefits if they die in Iraq, you don't get conjugal visits, you can be forced to testify against your spouse, etc. And kids make it an even grayer area much of the time.

It's a lot more practical to just say marriage.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. I'll tell you whose "feelings" shouldn't come into account- the "feelings" of those whose

shorts chafe at the thought of two gay people down the street they've never met getting legally married-with-an-m and picking up a wedding license from city hall just like the rest of us can.

Fuck 'em. Equality isn't negotiable, nor should it be papered over and called something else in the interest of protecting some retrograde knucle-dragger's "feelings".

About time people, particularly uptight "values voters", in this country grew up. Let gay people get legally married and fucking DEAL with it. Don't like it? Don't buy 'em a gift, don't go to the reception.

[NMMNG]

71. Thank you

I'm tired of hearing about how the "rights" of the bigots are going to be somehow violated if LGBT people are given equality. Since when is discriminating against other human beings a "right"? We need to stop giving religion the respect we do and put people first.

[nonconformist]

60. We're never going to get anywhere unless good people stand up for what's right

Being afraid because it's not "popular" will never change a thing. The more others say it, the more courage it gives someone else to say it, and so on.

One day, we will look back on the struggle for gay rights as we do the struggle for black civil rights - as in, I can't believe it took them so long to do the right thing, the alternative is just unimaginable.

[Hoof Hearted]

7. Thanks for posting this Bluebear! You've been rudely treated around here lately.

:hug:

I just want to thank you for fighting the good fight.

[Bluebear]

33. I thank you...

...for being part of it! :hug:

[Hoof Hearted]

44. I'm gonna tear up now, a little. Too many things to say

and not enough ways to say them. So I'll just settle for this:

You're the best.

[rodeodance]

92. yes, you have been treated harshly--Thanks for fighting the good fight--

[Jamastiene]

14. Kicked and Recommendation #10.

Well said, my friend, well said.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. Yes for same sex marriage equality!

[BlackVelvet04]

19. Agree completely....

and something I don't understand about the opposition to gay marriage is what the objection is. It makes no sense to me. A gay couple getting married doesn't affect me and my life in any way, except for the benefit it is to society when couples are committed and build a stable life together.

I think when any one of us is denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we are all diminished to some extent.

[QC]

22. There's only so much marriage to go around, so when you let those people have any of it,

there's less marriage for the nice normal people.

[NMMNG]

26. That's what some of them seem to believe

You would think that they'd ban adultery, divorce and re-marriage if they were that eager to "protect" marriage.

[QC]

27. Well, those things might affect them.

The antigay thing is cheap morality--taking a strong stand on something that, they think, will never affect them.

It would be like me "giving up" liver 'n onions for Lent.

[NMMNG]

31. Exactly

The antigay thing is cheap morality--taking a strong stand on something that, they think, will never affect them.


Just think how many of their own would be affected if they lambasted adulterers, divorcees and--perish the thought--liars.

[TankLV]

20. Ouch! bama is PUNKED again!

this is how bama should run his campaign...but unfortunately he won't

[Nutmegger]

25. R&K [n\t]

[susanr516]

28. Excellent!

Hope he wins!

[mondo joe]

30. Thank you, Mr. Bear. I am grateful to see those words. NT

[Sandaasu]

34. Meanwhile, Hillary still supports DOMA.

Neither of our remaining candidates are great on gay rights, and picking one just one, suggesting that the other is good on our issues, is not helpful.

[Bluebear]

35. Inviting "ex-gay" preachers on stage to opine about how God saved them from the gay is not helpful.

[jackson_dem]

36. One candidate has proven he will use bigotry against GLBT people for political purposes

Are GLBT folk to just "hope" he wouldn't do it as president? That is the real problem that Mcclurkin created for St. Obama.

[hulklogan]

37. Bringing up Senator Clinton when the OP is about a Senate candidate in Oregon

is not helpful

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Bullshit. It's plenty obvious exactly what the OP is about.

Don't be facile.

[Bluebear]

47. Exactly. A candidate who is NOT throwing us under the bus.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Right. Perhaps he can instruct Senator Clinton on why marriage equality is important

if she becomes the Democratic Presidential nominee---

because unfortunately, as no doubt you are aware, she, like Obama, doesn't support full marriage equality.

[Solon]

65. Here's a newsflash, both Democratic Presidential Candidates suck ass...

and are unworthy of support. We have two moderately right wing assholes and whichever one wins will face up against a radical right wing asshole in the General election. To be honest about it, I'm frankly surprised that so many DUers are so enthusiastic about rallying around status quo candidates.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. I'm sure if Ralph Nader jumps in, all kinds of goobers will get crazy and excited again.

:eyes:

Are HRC and BHO exactly where I want them on every issue? No. But they are SIGNIFICANTLY better on most issues than the GOP. To call them "moderately right wing assholes" is prima facie absurd. You're talking about the difference between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sam Alito.

[Solon]

74. Both Obama and Hillary are approximately where the Democratic party is at...

just right of the center. I don't agree that much with Ralph Nader either, who is, at best, just left of center. The fact is that we don't have a major left wing political party in this country.

[Mark Twain Girl]

38. K&R. Now that's some change I can believe in.

No more equivocation, please.

I had never heard of Steven Novick before tonight, be he's officially on my radar, and has my respect. That's how it needs to be done.

[CorpGovActivist]

39. Now, if only the Clintons could be cured of their PanderBear ways. n/t

[LostinVA]

77. The same could be said of Obama

[Armstead]

40. That should be the position of ALL Democratic candidates

The only one who came close was Kucinich

[DDQ]

41. Thanks Bluebear

[Bluebear]

43. And welcome to DU, DDQ!

[Maven]

42. K/R

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Unfortunately, neither of our two remaining Presidential candidates understands this.

So any attempts to toss brickbats at one while implying the other is pure as the driven snow on marriage equality are fucking silly.

[Bluebear]

49. Fine, then fucking move on.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Grumble Grumble Grumble Robble Robble Robble.

You want to find a reason to love Hillary and hate Obama, great- but support for GLBT marriage rights aint it, Jack.

[readmoreoften]

52. BB's a staunch Edwardian, not a Hillaryite. /nt

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Edwards couldn't really answer that question very well, either.

I seem to remember him saying something about his "upbringing" and "morals" preventing him from being able to accept gay marriage.

Oh, yeah, EE was right on target when she spoke in San Francisco- too bad she wasn't running. The bottom line, of course, is why should it be anyone else's business if two gay people want to legally wed? Why shouldn't they have the same rights as straights such as myself?

Really, the only one of our primary contenders who bravely came out for full equality for all Americans in this regard was Kucinich.

Of course. And I understand being pissed at Obama over Donnie McClurkin. Bad move. Obama has done other things that have pissed me off. So did Edwards. So has Hillary. She voted for the Iraq war, can't seem to admit it was a mistake. Bad move.

But let's be honest- this, here, where we're at? 99.9999% of the nasty, angry shit flying through GDP at any given second breaks down to Hillary v. Obama. Which is silly, because we have two candidates who are smart, capable, and right on a lot of things- and on the things where they're wrong- like marriage rights for GLBT citizens- they are EQUALLY wrong.

[LostinVA]

78. Ah, I see you're responding to my friend, "Ignore"

[Neshanic]

88. And we have a winner! The truth for the evening.

[readmoreoften]

51. Didn't he get the memo? Gays kill kids. Gays also kill the kids that homophobes kill.

:crazy:

Because homophobes are all just a bunch fags who can't accept themselves. So stop bitching and moaning because it's all your big gay fault. There can't be much crime against scum like you, because only scum like you commits crimes against scum like you, and there aren't as many of you as you say there are, ergo, there can't be hardly any crime against you at all--because you scum are the criminals, and not the victims of crime.

That's why we're not homophobes. Cuz we're not a bunch of fags like you. And if on the off-chance a hetero does kill you, it's because your faggotry made the poor hetero panic and now they're gonna have to live with your death for the rest of their lives! While you're all smug and dead, their pain lives on...the pain YOU caused by inspiring them to kill you. The worst thing is, it's us straights--our poor police and teachers and doctors--who have to clean up your body when you cause yourself to be killed. And we have to lay flowers at the spot where you died. And we're the ones who have to protect your reputation from the MEDIA who wants to smear your good dead name all over the papers by slanderously calling you a (whisper) gay which you were, of course, but it's bad to speak ill of the dead so we're trying to protect you. And then there are the gay groups who want to use you to suggest (horrors!) that there is violence done to kids like you, which is preposterous because you bring it on yourselves.

Gays kill children. Gay children who get killed by straight children are the gay killers who killed the straight child who killed them.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1714214,00.html

On another note, can I move to Oregon to vote for this guy? He sounds reasonable and intelligent, though, so I guess he'll never win. Might as well concede now. Is there a second, fourth, ninth, fifteenth favorite I could vote for? Someone who is close enough to a fundie republican sociopath wingnut to win, but liberal enough not to waterboard detainees personally?

Ah, whatever. Sorry Bluebear, I'm just in a bad mood. :( :hug:

[Warren DeMontague]

55. That John Cloud "piece" in Time is a real piece, all right.

He's also the guy who wrote the glowing cover story about Ann Coulter. He's a dick.

[alphafemale]

56. I don't think the "state" should recognize ANY "marriage"

They should recognize legal civil unions...period.

A marriage is something you get blessed before the religious leader of your choice.

Government should have no say in what is a "Marriage." Period.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. So if you're not religious, you can't get married?

Sorry, that argument is NEVER going to fly. There is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage already, which is why conflating the two in these arguments isn't helpful. Like, as if gay marriage is legalized, the Catholic Church will be forced to marry gays... er, well, it's legal for divorced people to marry, but not in the Catholic Church- right?

Many people- even irreligious people- like being "married". The argument here is for equal, legal rights. Rather than telling 90% of the population they can't legally wed anymore, I think it's much more reasonable to say that GLBT citizens should have the SAME EQUAL RIGHT to marrry their SO as everyone else.

Period.

[alphafemale]

63. The Catholic Church thing you mentioned is a perfect example.

Churches recognize marriage.

Or DON'T recognize them.

Divorced people cannot have their union blessed in a Catholic Church.

Same sex couples can have their union blessed in a Unitarian Church.

The rights for all civil unions should be the same.

Gay or straight.

But the state has no business of saying what is a marriage.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Except, the idea that "marriage" is a purely religious institution or word simply isn't true.

That doesn't take into account the millions of people- such as myself and my wife- who aren't religious, don't attend any organized religous services, aren't interested in pretending, briefly, to be religious in order to wed- yet we are "married" just as surely as anyone else.

I understand the argument, but in reality, what this is about when you get down to brass tacks is making equality for gay and lesbian people more palatable to folks who don't have any problem with civic "marriage" unless it is extended to GLBT citizens. I say too bad. We already have a system of civic legal marriage, and it's not going away. Equality and fairness demands that it merely be extended to everyone.

[mondo joe]

75. But since the government DOES recognize marriage - our legal name for

"civil union" - shouldn't the law be applied fairly for all couples?

[alphafemale]

83. Yes. I think it should be applied fairly. All civil unions are granted equal protection.

But marriages are not recognized.

That leaves everyone free to pursue their own definition of "marriage."

It allows churches to recognize marriages according to their creed.

Catholics can continue to not marry people who have been divorced. And more liberal congregations can recognize same sex-unions.

And all couples should ABSOLUTELY have equal protection under the law for such things as inheritance and child custody, health decisions and all those other protections that straight couples take for granted. This should also include, of course, legal procedures if a same sex couple does split up so that their is a fair splitting of their assets.

[LostinVA]

79. Actually, marriage was a civil institution before it was a religious one

[alphafemale]

86. All couples should be equally protected under the law.

Absolutely.

[avrdream]

59. Sweet.

I'm sending him some money.

[Apollo11]

62. And yet, civil unions seem to be working real well in Great Britain.

Same-sex couples are lining up to make use of the civil partnership law introduced in 2004.

Beneficiaries include Elton John and George Michael (* not part of the same couple).

A few years later, Britain is already experiencing the growth of "gay divorce".

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

[Solon]

64. Don't confuse civil unions in the United States with those in Great Britian...

In GB, the rights and responsibilities are IDENTICAL to those of married couples, in the United States, mostly due to the State-Federal system of government, Civil Unions are NOT given the same rights as Marriages.

[LostinVA]

80. Their "civil union" is different than it is here

Most states don't offer any benefits to same-sex couples. And many states allow gay people to be fired or evicted.

Educate yourself before you claim something is "working real well."

[boppers]

66. For those not famliar with the OR battle, it went down like this:

1. Measure 36 was put on the ballot, denying gay marriage. It passed.
2. The legislature looked at this, and said to themselves "Huh, that's weird... they *must* have meant that religious marriage can't be forced into churches that don't believe in it, so we need civil laws to protect such contracts between couples."
3. The fundies went batshit, because they thought they could ban all civil contracts they didn't like, and sued.
4. The fundies lost their suit, because the state constitutional amendment only defined *marriage*, not *contracts*.

I love living here.

[NMMNG]

72. Sadly fundie dirtbags in FL are more crafty

They're working on a very broad "marriage protection" amendment that would make any form of domestic partner benefits illegal, be they for straight or gay people. Once again in their zeal to harm gay people, the fundies will harm everybody.

[theHandpuppet]

73. Wonderful thread. Thank you, Bluebear

:yourock:

[Duncan Grant]

76. I wonder if Obama will appear at an LGBT pride event this summer?

Wonderful thread, Bluebear. :thumbsup:

[LostinVA]

81. I'd say that will happen about the same time

McCain marches in a pride parade.

[Duncan Grant]

82. This could take awhile. Maybe we should invite Mike Hukabee?

:hi:

[NMMNG]

85. Keep Hoping

[Duncan Grant]

89. O(MG)bama!

:spray:

[LostinVA]

90. OMFG

:spray:

[TriMetFan]

84. I plan on voting for Novick.

He is one smart guy. Go Novick!

[Neshanic]

87. Will Obama have his picture taken with him?

[LWolf]

91. He's one of 3, that I know of, in our primary,

vying to capture Gordon Smith's senate seat in November.

I haven't decided which of the three to support yet, and I'm enjoying getting to know them.

I'm glad that my May 20th primary will count for something, and I can cast a positive, constructive vote for someone in November.

Hopefully, we can elect someone who will work to hold the next president accountable for democratic principles, for social and economic justice, and for honoring the law.