Should legalized gay marriages really be a priority this election?

[TAWS]

With all this talk about whether Obama/Clinton support gay rights, I could care less which one supports gay rights more when we have more pressing issues like health care, the economy, and how to fix our foreign policy. I'm sorry but a federal bill legalizing gay marriage will never see the light of day or will even be voted on. I don't want the country to be stuck upon a partisan debate over gay marriage (like it has with abortion) that will drive out conservative voters in droves to vote down democrats, which will hurt our ability to pass other meaningful legislation like stem cells, having an inflated adjusted minimum wage, etc.

My point is this: keep the conservatives voters asleep for the elections, while we win seats and keep building our majority.

This is the same reason that Democrats are afraid of bringing up gun control.

[anonymous171]

1. I think that's what Obama's been trying to do.

Although I can't blame gays for wanting their Civil Rights and no one else should either.

[bobbert]

2. It's more importatnt in the primary

Once you get to the GE then it's night and day, and all of us on the forum will(should?) vote Dem

[ruggerson]

3. It's not a zero sum game

supporting GLBT equality does not detract from all our other important issues.

[TAWS]

4. It does when the issue causes Republicans to come out and vote against Democrats.

[Two Americas]

12. well then the problem is easy to solve

We can talk like Republicans, think like Republicans and run on the Republican platform. That will fool the people into electing us, and then once in office we can reveal our nefarious plan.

People vote against Democrats because of what you are suggesting, not because of the positions on the issues. The general public can smell the hypocrisy, pandering and contempt a mile away. They don't trust the Democrats, and you are saying that we need to be untrustworthy in order to win, thereby reinforcing the image the public has of Democrats and liberals.

How about this? The important things that you mention have 70-80% support from the public. How come hardly any Democrats run on a platform of the traditional ideals and principles of the party, and also the platform that has always brought the party its greatest electoral success?

Gay marriage is not about special "rights" - actually, "privileges" is the way you are talking about rights - it is about justice and equality. The public supports justice and equality, Framing it as some special privilege we are asking for is the right wing framing of the issue, and makes persecution and oppression invisible, reducing all politics to a matter of likes and dislikes, preferences and prejudices. It alleviates the need for the Republicans to defend their platform of hatred and bigotry. The public does not support hatred and bigotry. But so long as it can be framed as something other than a choice between justice and equality versus hatred and bigotry, the right wing wins.

The truth? I think that a significant number of people in the Democratic party do not actually support justice and equality, do not actually support the traditional principles and ideals of the party. They pay lip service to those in order to pander to people, and then play the other side of the fence in order to pander to a different group of people. That is why Democrats do not win. That is the simple explanation, and one that fits the facts. This nonsense of "don't get me wrong I agree with all of those principles of the party, but...." is a big fat lie, and is sabotaging and destroying the party. If we took strong principled stands, we would pick up a hundred new supporters for every "don't get me wrong" person who got offended and left the party.

It is so much work, takes so much energy and such convoluted arguments to keep trying to be on the political left and not on the political left at the same time. Most of the time the public doesn't even know what we are talking about - it sounds insane; it is insane.

[Two Americas]

5. fatally flawed strategy, and morally bankrupt as well

The voters reject Democrats because we hide where we stand and pander and try to play both sides of the fence, not because we don't do enough of that.

Also, if "we" keep pretending to be something that "we" are not until "we" get elected, "we" are conning the public, and at one point do "we" become "they?"

Also, if politicians get rewarded for being centrists by being elected to office, why would they ever have a strong incentive to do anything else BUT play for the center? What leverage would we ever have on them?

The idea that we have to trick the public in order to get elected reflects an abysmal lack of confidence among Democrats, as well as a deep contempt for the people. Politicians who have no confidence and who hold the public in contempt get rejected by the public, regardless of what their positions on the issues are.

[ruggerson]

6. Exactly

and voters can sense it in all our candidates who do the dance on the issue.

Well said.

[Two Americas]

16. oh, ruggerson, good to see you here

I was thinking about you and something you posted elsewhere - about Reagan taking a strong anti-choice position in spite of the fact that this was in opposition to 70% of the people. There is such a powerful lesson in that.

[TAWS]

8. Trust me, if we took up gun control. Democrats would be out of the majority in a snap.

It's called pragmatism. You fight battles you can win.

[Two Americas]

14. explain something

What makes gun control a left wing position? I say that it is not. Nor is support for the RKBA a conservative or right wing idea. That IS an example of a stupid position that does nothing but give the right wing a cause to use against us. Equality and justice are NOT examples of stupid positions that do nothing but help the right wing. The only way to fail to see the difference between the two is to subscribe to a grab bag of positions on issues - really just personal likes and dislikes, preferences and prejudices - with no underlying political analysis or philosophy.

I am all for pragmatism. But principle comes first, and the two are not mutually contradictory as so many liberals and Democrats now believe. Politics should not be a matter of what we like and dislike. It is a matter of power and economics, and is a battle for equality and justice.

The reason that Democrats do not run on a gun control platform is because half of the Democrats don't support it, and because it is not in alignment with the traditional principles and ideals of the party. It is a culture war cause, not a political issue.

Possession and prohibition laws don't work, be it the war on drugs or prohibition. Those types of laws are not political at all, and have nothing to do with the political right or the political left. They are inevitably used by the wealthy and powerful as tools of oppression against the poor and marginalized.

We had a similar situation in the 1840's, with the Abolition movement and the Temperance movement. Can you see the difference between those two movements? Can you see that politically you could take no position on Temperance without sacrificing any moral principle, but that you could not fail to take a position on Abolition without sacrificing principle?

Gun control is a "good cause" just as Temperance was. But they are not in any way comparable to the causes in the struggle for justice and equality.

[woolldog]

7. Watch out! I made this point on another thread,

and was called a homophobe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5441748&mesg_id=5443139

[Maddy McCall]

13. No. You said "gays have a history of torpedoing Democrats."

Among other such shit.

Your exact words: "so this isn't the first time that the gay community has tried to torpedo the Democratic nominee."

And you referred to "the gay agenda" harming Democrats.

You're quite transparent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Good Catch

~

[MadBadger]

9. We could throw gays under the bus...

you know the Bill CLinton way



I'm kidding about the first party btw.

[Nicole]

10. Yes

Your "more pressing issues" don't have to be the only issues we support.


If you think throwing the gays under the bus yet again will keep the conservatives sleeping then you haven't been awake yourself. It's been done before & it didn't work.

[anonymous171]

11. You think Gay Rights get repugs riled up, wait until someone brings up abortion.

Now THAT gets them out there.

[TahitiNut]

15. As long as any of us are deprived of civil liberties then we ALL are.

Yes, I believe DADT must be jettisoned like the stinky piece of sewage it is. I believe government should get the hell out of the 'marriage' business - the only such arrangment that government should be permitted to legislate is a (monogamous) "civil union" and it should be a guaranteed liberty for all consenting, non-institutionalized (age of consent) adults.

[sniffa]

30. BAM!

:thumbsup:

[kdpeters]

17. I think the issue has been getting a lot of disproportionate attention

due to efforts of some to exploit and politicize homophobia and GLBT issues for partisan mischeif. But to answer your question, the only reason I don't think it is a priority is because I just don't see any gay marriage issues relevant to this Presidential race. Most of it's happening in the states and in the courts. I couldn't give a shit what the fight for equality does to conservatives. That's not the point. But I really don't see how federal gay marriage fits into the issues in the presidential race.

I do find it unfortunate that the perpetual efforts to fill the discussion with McClurkin one-note drive bys is extremely distractive and divisive. Memo to McClurkin fetishists: No. This will not be the day that something new develops in the "ongoing" McClurkin controversy. And come tomorrow when you make your drive-by daily shit stirring McClurkin/Obama-is-a-homophobe post, there will be no new news just the same as yesterday the same as the day before and EVERY FRICKING DAY FOR THE PAST FIVE MONTHS. There will be no new developments other than the same shit we've hashed and rehashed more than any other actually important issue. IT IS OVER!! That's just the fact. Whether or not you are satisfied with the way things stand today, that's the way they'll remain. Do what you have to do to deal with it and move on with your life.

[krawhitham]

18. NO, that is why we lost last time

Rethugs had anti-gay marriage law issues across many states and that got the nut vote to come out in force

I hope neither talk about it until after the GE and then push hard as the can for it after they win

[Mimosa]

19. All Democrats don't think alike on gay issues, gun issues or abortion

Is there a presumption that all Democrats think alike on same sex marriage? Possibly more are in agreement on equality for gays than on gun control or abortion. For instance two of the furthest left Democrats I know are supporters of the 2nd amendment as the NRA defines it and are gun collectors. And there are Bill Casey Democrats who are generally pro-life. I think a strategic error is to believe all democrats agree on these issues.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. One: It is never the "wrong time" for EQUAL RIGHTS. Two: As far as abortion goes, guess what?

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE
PRO CHOICE.



http://www.jofreeman.com/photos/MFWL.html

The people who've been telling you that choice is a losing issue for us are the same ones who want you to believe the "values voter" is all-powerful. They are LYING TO YOU.

Far more numerous are the socially libertarian, mind-your-own-fucking-business voters, and they are only waiting for us to stand up strongly and consistently for personal freedom, separation of church and state, and the right of citizens to control their own bodies.

[grantcart]

21. The whole problem IMHO is that you frame it as 'gay marriage' when

it should be framed as equal rights for all. Many people who will be against 'gay marriage' because it sounds like they are approving a gay agenda. Supporting equal rights for all sounds like you are supporting the constitution which you are. All people should have the right to life libery and the persuit of happiness and there cannot be anything more fundamental to human happiness than chosing who you are going to committ to living the rest of your life with.

To answer your question I think it should be in the platform but not overly promoted. We will have a better success in getting victories in the more liberal states. Once certain states recognize 'gay marriages' the other states will have no alternative to follow.

[pnwmom]

22. Awfully easy to say, if you're not a member of the gay community.

I'm assuming you aren't -- please correct me if I'm wrong.

[MrSlayer]

23. It shouldn't be the number one thing we run on.

But there is room for it in the party platform. I don't believe either candidate is for full-on Gay marriage anyway so they won't be talking about that "extreme viewpoint" much, if at all, in this election cycle. It's complete bullshit that we're even talking about it as a wedge issue when "equal rights for all" is supposed to be the hallmark of this nation. It should already be legal but as with too many things in this country baby steps must be taken.

[Skidmore]

24. Equality and human rights should be one priority, especially

since civil rights have been badly stripped under the Bush administration. Constitutionally guaranteed right need to be restored. I think Obama will work for this and he has said he would.

[aquarius dawning]

25. Naw, throw em' all under the bus with grandma.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Should Ending Jim Crow Be A Priority This Election?

With all this talk about whether Kennedy/Johnson support civil rights, I could care less which one supports civil rights more when we have more pressing issues like poverty, the economy, and how to address the Cold War. I'm sorry but a federal bill ending de jure discrimination will never see the light of day or will even be voted on. I don't want the country to be stuck upon a partisan debate over civil rights (like it has with slavery ) that will drive out conservative voters in droves to vote down democrats, which will hurt our ability to pass other meaningful legislation like health insurance for older folks , having an inflated adjusted minimum wage, etc.

My point is this: keep the conservatives voters asleep for the elections, while we win seats and keep building our majority.

This is the same reason that Democrats are afraid of bringing up health insurance for older folks.

[aquarius dawning]

28. Hint: Conservatives won't vote for Hillary or Barack eitehr way

and sacrificing your ideals to woo Republicans makes you a Republican in the end.

[terrya]

29. More of that "who gives a shit about full equality" condescending message

We deserve full equality. We deserve it and demand it.

I'm sick and tired of this "we have to wait when it's convenient" crap. It's always...always...never convenient. There's a Presidential election coming up...can't bring up that gay rights stuff. There's a Congressional election two years after that...nope, can't do that...can't risk our seats in Congress. There's a Presidential election two years after that...nope, can't let the conservatives dictate the agenda.

I get so goddamned TIRED of waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting. I have a job...I pay taxes, like you heteros...and yet....I don't have the same rights as you. That's so grossly unfair, I don't know where to begin.

Full equality for us should be a priority, period.

[WinkyDink]

31. Republicans always like the Democrats to discuss this issue.