Full, equal rights for gay persons is not open to compromise for political expediency

[TechBear_Seattle]

Do you agree with this statement: Full, equal rights for gay persons is not open to compromise for political expediency.

[MrModerate]

1. I'd go so far as to say . . .

That civil partner rules should be abolished in favor of marriage (rules for which are already on the books), because extending family benefits to cohabitants is probably bad social policy, while fostering marriage between pairs of consenting adults is good policy.

Among the things I just don't get is why the religious right uses the concept "same-sex marriage endangers different-sex marriage." Have they ever tried to explain this in a way that a sentient person could say, "sure, I see your point"?

[donco6]

3. I've never seen a coherent argument to support it.

They usually go right to, "Gays can't raise children because they're all child molesters". And that seems to be enough for a lot of people.

[MuseRider]

2. Absolutely

and I will never vote for anyone who does not hold as truth that we are all equal.

[Solly Mack]

4. Compromising on human rights leads to torture

"Gay" rights ARE human rights. Equal under the law or the law is meaningless.

There is no I'll compromise on human rights here - but take a stand there...you either support human rights or you don't.

A disregard of human rights lead to Matthew Shepherd's death...and not just his death.

A disregard for human rights lead to Medgar Evers death....and not just his death.

A disregard for human rights gave us extraordinary rendition

Anyone that would compromise on one person's rights will eventually compromise on mine.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. A question for everyone voting Yes

Why aren't you speaking up against posts such as this?

[William769]

7. I have learned not to argue with ignorance & stupidity.

Thats why I stay off the Conservative boards.

[cboy4]

50. I understand your frustration, but there is more power in numbers.

There's a nice chunk of us arguing here over the past few days...

I just wish more people would get involved and speak up.

Being passive gets people nowhere in a hurry.

You know?

[Solly Mack]

8. Didn't see it

[MuseRider]

18. Did not see it.

I have been away a lot lately and have not seen a lot of the threads you all are talking about. I guess I am not surprised, it seems we are tossing a lot of people under the bus these days just for a win (as if a win without value has value). I can't do it, won't do it. People are either equal or they are not. It is just that simple for me.

[ScreamingMeemie]

26. I did.

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. And it is much appreciated

But there are, at the moment, 62 people saying that equal rights should not be compromised for the sake of political expediency, and no where near 62 people making such a point in the thread I referenced. I can't help but to feel saddened by that.

[Sapphocrat]

36. Mostly because...

...I'm exhausted from all the other battles over the past 24 hours.

Actually, I didn't see that thread before. I'll put it on my list of Things to Piss Myself Off With All Over Again, But Only After I Recharge.

[TechBear_Seattle]

39. Rather sad that we have to work in shifts like this, isn't it? n/t

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

9. Meaningless poll because the issue is HOW to secure those equal rights.

and Civil Unions for ALL citizens being the required method of joining households within the Civil legal system makes the most sense.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. If you are going to bring up marriage as a specific case

You should note that all citizens seeking to be married are already getting a civil union. By law (and the First Amendment), religious ceremony is entirely irrelevant to legal marriage, and without the filing of appropriate civil documents to the appropriate civil authorities, there is no marriage.

What you seem to mean by "civil unions" is a case of separate and inherently unequal with absolutely none of the interstate protections guaranteed by the US Constitution and absolutely none of the rights, privileges, protections and responsibility that have been recognized in marriage through nearly 300 years of judicial precedent and common law.

[KittyWampus]

25. No, actually. The overwhelming majority of people in the US consider

the word "marriage" to have a religious/ceremonial meaning AS WELL AS having a legal meaning.

Therefore, allow Marriage to designate ONLY that religious/ceremonial aspect. You want to get 'married', fine. Go find a house of worship.

Civil Unions covers the legal and CIVIL aspect just fine.

You want to LEGALLY join households, you sign a CIVIL contract that doesn't have the word "marriage" on it.

Not only is that NOT seperate but equal it's simple.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Then they are ignorant fools

Marriage, in the context of legal marriage, is solely a civil, secular institution. Always has been in this country, and I sincerely hope it always will be. Otherwise, I lose a source of income officiating at secular marriage ceremonies.

[mdmc]

11. lol Silly DU'ers! Everything is on the table

gays, health, education, civil liberties...
All is fair in love and war.

People shouldn't have to live in fear, but that is the world that we live in. As Bob Marley put it, "There is so much trouble in the world."

[Warren DeMontague]

12. No. Neither is reproductive choice. Neither is evolution in science classes...

Neither is the separation of church and state.

The people who think we can win by tossing gays, pro-choicers, and atheists under the bus to pander to all 12 "values voters" and intelligent design backers in the country are on crack.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. It sounds like you meant Yes

By saying No, you are saying that full, equal rights for gay persons is open to compromise for political expediency. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Sorry. Yes. I meant "Yes".

Compromising civil rights and core beliefs for political expediency is neither right, NOR is it -in my mind- the politically smart thing to do.

[casus belli]

13. Not Sure What You Expect To Accomplish With This "Poll"

Before your defensive mechanism kicks in and you lay into me for what is perceived as an assault on the issue of equal rights for gays, let me just say that I have always strongly advocated for equal rights, and I am one who is willing to lose elections to do what I perceive to be the right thing. No question. If this were an issue of "pretend it doesn't exist for a little while so we can win", then I would understand some of the resistance to that line of thought. But, I don't think is such a case.

Having said that, the civil rights movement of the 60s was not won overnight, and was not won on demand. It took a very long and costly road to achieve the final objective. Do you think MLK ever gave thought to how he would present his argument in the best possible light, and how a poorly timed execution could harm as much as it hurt? Absolutely. No argument. He understood the harm in the approach of more militant groups like the Black Panthers, and understood that the war for civil rights was largely one of perception. The perception of the American people. He understood all too well, that if the hearts and minds of Americans was not won, civil rights for African Americans had no chance of being realized. There is validity to the argument that ill-timed decisions or rallies can do as much harm to the overall cause as those who oppose it entirely. If progressives continue to lose elections, we will never get any progressive civil rights legislation passed. Period. There really isn't any question. So the question really becomes one of - how do we win elections, without sacrificing our core beliefs and values to do so. And how do we accomplish that without further diminishing our influence. If we are unwilling to discuss timing and presentation, we'll just have to get used to having rallies that amount to nothing. Without political influence, WE HAVE NO VOICE.

I'll close this with an analogy (probably a poor one, admittedly). If you are going to advertise a cause or event, and you are working with almost no capital and want to maximize the benefits, do you grab the first available commercial time slot, or do you look at all of them and choose the one you feel might maximize your exposure to your target demographic? Asking someone to be smart in how they choose to present an argument, and asking them to consider the timing of that argument is not asking them to pretend the cause doesn't exist. If MLK had postponed a march, for instance, to avoid having one on the same day that a hate group happened to be having one in the same city, would that have been perceived as asking minorities to sacrifice their overall objectives or pretend the human rights struggle didn't exist, or would it have been looked upon as sound strategy for a most worthy cause?

edited for spelling. Sorry. :shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. This poll is in response to another post

Specifically, this one here.

[donco6]

30. You speak as if . .

. . . the path to gay civil rights is being led by a singular individual. And it isn't. It's not like we gays all get to vote on who puts out what ad, when; or which state releases decisions from their supreme court. We have no MLK, and no that's not our fault. Our movement is not unified, and probably cannot be - mainly because we have no Dem with balls to stand on our side in spite of the flak.

And postponing a march is not at all comparable to the backpedaling we've had to endure from people who initially lent their support (give money to this guy - he'll remove the ban on gays in the military), to the reality (oh, well, without much debate, we'll just create this phony "don't ask, don't tell" thing.) And why should we have to put up with more delay? Have we not been around as long as minorities? Have we not existed as long as religion? And yet, here we are, being asked to put up with still more delay in speaking out on our own behalf. "Rome wasn't built in a day," you say. Well, that's all fine and good for those living inside the city walls, but for those faced with yet another decade of living in the swamp, it doesn't feel very good.

[ismnotwasm]

16. Hell no it's not open for compromise.

And backing down on what are basic Human rights for any reason allows the incredible insanity we have going on to continue. I want it to stop. I have been wanting it to stop. This is not about special interests, or special rights, and it never has been. It's really about fighting--for lack of a better term-- evil-- in our politically structure. Fighting evil as well as unreasoned prejudice in our society.

Homophobia should be classified as a mental illness as far as I'm concerned. There should be treatment and support groups for those who thinking is so sick, so demented and twisted that the thought of equal rights for Gays is wrong or abhorrent. And those who put political expediency over the very lives of human beings who happen to be Gay to pander to those with such a mental difficulty need to really look at priorities.

[LostinVA]

17. Rights delayed are rights denied -- MLK

People have physically, emotionally, and financially suffered for gay rights. People have DIED.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

24. MLK said that?

But I thought he was a pragmatist!

:eyes:

[donco6]

31. You know how stirring those pragmatists can be.

Nothing like a good pragmatist to get the crowd cheering and the passions flowing!

:sarcasm:

[Solly Mack]

32. That was beautiful!

lol

[donco6]

33. Well, really.

I mean, to think that MLK got people motivated based on some great tactical reasoning or his sense of political timing is preposterous. He got people excited because what he said so resonated in their SOUL that they couldn't help themselves. They looked down at their feet and found them marching to Selma or Birmingham.

I can't think of someone more absolutist than MLK - his whole message was: Discrimination Against Blacks is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Not sorta wrong. Kinda wrong. It's IMMORAL! It's BLASPHEMOUS! He said it over and over again, just in different ways. But it was no less absolutist than our claim that discrimination against gays is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Grrr. These threads just get me steamed.

[Solly Mack]

35. and it resonated in their souls because it was the right thing to do

a person can't compromise principles one day and hope to regain their principles the next...once a person is willing to sell a person out, there is nothing stopping them from selling other people out....

You can't change hate filled attitudes by pandering to those hate filled attitudes.

[donco6]

37. Absolutely! Oops - can I say that?

I'm all for strategy - I mean, there's nothing to be gained by being stupid. But who's to say that someone clearly standing on a principle that is unassailable (such as MLK and black civil rights) wouldn't gain a huge, loyal, vocal following? IMO, that's what people are looking for anyway.

[Solly Mack]

40. Exactly!

[LostinVA]

42. Oh... that's right, I forgot...

Hmmm....

[grizmaster]

34. great quote

[madmusic]

20. Yeah, like, absolutism really works.

Look where it got the Rethugs.

Compromise is a part of any and all politics. Sometimes it's necessary to get a little at a time, and that goes for everyone.

[LostinVA]

43. Look where it got black civil rights under MLK...

Or where it got India under Gandhi...

[madmusic]

46. They didn't get everything they wanted in one election.

It will take years to undo all the damage the Rethugs have done. Pelosi has the right idea. Take it slow and don't get too arrogant.

[Chovexani]

49. ...

Sorry to disappoint, but us uppity queers aren't shutting up any time soon.

[Beelzebud]

21. This is what PRIMARIES are for....

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. Yes, let us speak about the primaries

Take, for example, Connecticut. Do you recall the absolute shock when the incumbent was voted out in the primary? Do you recall the pundits saying over and over that incumbents running for reelection just are not voted out in the primary? Do you recall the incredible fuss made over how exceedingly rare such an event is?

Take, for another example, any primary race you please where the incumbent was running for reelection. Look at how often there was a primary challenger; in a majority of such races, there are none. In the races where there are, look at how often the media assumes that the incumbent will be on the November ballot months before the primary campaign even begins. Look at how much media exposure is given to primary challengers, compared to that given to the incumbent. Look at how any challenge to an incumbent is marginalized by the party itself.

In short, our political system effectively guarantees that once a person is elected, that person will be their party's candidate regardless, always and forever, until the candidate resigns or dies. It doesn't matter whether the race is for partisan city councils, state governors or President of the United States. The massive surprise in Connecticut only proves the rule.

So tell me: How the bloody hell are people supposed to get change in our current political system?

[JerseygirlCT]

22. Ditto a woman's right to make her own private medical decisions

[kerry-is-my-prez]

23. Yep - that's the top issue in my book.

It's akin to turning women into slaves IMO. The gay marriage thing is also impt. because it's discriminatory and driven by hate.

Both issues are saying "You people are not important and need to be told what to do."

[JerseygirlCT]

38. Yes, exactly

both take groups of people and say that they're not worthy of basic human rights. That they are somehow less than fully human?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

41. We are the property of straight white males

n/t

[LostinVA]

44. You got it!

[mitchtv]

45. This board is getting disgusting loads of "liberals"

willing to point fingers and let us wait again. Our time is NOW, not a couple more weeks, but NOW

[JerseygirlCT]

47. I want to win, too.

And right now, because the numbers matter so, better to have a conservative Dem than a Republican.
BUT once we're back in power, and begin to get organized, I think it's vitally important that civil/human rights issues are not negotiable.

Want to work to make abortions less necessary? That's a great idea, and that's where the idea of bi-partisanship comes in.

Want to start with CUs, and assure religious conservatives that they can continue to deny homosexuals a religious marriage in their own churches? Well, ok. So long as we all understand that the right to form a legally-sanctioned marriage shouldn't be dependent on the genders of those involved. It's a legal contract -- what other legal contract involves gender restrictions?

I'll admit it: I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who wants to spout about the "protecting sanctity of marriage". They're full of crap. They know it, we know it. It's a ploy, a transparent and cynical ploy to wrap bigotry in some warped idea of the moral high ground.

So sure. Let's get them all elected. And then it will be easier to begin undoing the Bush harm, and moving toward a day when all people are truly treated equally.

[mitchtv]

48. yada yada yada, I basically agree

Hell I voted for DiFi again after she blamed Gays for their(Pink Tutu Dems) cowardly debacle in '04. I am, however, not ready to hear anyone tell me to wait one more second. It's been too long , and I'm too old to play games with "moderates". I have nothing against incrementalism, as long as one sees notable progress. I do not want to end up a widower, and have my house reassesed and end up losing it to a "gift tax" from my partner of thirty yrs.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. It's my hope that with Dems once again in

control, we don't have to be so timid about really pushing the human faces of the situation to the forefront. Stories like yours are everywhere. I really think once most people (some will never be persuaded) see that this truly is an issue of simple fairness, that really affects just plain folks, that they'll come around.

[Recursion]

52. That's a loaded question

Do you mean GLBT people's right to life, liberty, and property? Yes, those rights are beyond compromise, debate or expediency. Their right to live free from government or commercial discrimination? Also beyond compromise.

But, I think neither gay nor straight people have an inherent right to government recognition of their committed relationships with one another. I'd personally like to see the government get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Since it seems here to stay, I would prefer they recognize gay relationships as readily as they do straight relationships. It's a gross injustice that the government doesn't. But not all gross injustices are violations of inherent and non-negotiable rights (it's grossly unjust for me to give $1000 to one hungry person and nothing to another; neither has an inherent right to my money). However, if the result of a gay marriage fight is that the government remains in the hands of Republicans, I don't think one can responsibly pretend anyone, let alone GLBT Americans, will be better off for that. Like I said, I'd rather see the government stop recognizing straight marriages, so that's a lot of where I'm coming from.