I don't kid myself. I don't expect most democrats to ever do anything gay people.

[readmoreoften]

And for you "not right now" Democrats. Just when do you folks think Democrats are going to come out in support of gay rights? There will never be an auspicious time to help me become a 1st class citizen. I know, I know. Wait until after the midterms. But what you really mean is wait until after 2008. And if we don't win 2008, it will be the same story for the next two presidential elections. Even if we win 2008, in the election of 2012-- if there was any wavering or uncertainty in the midterms of 2010-- gay marriage will still be an exploitable electoral issue. Do you really think 6 years is going to change the mind of American bigots? Abortion has been a controversial issue for 30 years. With the rise in homeschooling and all these christian youth militias popping up, anti-gay sentiment will most likely continue and even expand. And its not just "marriage". It's employment non-discrimination. It's physical and sexual assault.

Yes I know gay people have made tremendous gains over the past 20 years. And those gains have little-- and in many cases nothing-- to do with the Democratic party. We (and our straight allies outside of politics) have made these gains by relentless education and, might I add, a very polite patience with most people's ignorance and distain for us.

So why don't you be honest? Instead of saying, "I believe in gay rights! I really do! Just wait until we get control! There are more important issues." Why don't you just say: "We have no plans on supporting you until the overwhemling majority of the American people do. Realistically, that might be 20 years from now. You may want to vote for us for other reasons. For example, historically we've had an excellent record on labor issues. And for you lesbians, we have a very strong record on women's issues. We also have a better record supporting African-Americans than Republicans. Our brand philosophy is "broad and inclusive", and while we won't say that you are an important part of our community whose rights we will fight for, you can interpret our ideals as a wink towards you."

The bigots aren't going anywhere. We will never be politically expedient. I've already accepted that you're going to be selling us out for a long time.

FAQ

Yes, thanks for asking, I voted and campaigned in the primaries for candidates of my choice who supported GLBT rights.

Yes. I do plan to vote for gay-avoidant Democrats in the upcoming election.

Yes. I do know that a few democrats have done a few things for GLBT people. Kerry did admit being for civil unions in 2004-- a mistake I think the majority of Dems don't want the 2006/2008 candidates to repeat.

[ThomCat]

1. We will keep fighting

and after we advance our own civil rights through our own struggles they will stand there and take credit for being with us all along.

[cautiouslywaiting]

4. That really frustrates me too.

Why should we have to wait for civil rights? Did anyone ever tell the slaves if they waited until after the election, maybe something could be done then?

[SharonAnn]

145. Like for Civil Rights in the 50's and 60's. People led, gov't didn't.

[ThomCat]

171. Absolutely! It worked then. It will work now.

And to hell with people who wait for political expediency.

[meganmonkey]

2. k & r

It amazes me how few people realize that the GLBT community has been hearing this (It's not time yet) for a lot more than the last 6 years.

And no one answers that question: WHEN? When will it be a convenient time for the Dems to stand up on this issue? Not just in rhetoric but in reality?

Thanks for posting this!

[mitchtv]

Thanks,read,

I just got out of a thread saying NJ came at an inopportune time. I have no more time to wait
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2578799

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. I posted this...

on another thread that got locked, but I feel it is important to repeat. Not everyone is willing to sell you out.

On my brand of liberalism:

Human rights for all, not just some. And not just when it is politically convenient.

There was a time when it was unpopular to be against slavery, yet that didn't stop those who would fight it. There was a time when it was unpopular to be for women's sufferage, yet that didn't stop those brave men and woman who said women must be given full rights. There was a time when it was unpopular to demand action against those who would keep black Americans second-class citizens, but that didn't stop the wave of righteous Americans who said no to racism.

Basic human rights is the idea from which all other liberal views flow.

Basic human rights beget worker's rights. Basic human rights beget women's rights. Basic human rights beget fair and clean elections. Basic human rights beget environmental protections. Basic human rights beget sane a foriegn policy.

As a liberal, I choose to embrace basic human rights -- including the rights of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to full participation in our system. I do this because it is the right thing to do, and I do not run from it because it may be unpopular or for fear of political repercussions.

As a woman in the United States, someone once fought for my right to full participation -- I would be a coward and a hypocrite if I did not answer the call for this new fight for basic human rights.

[ThomCat]

7. Very well said.

:applause:

[Zodiak]

72. good post Hell Hath

I stand with you.

I am a principles Democrat, not a strategy one.

Human rights for all. No exceptions, no political expediency.

I truly believe that Americans do not respect shrewd strategy, but they do respect guts.

[readmoreoften]

101. Great post. And thanks for your support.

I love our straight allies. You folks are really important to us.

[Bluebear]

187. Thank you! nt

[Nite Owl]

5. Well, I know it's NY but

Eliot Spitzer has strongly said he will pass a gay marriage bill. Not civil unions but marriage and he isn't afraid to say that either, no hesitation, no if's and's or but's. He's at around 70% in the polls so barring any major scandal he will be our next Governor but even his Republican opponent is for civil unions.

[readmoreoften]

11. No, Eliot Spitzer is one of the MAJOR good guys!

I am so lucky I get to vote for him. He is one of my few political hopes on this bleak landscape.

[patcox2]

6. I am sick of the democratic party being dominated by narrow . . .

Narrow special interest groups that cause the party to lose majority support.

So, its a good thing you are realistic. Go vote republican if you are so upset, I am sure that will be better for you.

[ThomCat]

8. That's the way to do it.

Claim that you own the democratic party. And if we dare to want the party to support us then we should just leave. The party's only here to support you.
:eyes:

[patcox2]

18. Thats the way to do it, ignore reality, demand a futile and useless gesture.

hey, the world is what it is. If 10% of a group wants this, and 90% wants that, guess what, too bad. I am not saying its "my party." But its not "yours" either.

This party has been made a joke by allowing itself to be dominated by narrow special interest and social interest groups, rather than sticking to our shared, common interests. There are plenty of issues we all share (the war, healthcare, jobs) which the party can do a lot of good on, but only if it gets in power.

Politics is consensus building, not validation of everyone's individual demands.

If you want a party that makes gay marriage its one primary focus, you are not going to find it here, god I hoep not, that would be a disaster.

[ThomCat]

21. You see, that is what defines homophobia.

You think civil rights is a futile and useless gesture. You think civil rights is a special interest. YOu think it is "validation of individual demands." I'm glad that generations of civil rights activists disagreed with you.

Politics is not consensus building. It is the work of doing what needs to be done.

We will make sure that our Democratic party is not as narrow minded and bigoted as you would like it to be. We will make sure it at least attempts to serve people other than just you.

[patcox2]

34. You will attempt to make sure it remains powerless, I see.

At any rate, I think your angst is uncalled for anyway. Just because someone might have said "I wish we didn't have this issue in the press right before a critical election that could put us back in power for the first time in 12 years" does not mean the democratic party will never do anything. I would suggest that all that has ever been done has been done by the democratic party, which took a principled stand even when it hurt the party.

But of course your response is not to give any recognition to the what has been done, instead you malign the party, falsely say it never did anything, and engage in this histrionic, overreacting hissyfit.

[readmoreoften]

37. Oh, by the way, while you're stereotyping me as a gay man...

having a "histronic, overreacting hissyfit" let me give you a heads up, I'm a lesbian.

Yes, and my partner who's a cancer survivor can't share my health insurance, and as a consequence, has none. I know her health is politically expedient.

[ThomCat]

40. All that has ever been done

has been done by those of us who pressure the Democratic party. The party does little or nothing on its own.

I've been a volunteer geek for decades. I've put in over 5,000 hours of voluteer time. I recognize what's been done, and I helped get some of it done. What have you done?

I don't malign the party. I hold those people who stand in the way of progress in contempt, and I will keep fighting for what you aren't willing to support. Because unlike you, I recognize that it's those of us who fight who get things heard. It's those of us who fight who get things done.

You just stand in the way and pontificate about how you know so much more than everyone else.

[stepnw1f]

116. "You think civil rights is a special interest."

think about it.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[readmoreoften]

39. It is absolutely not illegal to fire someone for being GLBT.

You are insane? The employment non-discrimination act did not pass. No democrats would touch it with a ten foot pole.

[kiahzero]

54. Actually, it is under Title VII (or at least should when it's properly understood)

See my post about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation being another form of discrimination on the basis of sex (which is illegal under Title VII). People can get away with it right now, but that doesn't mean it's legal. It just means that the courts are complicit.

[readmoreoften]

74. Yes, but it doesn't play out that way in the real world. So what does it matter?

My partner was escorted out of the women's bathroom at carnegie hall by security guards because they couldn't tell if she was a woman or a man. So, yes, in the real world, GLBT people are absolutely discriminated against.

[pnwmom]

178. Did the security guards ask your partner for her ID?

If not, you may have grounds for a lawsuit.

If she didn't have ID, but she wants to present herself in an ambiguous way, then she should realize that women don't want to share a bathroom with men. It's a safety issue.

[readmoreoften]

204. So butch lesbians should have to present an ID to use a bathroom?

My girlfriend doesn't need to present a fucking ID to use a goddamn public restroom and she shouldn't be carried out by police and she shouldn't have to change the way she PRESENTS herself in public because women are afraid of men. Yeah, and that goes to reason that they're also afraid of LESBIANS. Should we stop looking like lesbians too???? Where, praytell, should we use the bathroom?

For the record. She tried to tell the woman that she was female and she even raised the pitch of her voice. She does NOT pass as male almost ever. The security guards were confused as to why they had to carry her out of the restroom as she was, but they did it because a VULNERABLE woman was screaming her head off.

This happens so damn much we'd be in a lawsuit four or five times a year. Please.

Women also complain when she tries to use men's room, by the way. I guess they're scared then too.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

208. She doesn't "want to present herself in an ambigous way" that's just how

she is.

People don't choose their gender expression. That's innate.

Your statement was quite misinformed. I suggest reading up on gender issues. People shouldn't need ID to use the bathroom.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[donco6]

48. It is NOT illegal to fire someone for being gay.

Where did you get that?

[Ms. Toad]

134. It is NOT illegal to fire someone for being gay.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class (like gender and race, for example). Employers are free to fire anyone who is gay, or who they suspect is gay. Because of the lack of federal protection some states, but nowhere close to all, protect individuals from job discrimination.

[donco6]

46. Since when is ensuring equal rights for millions

"supporting special interests"? Have you so lost your way?

And who says this is the "only" focus? Dems can't handle more than one issue at a time?

[mondo joe]

165. How about a party that makes legal equality for all its focus? Is that too

narrow for you?

[some guy]

203. quite correct

"This party has been made a joke by allowing itself to be dominated by narrow special interest and social interest groups..."

but the narrow special interest group is the DLC, and the social interest group is the corporate elite.

As Democrats, our "shared, common interests" should be "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..."

That doesn't read,
"We the straight people..."
"We the male people..."
"We the Caucasian people..."
"We the <insert subset of ALL the people of your choice here> people..."

[Sapphocrat]

236. I have to admire your honesty.

You don't even try to qualify your homophobia.

"Narrow special interest," my ass. This is my life, lady, and your attitude is exactly what fucks up my life.

[readmoreoften]

14. Hmm. Thanks. I'll stay a democrat. Maybe you should go be a republican.

Thanks for reminding me that there are anti-gay bigots on DU. Buddy, my vote helps your issues a lot more than your vote helps my issues.

[pnwmom]

179. How can you say that? Don't you share many other issues

with Democrats, besides just specifically gay rights issues?

[Zhade]

231. It's EQUAL RIGHTS, not gay rights!

Fuck!

STOP repeating the rightwing bullshit - we're not asking for special rights.

[Touchdown]

19. You should be very healthy then. No "special interest"...

ever has...especially GLBT people. Only your kind has. :grr:

[meganmonkey]

23. I am sick of the Democratic party being dominated

by people who think that moving further to the right is the way to win.

Guess what? IT'S NOT WORKING!!!

[TahitiNut]

24. You mean "narrow interest groups" like ...

... working people and women and liberals? I see.

That's why about 20% of elected "Democrats" call themselves "Pro-Life"? That's why the minimum wage has been stagnant for ten years? That's why organized labor is increasingly supporting Republicans? That's why we've seen 20-50% support for legislation like the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 amon elected "Democrats"?? That's why about 40% would criminalize political dissent like burning the flag or protesting outside remote "free speech zones"??

There's no way I'll ever support a Ben Nelson "Democrat". Never. :puke: :puke:

At the same time, I'll invest blood, sweat, and tears for John Conyers, Barney Frank, Jerry Nadler, or Dennis Kucinich ... not because they take DNC money, but because they seem to understand "equality under the law" where others just do NOT.

[JeffR]

33. That's a pretty callous way to respond to someone who

candidly discussed their own experience and disappointment with the party. If there's ever to be common ground between the OP's view and yours, why don't you be the one to take the first step?

[patcox2]

38. Self-pity and overeaction, not candid sharing.

Please, a totally inward directed "I hate you because it should all be about me me me me," and I am supposed to say "oh, I am sorry, I will never make the mistake of thinking its about all of us, of course its all about you," is that it?

[readmoreoften]

43. How is it all about me me me? What an idiotic post.

ALL of us INCLUDES me. I vote for people all the time who don't represent my interests. I'm pretty done with you "PAX" (what a joke for such a vicious poster.)

[JeffR]

47. The OP said nothing at all about hate

or "me, me, me". That you want to mischaracterize it this way indicates that you, at least, will not be the side of this issue to take steps to mutual understanding. That is unfortunate for everyone.

[donco6]

52. Of course not.

You've read what you want into the OP.

[JeffR]

55. or just didn't read it at all...

[Phillycat]

189. Whoa, you need to learn to read for comprehension.

There was no self-pity. She was just saying she understands the reality of the situation and wants people to be honest about it. AND she pledged her vote to the Dem candidate. It's a heck of a lot less accusatory than the majority of the other threads on this topic!

[Zhade]

232. Wanting equal rights is selfish?

Who the hell do you think you are?

[Sapphocrat]

237. Where does your hatred of LGBT come from?

That's a real question. You display more genuine hatred of us, more openly, than I've ever seen from anyone on DU. And that's no exaggeration.

[cboy4]

53. I know!! Human rights are so frickin annoying aren't they?

:eyes:

[Tesha]

132. That's okay, I'll "see" your sick and raise you...

> I am sick of the democratic party being dominated by narrow
> special interest groups that cause the party to lose majority support.

That's okay -- I'll "see' your "sick" and raise you "I'm sick of the Democratic
Party being too scared too stand up for what's obviously right and true in
the vain hope that our enemies will support us for having no apparent
positions or values."

One of the proudest moments of my life was a couple of years ago when
Mr. Tesha and I got to attend the Massachusetts wedding of two friends
of ours, and to speak out in favor of their union, and to know that a teeny
bit of of our effort and support went into the change in law that finally
LET our friends get married.

Let's try something new: Stop being scared of the know-nothings, the
fascists, the sexists, the homophobes and the xenophobes! Start STANDING
UP FOR WHAT'S RIGHT just BECAUSE it is right.

I think you'll find an amazing number of people will be willing to follow.

Tesha

[readmoreoften]

140. Very well put Tesha! /nt

[Tesha]

164. Thank you.

That wedding was one of the more touching moments
in my life!

Tesha

[Zhade]

151. I am not a special-interest group. I AM A HUMAN BEING.

The GLBT posters here are not a special-interest group. They are also human beings.

Some of you really, REALLY don't like us queers.

[Midlodemocrat]

185. That is a simply unbelievable post.

The Democratic Party I belong to and have belonged to for 30 years supports equal rights and equal treatment of EVERYONE, not just when it is fucking convenient.

I can't believe you posted that.

[readmoreoften]

219. Howdy midlo :)!

:pals:

[Mythsaje]

9. As much as I am, personally, for gay rights

I'm not sure this country and the world can afford to have our politicians pushing it aggressively over the next few years. This will probably piss you off to hear, but, looking around, I can't imagine you or anyone else believes we need to hand the RW any more ammunition in a battle for the future of this country.

That said, I believe that the country is slowly but surely coming around to the way of thinking we'd prefer. Walloping the Republicans in the next few elections, which we should be able to do just simply by pointing out their incredible ineptitude, will sap the strength from some of their other positions--including their stance opposing gay rights.

The courts have already begun breaking down the barriers between what is and what should be. Hollywood, and some brave stars, have done a lot to lower some of the prejudice against gays across America.

Do I think the Democrats are likely to make it a priority to pass legislation in this direction? Probably not. But some will, I think, and every little step in the right direction is a good thing. Unless we manage to throw out the Republicans, reveal their general philosophy for the sham that it is, and maintain control of Congress, the chances of us gaining anything in that direction are slim indeed.

It's going to take time. The past several years have seen some advances in that direction DESPITE Republican efforts to the contrary. People are growing more accepting little by little. The other groups of which you speak have done a lot to make it so.

Not everything has an overtly political solution. In fact, few things have an overtly political solution. We will need the support, or at least the general indifference, of a majority of Americans. And that's going to come through social pressure, not political pressure.

In my opinion.

[ThomCat]

13. The country is slowly coming around because WE keep

pushing.

You can wait until you think the country is "ready." I'm sure that the reason the country will be "ready" is because we'll have already done all the fighting without you.

You can then come back and tell us then how much you supported us all along.
:eyes:

[Mythsaje]

108. There you go, smart-guy...

Talking down to people who are on your side is BOUND to win you some points in some alternate universe. Sharp. Really sharp.

Or don't you grasp the notion that social pressure, in the end, will have a greater impact than all the political mechanizations you can muster? It's VITAL we gain and maintain control of Congress, one way or another, before we take political steps toward eliminating the roadblocks already in place.

[ThomCat]

110. Two issues.

One, you are right. Social pressure is absolutely necessary. And you're opposing it.

Two, if you sacrifice the LGBT community to get power then you won't support the LGBT community once you get power. We've heard the promises before and they are always hollow. The time is somehow never quite right for our straight "allies" to use some of that power for us.

We will build up that social pressure. It's what we're doing right here. And we will win eventually. The question is, how long will you keep holding us back?

[Mythsaje]

120. You're pointing a finger at ME?

None of it matters UNLESS we gain control of Congress. Once we do, you can direct pressure toward candidates you think will work for what you want. Until we gain control, all you're doing is making noise and, apparently, annoying your allies.

I'm the last person who'd tell you not to fight for what you want from your alleged "representatives." And I say "alleged" because I'm not sure they're working for my benefit either.

But they're all we got. Not only YOU, but me as well. You may feel particularly put upon by the powers-that-be, but, believe me, gays aren't the only one. The system also has it out for me because of my occasional choice of recreational intoxicant. Shit--YOU have a better chance of gaining support from your Democratic "representative" for your "anti-social" behavior than I do.

[Midlodemocrat]

186. Your civil rights haven't been infringed upon because of your

choice of recreational intoxicant. C'mon. If you are straight, you can get married, have rights, and not be abused by a system that is simply designed to discriminate against every aspect of your life.

Getting high and not having it be legal is at best a little inconvenient. Hardly the same thing.

[Mythsaje]

195. It's not DESIGNED to discriminate against you...

It was put together without even considering you or your situation. What you're fighting for is inclusion into a system that never had you in mind at all. No, it may have been specifically designed to disclude women, blacks, hispanics, or a host of other minorities, but you weren't even an AFTERTHOUGHT.

Don't fool yourself. It wasn't designed to discriminate against you. That's merely a side-effect of how religion and politics mix in our culture. Marriage is a religious ceremony that, frankly, the government shouldn't be regulating in the first place. The contract between the people involved, and the way it affects the state and industry, IS of interest to the state...hence the argument for civil unions.

The two things should be separate. Religions should have the right to marry, or not marry, those they choose. But people should be able to enter into a contract with any other person without the government's interference, assuming it doesn't DIRECTLY violate other laws. As a seperate legal entity from a religious union. That's how it's done in parts of Europe, from what I understand.

And they KNOW this, which is why they've tried to ban gay marriage through Constitutional Amendments, because they know it's not legally consistent. Their ONLY valid argument against it is religious at its base, and even then it's restricted to a relatively minor branch of Christianity itself. Blatantly a violation of the 1st Amendment.

What's going on here is that they have a bunch of people running around trying to legalize something that can't even be legitimately made illegal in the first place.

A bit like drug use, when you get down to it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

200. It doesn't matter, if the system isn't designed to discriminate. It does.

That's all that matters.

Being gay is an instrisic unchangeable part of you. Choosing to smoke weed is a choice. I'm pro-legalization and I smoke it myself, but comparing it to gay civil rights is absurd. Incredibly absurd.

Oh and btw, Midlodemocrat is an enlightened heterosexual ally to the gay community. She has no real dog in this fight, except caring about what's right.

[Mythsaje]

215. I don't really think it's that absurd,

though I can see why you might. I do, however, think you're missing the broader point.

The Drug War, is, as a whole, JUST as fucked up as what you're facing. The Drug War was like a test drive of the evisceration of the Bill of Rights that was originally designed to protect all of us from governmental abuse of power. A test drive that went so well it's now been more or less extended across the board.

And no, I don't think being gay is a choice. At least, it's not for most gays. Like I say in discussions with people all the time--"when did YOU make the choice to be attracted to people of the opposite sex?"

Personally, I don't remember making that choice.

Yeah, it's fucked up you can't marry. And I don't believe the state has any right to determine whether you can or cannot. The state has no right to tell me I (or any other ordained person) can't perform the ceremony to marry you to the partner of your choice (assuming it's a consenting adult to whom you're not too closely related...for obvious reasons). In my opinion, the state also has no place deciding you can't enter into a marriage contract with the person of your choice (within reasonable legal restrictions as I've already mentioned).

I don't blame you for being a bit pissed at the Dems over this issue. On the other hand, the Dems haven't exactly been standing up for any of us in any meaningful way, as a PARTY. They've enabled the Drug War, to the detriment, in particular, of millions of Americans of Color.

They didn't do enough to fight the Bankruptcy Bill. They didn't do enough to fight the appointment of dangerous ideologues to the Supreme Court. They haven't stood up for the American workers when NAFTA and CAFTA were on the table.

They allowed the Patriot Act to pass more or less unchallenged, then let it go through again without at least stripping away its most heinous provisions.

As many as half of the Dems in public office might well feel more beholden to their corporate sponsors than they are to the electorate, which puts the average citizen in an incredibly tenuous position that's growing worse by the day.

In case you hadn't noticed, we are ALL in deep doo-doo. Jumping up and down and screaming "they're not doing enough for us!" strikes me as pretty pointless, considering that ALL of us could make the same claim.

Get in line and take a number.

News Flash. We're all in the same boat. And it's taking us up shit creek and not a one of us has a paddle.

But you know what? The Republicans are a THOUSAND times worse. That's as clear as crystal.

The only way to do anything about any of this is to help the Dems gain the majority and continue to put pressure on them once they're there.

What other choice do any of us have? If you can suggest an alternative, I'm all ears. In the meantime, let's just concentrate on defeating the Repugs.

[readmoreoften]

211. Please don't compare being gay to recreational drug use.

I'm for the legalization of marijuana, but if you think that being discriminated against for being gay is like being discriminated against for being a pot smoker, you don't even have a part of a map that might-could lead to a clue.

[Mythsaje]

217. It's an example...

meant to illustrate a broader point.

Read my response to the other post.

If you think you're standing in the cold alone, you need to take a look around you. You're not. THAT is my point.

And, for the record, I think you making that statement sounds remarkably similar to SOME black leaders remarking that gays shouldn't make the comparison to the civil rights campaigns of the sixties.

It all depends on your point of reference.

[readmoreoften]

221. No. Oppression against pot smokers is not a civil rights issue.

I believe it should be decriminalized. And jailing people for smoking pot is wrong and absurd. But smoking pot IS a choice. If it isn't than you need rehab. I don't know a single potsmoker who wouldn't find your remarks on this patently absurd. People don't HATE people for smoking weed. No one feels shame for smoking weed.

What about people who chronically drive 5 miles over the speed limit? Are they an oppressed minority too? Or people who buy their cigarettes online?

[Mythsaje]

224. I'm talking about the drug war as a whole...

Nit-picking the example I initially gave is being deliberately obtuse and, frankly, rather irritating. Are you missing the point on purpose, or entirely by accident?

It's like playing ping-pong with someone with no depth perception. You're swinging at a ball that's somewhere else entirely.

On edit: And are you serious? People can be denied jobs for smoking pot. They can be arrested and thrown in jail. Sure, it's a choice...but the right of ownership of one's own body IS damn well a civil rights issue.

[readmoreoften]

225. Yes the war on drugs is a massive problem and a denial of civil liberties.

It was the beginning of the totalitarian state we're living in. But people are also harassed for looking too liberal, having visible tattoos, and wearing a political t-shirt at a rally. All of these are not equivalent to being a sexual or racial minority. All the encroachments on our liberties are a major problem. But it's not the same as being in a violently hated minority group in America that is singled out as genetically inferior and/or demonic.

[Mythsaje]

226. Agreed...

It isn't the same. But we're fighting pretty much the same mind-set any way you look at it. ALL Americans are looking down the barrel of some very fucked up years if we don't take back control of Congress.

IF we can trust the Democratic Party to do what needs to be done to expose the corruption and villainy of the Republicans at this point, a LOT of their ideology, including their hatred of gays, will be exposed as so much bullshit.

You're not really going to gain a lot by having them stand up and say "see, gays aren't all that bad." The people who are going to hate you anyway (and, yeah, I've met and argued with a few) are going to keep thinking you're demonic. Most of them think that way about my wife as well...she's a witch. Yet ANOTHER oppressed minority.

I'm certainly not saying you can't keep pressuring the politicians to get the legislation passed that you want passed. Though I do question the validity of it in the first place. I simply don't think the government has a right to tell us who and who can't get married. Or tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or who or who not to worship, for that matter.

I think if we can blow the lid off the Republican ideological circus, we can push forward with a LOT of good things, including gay rights, because they won't have any kind of solid surface on which to stand to fight against what we want to pass. WE know they're morally bankrupt and if we could show the rest of America that they are, there's no telling what we could accomplish.

What most of us on this end of things need to do is build an alliance, recognizing the needs of all the other groups that make up the "left," and push to get this stuff done as a solid bloc rather than as a host of "special interest" groups all wanting something different. The "Grass Roots" left needs to find a way to put concerted pressure on the D.C. "left" which, really, isn't all that left anymore.

"Divide and Conquer" isn't just a cliche. If every liberal group is more interested in its own cause than actually turning things around, we'll never accomplish a goddam thing with these people.

In my original post here I said I'd probably piss a lot of people off. Occasionally I do that. But I also defend my point of view rather than running from it. And I still say that gays are not alone in feeling they're not being represented. That's true of a LOT of technical "minorities." And as long as we keep acting as though we're fighting alone, we're NOT going to get the representation we need.

[readmoreoften]

227. Glad you're perky and optimistic, but the reality still remains:

1) The majority of Democrats voted for the Patriot Act, the right for the government to disappear people, indefinite detention, torture--including gang rape if GWB says its necessary. And now they 173 democrats just voted to suspend posse comatatus and allow Bush complete dictatorial powers through martial law-- carte blanche: no terror threat needed, nothing. Only unrest.

2) Thinking that they are all going to rise up and turn the tables on the republicans is naive. They are not. Nancy Pelosi has already stated that impeachment is not on the table. When they get in, they may stop the landslide of shit coming down the pike, but they will do nothing to reverse the losses.

3) We are fighting alone. Completely alone. With the exception of about three dozen democrats, we have absolutely no representation.

There are no saviors here. The democrats are not going to save us. The straights are not going to fight for us. That's just the way it is. We know that.

[Mythsaje]

228. Oh, I'm not all that optimistic...

What I'm saying is that it's our only real chance.

And who gives a rat's ass what Pelosi says about it? As has been pointed out many times already, it's not her call anyway. The ball isn't going to be in her court in the first place. Not to mention that impeachment and investigations are two very different things.

I think as long as we're fractured into so many different causes that all we can manage to broadcast to the Hill is a cacophany rather than any kind of coherent message we're not going to get anywhere with them.

I, personally, don't have any single cause that inflames me more than any other. To me they're all of equal importance. Gay rights, the environment, worker's rights, the drug war, religious freedom, the Iraq war, poverty, homelessness...etc, etc, etc... It's a long list.

All of these issues should be of importance to the Democratic Party. But which ones should take precedence?

[readmoreoften]

229. It doesn't matter. There is only one message. Take to the streets. Fight the regime.

Everything else is going to be nonsense soon. I seriously doubt the democrats are going to stand up to the regime. Remember: 2 more years of Bush. He just pushed through legislation that gave him complete dictatorial powers. We are now completely living in a police state. Do you think that the democrats are going to be able to reverse that?

Listen, there's only one way all this nonsense is going to stop: everyone wanting to end the regime above all else. When the Iranians ousted the Shah political groups banded together with one message: Death to the Shah. I mean liberals, communists, university students, and islamic fundamentalists. We need conversatives to say, "Fuck this whole gay issue, we need to get rid of these Republicans." Until we're there, we will only lose. And it won't be gay people's fault. Our pushing for our separate issues is not the root of our inability to fight the regime. The fact that our leaders have absolutely ZERO spine is what is causing us the loss. They won't stand up for ANY message other than "hey vote for us we're whatever the market research says you want."

The Democrats won't save the gays. They also won't save you. When we begin to save ourselves, they might jump on the bandwagon of support. There is very little time left to save ourselves. And none of us know how.

[Ian David]

15. Working through the courts shields the politicians from responsibility

"Hey, I didn't legalize gay marriage... all I did was appoint three openly gay judges to The US Supreme Court. I had no idea how Chief Justice DeGeneres would rule."

[readmoreoften]

17. That would be nice.

Don't get me wrong, Ian. I like it when Dems work behind the scenes for us. I've just noticed they're just as likely to work behind the scenes against us.

[readmoreoften]

117. Hey Myth. I understand your concern.

But there will never be a good time to support us. You will always alienate people by taking a stand. There is no time in the foreseeable future (with all the judges that Bush supported, with the rise of Christian extremism, the extremist homeschool movement, the rise of Liberty University) that these people will not be a threat. They will be a threat 30-40 years from now.

Let's not fool ourselves into believing there will be a magical time when we will not be the 3rd rail of politics.

My opinion is that Bubba Joe's real issue is gun control. If we were the party of gun rights, we'd triangulate the republicans out of a whole bunch of voters. There are many tactics we could take. But we always take the same route these days-- the route of fear, the sitting and waiting, the move to the center.

I really think if a strong male (it would actually have to be a male and it'd be helpful if he was Southern) candidate with charm and a good sense of humor actually said "you know, I'm a regular fella, and why are we wasting time over whether gay people get to visit each other in the hospital. I'm the kinda fella that sticks up for the underdog. No one likes a bully. Why don't you folks mind your own family."

I think that following strong American archetypes (the lone cowboy hero who stands up for the underdog) might help democratic politics. Everyone knows that the Dems aren't as anti-gay as the Republicans. The anti-gay voter is not likely to vote dem, if that's there big issue (or one of them.)

People respect gays who are out of the closet FAR more than cloested gays. Even mild homophobes do. Maybe they'll respect strong cadidates who don't "flip flop" (like Spitzer, for example) more than right-moderates who do.

[Mythsaje]

121. YES...

Americans are very susceptible to charismatic figures. And if one did what you suggest, it would go a long way.

And you're right...there probably is not a RIGHT time to draw the line on this issue. But I'd say this particular moment is probably the WRONG time. After the elections, assuming we win, I think we can start moving inexorably in that direction. First we need to reveal how utterly bankrupt the Republican ideology is in its ENTIRETY. Once we're able to accomplish that, we take ninety percent of the sting out of their anti-gay rhetoric.

I'm not sure the stakes have ever been higher.

[benEzra]

176. You're both right and wrong on the gun issue...

My opinion is that Bubba Joe's real issue is gun control. If we were the party of gun rights, we'd triangulate the republicans out of a whole bunch of voters. There are many tactics we could take. But we always take the same route these days-- the route of fear, the sitting and waiting, the move to the center.

You're both right and wrong on the gun issue, I think--right that it is a far bigger issue in most red states than gay marriage, wrong in that it is not primarily a "Billy Bob" issue. Gun owners are somewhat more likely to be college educated, middle class, and politically active than the national average (it takes a modicum of disposable income to be a gun enthusiast, since guns can be rather pricey), and it is most certainly NOT about uneducated rednecks chewing tobacco and worrying about the "gubmint" taking their hunting rifles.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

Alienated Rural Democrat

[Zhade]

153. Here's what you people don't get: WE DON'T FUCKING CARE.

Don't like us pushing for it? Too fucking bad, we're not going to stop. In fact, we'll double our efforts, because if we can't rely on our alleged allies to support our demand for our deserved equal rights regardless of nebulous crystal-ball fears, it means the onus is on us and those good straight people who aren't so cowed that they know what's right and what's cowardly.

Whine about it coming up. Suggest we wait. Demand we drop it till later.

NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

You either work with us, or get the ever-loving fuck OUT of the way.

We're not giving in, we're not stopping, and if you don't like it - tough.

We deserve our rights, we deserve them YESTERDAY, and anyone who actually thinks it's right to ask the oppressed to wait on justice can go fuck themselves.

[readmoreoften]

156. Thank you. /nt

[Mythsaje]

158. God forbid

anyone should suggest thinking strategically.

In case you hadn't noticed, we are ALL becoming more oppressed by the minute. I'd prefer we come up with a way to take and HOLD Congress and, hopefully, turn this fucking train around before we worry about the details of who's getting screwed the worst THIS week, be it gays, the African-Americans and Hispanics who are STILL getting the short end of the Drug War stick, or anyone who isn't a member of a majority religion--namely, Christianity.

[Tesha]

167. "Strategy" doesn't seem to work very well either.

If you'll recall 1993, we Democrats controlled the government.
The House, The Senate, and *EVEN* the presidency.

If there was ever a time when Democrats could have accomplished
some good things like health care, women's rights, and yes, *GAY*
rights, 1993 would have been your year. But instead, *NOTHING*
got accomplished on health care, women's rights, and gay rights.
And just a few years later, the "DEMOCRATIC" president shafted
gays with the Defense of Marriage Act.

So I doubt anyone's going to listen to a "strategery" argument
any more.

Tesha

[Mythsaje]

220. Didn't work out all that well for them, did it?

I mean...how long did they keep control from that point forward?

From the latest polls I've seen, the number of Americans in favor of gay rights has risen considerably in recent years. That, in my opinion, is a damn sight more favorable a circumstance than a party that hasn't recently even been able to plan effective campaign strategies claiming your cause as one of its banner issues.

Or do you think that being held aloft by a party known more for falling on its face than winning elections is more important than a slow but perceptible shift in public perception?

[Tesha]

230. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.

You seem to be supporting my point in one section of your
response while opposing my point in others.

Perhaps you could try again?

Tesha

[Mythsaje]

233. I'm saying that, in general,

the Democratic Party has proved to be incompetent in fighting the Republican publicity machine. They've pretty much allowed the Repugs to control the dialogue for the past twenty years. They may have been in control in '93, but they fell flat on their face not long afterward.

They were on their way out and I think they knew it.

I DO think the Democratic Party abandoned us to a great extent. Not only gays, but the true "base" of the left in all its many-colored glory.

I don't think the Democrats are going to be the answer to all of this... We can hope I'm wrong, but... :shrug: I doubt it. It's going to be We, the People, or no one at all.

[Tesha]

234. Thanks; I agree. (NT)

[cboy4]

163. THAT WAS PERFECT, PERFECT

:patriot:

[ThomCat]

168. Damn, that is an awesome post.

Zhade, I hope someone has given you a big ol kiss today! :*

[theHandpuppet]

177. Bravo!!!

:yourock:

[Midlodemocrat]

184. Post of the day.

:applause:

And, please know. A lot of us stand with you and will continue to fight for your rights.

[LostinVA]

192. Rights denied are rights delayed. Dr. King

[Sapphocrat]

238. I didn't think it was possible...

...but, Zhade, I love you more every day.

[NMMNG]

161. But really, we didn't start this mess

I'm not sure this country and the world can afford to have our politicians pushing it aggressively over the next few years. This will probably piss you off to hear, but, looking around, I can't imagine you or anyone else believes we need to hand the RW any more ammunition in a battle for the future of this country.

This mess began when RWers took over the nation six years ago and started their wholesale effort to ban gay marriage, first on the federal level, then when that failed on a state-by-state level. And after marriage they made it clear they were going for other rights such as anti-discrimination laws (where they exist) and the like. We are only fighting back against their virulently hateful efforts so as to not have our cause set back 40 years. Were it not for them we would have been happy to keep going in our regular manner. They were the ones who made the issue a national furor.

[Occulus]

198. Translation: go FUCK yourselves, you fucking faggots

That's what I heard.

I heard it from my mom for a long, long time. I stopped listening to her- JUST like I'm stopping listening to YOU.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[readmoreoften]

206. You're on fire KG. :) /nt

[Ian David]

10. I was disgusted by the behavior of Democrats during the amendment debate

The talking points went something like:

"I am proud to have voted in favor of The Defense of Marriage Act. However, amending the constitution is unnecessary, decisive, and mean-spirited. I was in favor of being a little mean to gay people... but this is too mean to gay people. I mean, I may be an anti-gay bigot, but I'm not a gay-basher."

One after another, so-called "Democrats" used their prior anti-gay bigotry as if it somehow gave them "pro-family" street cred.

Imagine if this were the speech:

"I am proud to have voted in favor of The Defense of White-Only Washrooms Act. However, amending the constitution to keep coloreds out of the front of the bus is unnecessary, decisive, and mean-spirited."

You're right.

They have a long way to go.

[Ian David]

12. After the impeachment, when Unitary Executive Nancy Pelosi...

appoints Barney Frank as Speaker of The House, maybe things will change.

Especially after she uses her Unitary Executive Powers to declare Focus on The Family to be Enemy Combatants.

I'm sure, with all the datamining and wiretapping at her disposal, she'll find enough dirt on them to get them to confess to SOMETHING after a little waterboarding.

[Greyhound]

94. Historically, the repugs have consistently forgotten this fact, when ramming

through some anti-american, ultra-authoritarian, change in the system. It always comes back and bites them in the ass. :kick:

[Richard Steele]

16. Rec # 5. nm

[Solly Mack]

20. I'm so sorry. You shouldn't have to ask people to see you as a person

You shouldn't have to ask your fellow citizens to see you as a full citizens.

You shouldn't have to wait to have human rights.

You shouldn't have to wait for the haters to stop hating to gain rights guaranteed to you under the Constitution(equal protection of the law for all)

You shouldn't have to be subjected to those who have their full rights telling you that you must wait for yours.

I'm sorry.

[readmoreoften]

25. You know what. I'm realistic. I know that many democrats want to sell me

down a river. I just don't like that they get to play the gay sympathy card while supporting anti-gay policy. You want to support anti-gay policy for political expediency, admit it and be conflicted about it. Just stop acting like you care and understand. Stop acting like you're "rootin' for us." It's insulting to our intelligence.

(All "you"s are rhetorical, of course, Solly :) )

[ThomCat]

26. Absolutely!

:applause:

The fake friends are worse than no friends at all.

[Solly Mack]

28. I know...you want the hypocrisy to stop

I fully understand that. :)

[donco6]

58. I agree, and it doesn't ever fool me.

I'm like you, readmoreoften. Skeptical of promises made by our own party (and I DARE you to tell me why I shouldn't be), discouraged by a lukewarm (at best) denunciation of antigay bigotry, and just tired of the two-faced nature of politicians today.

Will I support Dems? Duh. Yeah. Yahoo. I'll help them rise to the top, knowing all the while that the bootheel will soon be in my face.

Sigh.

[Midlodemocrat]

188. But, also there are straight democrats like me.

I have worked for equality VA and written many LTTEs in support of GLBT rights. I'm a devout Christian and I believe completely and totally in supporting the full rights of EVERYONE, not just those who don't inconvenience us.

For everyone one of THEM, there's one of ME. Two of us, actually if you count my husband.

[King Coal]

22. Well, vote for the Republicans then.

Use your head. Who do you want to be elected?

[ThomCat]

27. You SO miss the whole point.

x(

[readmoreoften]

29. Thanks for not reading my post.

People who only read headlines get what they deserve.

I vote yellow democrats because some democrats are good and the rest are largely the lesser of two evils. But don't lie and say that democrats will "get around" to making sure that I don't lose my house to my girlfriend's brother in law or lose the right to visit my partner in the hospital.

Just be honest. That's all I'm really asking.

[King Coal]

42. I read your complete post. You have to face reality.

Why do you think Pelosi is being branded as a San Francisco liberal? It's politics and it's dirty.
Life ain't fair.

[donco6]

61. Sorry massa! Ah dun didn' realize we gay folk gotta . . .

keep ahselves down hea in de gutta! Like you say, "Life ain't fair". No sir, not fair atall.

Tell me when I can stop groveling.

[Solly Mack]

66. You're on a roll tonight!!! Perfect and precise zings!

lololol

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

67. ...

:thumbsup:

[ThomCat]

68. OMG!

I think I love you! :loveya:

[donco6]

81. Well, SOMEbody damn well should.

Honestly, what the hell is going on with this board today? Did someone declare open season and I didn't know about it?

It's enough to make a fella just wanna go home to his puppy . . .

[readmoreoften]

69. Well, you have to face reality as well.

People like you who don't stand up for me take part in making my life a more treacherous place. I understand that politics is dirty. But you have to understand that you are only politically my "friend" because we share other concerns. You don't support GLBT people. That's fine. Just KNOW that you don't. You wouldn't have supported civil rights either. It was the right thing to do, but a political nightmare for the Democratic party in the south. It never would've been politically expedient. But on the plus side, we don't have segregrated schools anymore.

And you're telling me that life isn't fair. Funny how most people who say life isn't fair usually come from a privileged position in society.

And Nancy Pelosi supported the Defense of Marriage. A lot of good that did her. She is a Democrat from San Francisco. She will be seen as a supporter of gay rights if she shot a gay couple on national television. Nothing will appease the religious right.

[Solly Mack]

75. Exactly right. The same people telling the GLBT community to

sit down and shut up would be telling MLK Jr the exact same thing....and using the exact same lame excuses.

and this:

"And you're telling me that life isn't fair. Funny how most people who say life isn't fair usually come from a privileged position in society."

You ain't never lied!!!! That is so true.

[donco6]

84. Yes. Just like people who snarl "Get a job" have never . . .

. . . really had to look for one.

Ugh. That attitude just makes me ill.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

30. Get. A. Clue.

You so misinterpreted that post. Astoundingly so.

:eyes:

[cboy4]

76. Are you for real? We WILL NOT vote for the Republicans which

is why we're so frustrated.

Just admit you oppose civil rights and YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Because that's what the hell you sound like.

[mondo joe]

166. As if those are the only choices.

[BootinUp]

32. Somehow the fight has to be taken to the root

of the evil. In the religious groups where it originates. Some of their members have to be questioning the political tactics. Those are the people that need to be reached and encouraged. At least thats my opinion.

[gully]

35. RE: "Not right now" How bout after we win the house?

All we can do now is tantrum and motivate the bigots. It's absurd that anyone here is pushing this just before the election. Foley is encouraging the fundies to stay home - why do you want to change that?

[King Coal]

44. Well said.

[readmoreoften]

51. First of all, you don't get to pick when your court date comes up.

Are you suggesting that GLBT people fight no legal battles until it is politically expedient for the Democratic party? You don't get to pick when your court date is decided or a decision is rendered. The fact that it is a week before the election is unfortunate, but it is not the fault of LGBT people or their lawyers. It is a coincidence.

After the midterms, we will be a political third rail because of 2008, ad infinitum. We will always be the 3rd rail of politics. Most democrats have been trying to dump us for a long time. Please just stop acting like the Democratic party is going to do something for GLBT people if we can "just" get through this short period.

[King Coal]

62. ReadMO, I understand your plight.

But I'm trying to get Billy Bob to vote for Democrats. If I tell him we want to get gay marriage legal he's going to shriek and poke his eyes out. Have some faith it us. We are on your side.

[ThomCat]

65. Prove it.

We hear that a lot, but we've been tossed under the bus repeatedly by our supposed friends.

The only way to prove that you support civil rights is to actually stand up and support civil rights.

[King Coal]

73. Ask yourself if you want the Democrats to win or not?

Then you prove that you do, and we will take it from there. It's not going to happen over night. We're going to have to explain it to Billy Bob.

[ThomCat]

87. I've proven it many times.

Have you? What do you stand up for other than the name "Democrat?" Do you have goals, purposes, a drive to achieve something other than just a warm seat in the capital building?

We will shape the democratic party, and we will eventually win. No help from you.

I'm a country boy. I think Billy Bob might be more tolerant than many of the people here. If people stopped assuming that Billy Bob was an idiot and spoke to him like a serious adult you'd find out that he is one. There are some we wouldn't reach, but many we would.

[gully]

114. Prove you're on our side.

Gay marriage is ONE of many important issues, tell my why your issue should be the most important? Many gays are members of the Republican Party as you know.

Not saying this to you directly, but am making a greater point. Gays care about the other issues at hand do they not? The war, global warming, education, poverty, health care, etc.

[ThomCat]

115. GLBT people have been Bedrocks of the Democratic Party

and we are always taken for granted. A few join the nutcase LogCabin Republicans but the vast majority of us are Democrats. We give money. We volunteer.

And we get crapped on in return. We have proven ourselves repeatedly as Democrats. When do the rest of you finally notice and return some of that loyalty?

[gully]

119. Me me me me!!!

I am a Democrat because I care about others. I hope you are as well?

We have a growing number of kids in poverty in this country, people who are dying without health care, people in charge of our government who deny global warming, a war spinning out of control, a new medieval justice system, and I'm supposed to be indignant about gay marriage at this time? We're about to wrestle control of the entire world from lunatics and I refuse to help them hang onto it by trumpeting "LET GAYS MARRY TODAY OR ELSE!"

[ThomCat]

123. It's not zero sum

Just because you insist on one issue doesn't mean you aren't also insisting on another. Goverment is fully capable of addressing multiple issues at the same time.

Saying that GLBT people should continue to be 2nd class citizens because you are too busy with more important issues just makes the point that you only care about certain people.

Yes, you want to save the world. But it's okay if GLBT people are being scapegoated, hated, attacked, fired, discriminated against, driven out of neighborhoods etc. We're not part of the world you want to save because you can only pay attention to important issues, and we're not one of them.

Not a nice thing to be announcing to all of us.

Edit to add:
Your subject header is sweet. If we don't meekly shut up then we're being selfish. But you're not being selfish by demanding that we shut up and put up with abuse? It's the straight people who are constantly saying "Me! Me! Me! Me!"

As I already said, we're bedrock supporters of the Democratic party, which means you and everyone else here. It's you straight people who are so selfish that you don't support us back.

[gully]

124. Gays will remain second class citizens if Republicans remain

in power.

You're not starving because you're gay, you're not lacking an education because you're gay, you're not going without health care because you're gay. This is the reality for poor people and especially poor children in this country. We also have people dying in a war that is unjust. Tell me why the issue of gay marriage should be at the top of the "to do" list?

If WE as progressives care about more than one issue, we need to be not only principled but politically intelligent and we have to WIN. Gay marriage is a while off, whether we like it or not, and it will likely be decided on a state by state basis. I have no clue why people are bitching HERE, NOW when we're about to take back the house?

[ThomCat]

127. That's just homophobic.

We're not suffering enough to be worth the attention? Did you really just say that?

Who are you to determine whether or not we've suffered enough?

You may not support GLBT rights, or you think you do in a tenative, postponed kind of what that means you really don't really support GLBT rights. Fine. You can be as selective as you want in your concern.

Gay marriage is one part of GLBT civil rights. The whole package of equal rights for everyone needs to be supported because if we don't then even if you succeed we lose.

You could turn around global warming. You could end poverty. You could put democrats in every office. But if we're being scapegoated for every problem, if we're getting bashed, fired, excluded, disowned, abused, denied raises and promotions, denied safety in the work environment, denied the right to care for our loved ones or keep our own property after our loved ones die, then we're not part of your perfect world.

If you sacrifice our civil rights to get your world then it's corrupt at the core.

And again, you insist that you can't work in civil rights at the same time you work on poverty, the environment or anything else. Funny, we manage it.

Again, it just makes the same point, that you don't think civil rights is important. You only care about certain people. The rest of us can suffer quietly where you don't have to look at us.

[gully]

128. No, what I said is matters of life and death are a top priority.

Did you pay attention to the 2004 election? Did you know that gay marriage phobia motivates the right wing like no other issue? Did you know that the majority of Americans are opposed to "gay marriage?" Did you know that Democrats as a national party would lose their ass if they put this issue on the top of a national agenda?

Most people in this nation support "civil unions" but not "gay marriage."

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

I have a dear young relative who came out last year into a loving and understanding family, of which I am one. I'm not going to be lectured on my lack of concern/tolerance. Personally I'd love to see gay marriage pass nation wide tomorrow! But again, it's not about "me." We HAVE TO WIN! And, I question the timing of this sentiment when we're about to do so?

[ThomCat]

129. Do you know that if democrats

stood up to homophobia and insisted this was important all of that would change quickly?

If straight democrats insisted that civil rights for GLBT people was a mandatory issue people would take sides, but a lot of people would take our side. People who can't be bothered right now. People who are scared to right now. People who have never heard our side before.

You're just using Gay rights as a boogieman because the democratic party was willing to cave on this issue, still is, and you are too.

[gully]

130. You're kidding me.

Democrats have stood up on many issues and "bubba" is STILL voting against his own best interest.

I don't think people would take our side on "gay marriage" BUT on "civil rights/civil unions" they would. Marriage is viewed as sanctioned by the church, and as such a separation of church/state view gives some people trepidation. In all honesty, I think civil unions are all that should be recognized for anyone on a state level.

Also, I personally think gays should refuse to pay taxes ala the Boston Tea Party sentiment - "no taxation without representation!" Until gays have a financial angle, we're not moving toward gay marriage on a national level any time soon.

Peace, you're a good egg Thomcat. But, we still live in a democracy, and that means even assholes get to vote. As such I don't think we can afford to lure them to the polls by digging in our heels on gay marriage at this time.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[gully]

141. Hate crimes are the reason people are victimized for being gay.

In this country we have hate crimes legislation that is intended to address such crimes.

As to your partner not having health insurance. My heart goes out to you both.

People should not need to marry or be wealthy or be at the mercy of an employer in order to become insured in this country. My partner didn't have health insurance before we married several years ago and said partner also has a major health condition. We paid about $500 out of pocket monthly for catastrophic coverage ALONE. Eventually we dropped it and took our chances, as we could not afford the monthly payment.

~ I think we need health care for all, regardless of marital status, regardless of income.

However, being your partner has an existing health condition, even if you were married, you may have trouble adding her to your health insurance in today's climate unfortunately.

Again, I am sorry about your circumstances.

[readmoreoften]

143. What? You weren't talking about gay marriage. You were saying

that we don't suffer in this culture from being gay.


You said:

"You're not starving because you're gay, you're not lacking an education because you're gay, you're not going without health care because you're gay. This is the reality for poor people and especially poor children in this country."

People ARE going without health coverage because they're gay. My girlfriend HAD student health insurance, then lost it because she could not afford it. If we were married she would've been able to go over to my insurance. I have health insurance with the same company she had. (In fact, I have it for the first time in 12 years and I'd like to share it.) Ergo, if we were not a gay couple, we'd have health insurance. Of course I'm for universal health care. But that's not on the radar either, is it?

Reality: middle class gay kid's parents kick them out of their home because they're gay all the time. One was living in the NYU library for over a year. They have the same chance of going to college as a poor kid. Imagine what happens when poor gay kids get kicked out of their homes.

Yes, if universal health care and education were available in America, it would solve a lot of problems. It still wouldn't solve the problem of aging lesbians losing their homes to long-lost nieces who claim to be next-of-kin when they die. It still doesn't solve the problem of GLBT people not getting their partner's death benefits when they die.

Just because issues, our poverty, and our financial crises are invisible to you doesn't mean they're not real.

[gully]

149. NO people are going without healthcare coverage because we have

a broken health care system.

As to the middle-class kids who are kicked out of their homes that happens for a variety of reasons to a variety of kids. Many of these children suffer from mental illness. I believe we need an effective system in place to help any child who finds him/herself in a situation like that.

Also, I didn't say that gay people don't have a plight in this country, what I said was that we have to address the issues that impact us all from that perspective. Gay people being poor is an issue of poverty, gay people being without health insurance, is about the need to repair the health care system etc.

We have to find that which we have in common and address those issues rather than toss out a wedge issue just before the election.

[readmoreoften]

152. No one "tossed out a wedge issue" before the election.

Stop repeating that nonsense. A judicial verdict was called according to the schedule of the court. Gay people didn't bring it up. It's a coincidence.

Yeah, there are a lot of reasons why kids are kicked out of their homes-- and one of the biggest is because they're GAY. I'm all about commonalities, but if our politicians are disgusted to be seen in public with us, there's not much they can do for us. And when liberals support treating us like lepers, it doesn't help.

You can treat gay issues with a general economic cure--even univeral health insurance. As long as employers have a legal right to discriminate against us, we'll be poor. And honestly, I'd rather be poor than be gay bashed. And I happen to be pretty damn poor, so I think I can say that.

[gully]

154. I never said that the issue before the court was a conspiracy.

What I'm talking about are assertions that we should trump up the "gay marriage" discussion a couple weeks before a close election.

I've also said that I think everyone should be entitled to health insurance in this country, and that can be addressed regardless of marital status.

Peace

[readmoreoften]

155. Who on EARTH is suggesting that we should "trump up"

a discussion of gay marriage? I'd heard not one person say that. I've only heard responses to "why can't the queers wait until a better time for their little issues; they're always messin' stuff up for the rest of us."

[gully]

157. I've read comments here suggesting as much.

I find that curious given the timing.

[readmoreoften]

159. Okay, link to some, because I think you're mistaken.

No one is suggesting that we ramp up a pro-gay marriage advertising campaign before the primaries. We're just suggesting that even AFTER Democrats get elected the likely reality is that they'll never do jack shit for us. I'd gladly stay quiet if I knew that our Dems were really going to stand up and say: "Now that we have a mandate, we're going to right the wrongs against GLBT folks." But, uh, it's not going to happen.

[gully]

175. Well read your own OP for starters.

Just when do you folks think Democrats are going to come out in support of gay rights? There will never be an auspicious time to help me become a 1st class citizen. I know, I know. Wait until after the midterms. But what you really mean is wait until after 2008.

[readmoreoften]

202. Nice way to make things up out of thin air. It's getting a little old.

Just as I thought, you can't come up wiht one person saying that we should "trump up" gay rights before the election intentionally. If a politican was in support of gay rights all the time they wouldn't have to state their opinion of every coincidence or Rovian trick that happens before an election.

Thanks for playing. I'm done.

[Jamastiene]

209. We do not have a hate crimes law that protects gay people, for the record.

I believe some states have it, but in my state, Jessie Helms said something to the effect of "over my dead body." We don't not have that kind of protection here in North Carolina, nor do we have it in many other states. I just wanted to clear that part up.

[Chovexani]

213. ...

You're not going without health care because you're gay

Yes, as a matter of fact, many of us are. My roommate's partner has an anxiety condition that precludes her from working a regular 9-5 job, and because the company my roommate and I work for doesn't offer domestic partner benefits, she doesn't have healthcare. I would be in the same boat if I weren't miserably single at the moment.

You have no fucking clue what it's like to be queer in this country, so I suggest you STFU posthaste before making further assumptions about the plight of GLBT folk in America today.

Then look up the word "privilege" in the dictionary while you're at it.

(And I'm off to do a Bene Gesserit calming regimen or something before my fucking head explodes again.)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

70. Then act like it.

[King Coal]

78. I'm not acting Dude. I'm really here.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

83. You certainly don't seem to be for gay rights and btw, I am not a dude.

[King Coal]

86. Sorry about calling you Dude. I am for gay rights. But, I'm also for

an end to this war, national health care, a balanced budget, a strong social security fund, etc.
And I want to win this election.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

90. I'm for all of those things, as well. And the Dems are going to win the NJ

elections (my state). It's not my fault if the Dems can't get their acts together in YOUR state. And you don't have the right to decide when it's okay for gay people to start asking for their rights.

[ThomCat]

92. We've been asking for our rights for decades now.

Unfortunately, our straight supposed allies can determine when we actually Get our rights. And if the sentiments here at DU are any indication, our supposed allies want to make us wait a hell of a long time.
x(

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

100. Man, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Fuck that shit, I won't stand to be anybody's scapegoat. These people are sickening. As Hunter S. Thompson said, "we are a nation of swine."

[Jamastiene]

210. It looks like they are telling us when hell freezes over or

over their dead bodies or something to that effect. Sad, isn't it? :(

[readmoreoften]

88. Hey King.

I understand that you THINK that Democrats will take care of us. History, though, tells us otherwise.

More food for thought.

(1) Billy Bob is also not a one-issue voter. It's not THAT hard to get a non-fundie good ol' boy to say "So dems want fags to get married? I'm sick of how the republicans are selling our ports." In fact, Bob's biggest issue is probably gun control. If we're looking for a way to capture the hearts of the good-old-boy, there's no more direct route than the 2nd Amendment.

(2) Republicans will ALWAYS characterize us as gay marriage supporters. The way to take the wind out of the sails may just be to stand up and say "YEAH! SO WHAT? YOU WANNA FIGHT ABOUT IT?". People also like the tough guy who stands up to the bully. No one likes the weak and waffly person who tries to play both sides.

[aikoaiko]

172. Youre correct about gun control and many "billy bobs" nt.

[mondo joe]

169. Have some FAITH? Sorry - I am a reality based person.

If you want faith based voters, go to the other side.

[gully]

109. Of course that's not what I'm suggesting.

I'm suggesting that we not run through the streets with a "YIPPEE!" banner and make gay marriage an election issue - AGAIN. Why do you think Rove worked so hard in 04 to get gay marriage on the ballot?

[Generator]

45. Of course I totally agree

And I just realized that IF it doesn't affect you personally you don't get it. IF you aren't gay, if your sister, brother, son, mother, friend, teacher isn't, it's not that big of a deal! Or maybe they don't even care about marriage! So it's not important to the one gay couple you know, so why should it be important? Because if you don't know anyone personally, it sure seems not that important. It reminds me of other things-let's forget about pushing abortion, let's add restrictions-anything to get those precious votes-of course it's so much easier to not really understand if you are a man-if you can't get pregnant if it isn't your very body-your personal liberty on the line. It seems negotiable. (I realize many men are just as adamant about choice as women and I appreciate that)
But that's human nature, so don't kid ourselves. WE are supposed to be "better" as Democrats. But often we aren't.

So it's personal to me, knowing many gay people. It's not just something to give away because it doesn't affect ME. I was there in a Gay relationship just once, and I get it.

So the lesson here is as always-empathy, putting ourselves in other's shoes. Political expediency-I get it, and it hurts when it's your life that's being expedited for political gain.

[mirandapriestly]

49. gay rights benefit everyone, because it is a reminder that we

are all citizens and should all have equal access to constitutional rights. I hate hearing people go on and on about the pros and cons of gay marriage, it doesn't matter. Gay people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the same as everyone. That is the issue. Supporting gay rights is supporting your own rights, I wish people would get that, because they might be a member of a group that is denied something one day.

[mirandapriestly]

50. gay rights benefit everyone, because it is a reminder that

all citizens should all have equal access to constitutional rights. I hate hearing people go on and on about the pros and cons of gay marriage, it doesn't matter. Gay people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the same as everyone. That is the issue. Supporting gay rights is supporting your own rights, I wish people would get that, because they might be a member of a group that is denied something one day.

[Beelzebud]

56. One-issue voting is bullshit.

[ThomCat]

57. Thank you for that well thought-out

and articulate contribution to this discussion.

[Solly Mack]

60. I was in awe of it's depth and force of conviction myself.

[ThomCat]

63. I took notes

on his mastery of style and bevity. :rofl:

[Solly Mack]

79. I'll have to go back to school to gain a better understanding

of its brilliance.

[Beelzebud]

91. Maybe just an understanding of the difference between "its" and "it's".

I normally don't pick on grammar, but I find it ironic you are attempting to insult my intelligence with a bunch of poorly written crap.

BTW. I'm agreeing with the OP.

[Solly Mack]

97. The OP wasn't saying Human (Gay) rights are a single issue

so exactly what were you agreeing with? The OP made it clear it was about health care and jobs and housing and sexual and physical assault...not just marriage

Human rights also cover things like illegal detention, extraordinary rendition and torture

single issue as in "one issue"

So you see, "Gay" - Human Rights - are not about "one issue" voting.

No one was insulting your intelligence - I was laughing at the Non sequitur nature of the comment.


I understand you're agreeing with the OP but your comment did strike me as a non sequitur - just totally out of place - but I can see how I could have read it other than you intended.

[Beelzebud]

85. Oh you too. For sure.

In case you didn't read the OP, I was fucking agreeing with it.

One-issue voting IS bullshit. I didn't feel I needed to type a paragraph to say what the OP already said.

[JeffR]

59. Read the OP's FAQ

and explain how one-issue voting figures in to this.

[Beelzebud]

89. The OP seems to be against one-issue voting too.

I think you all are looking for someone to attack.

I'm fucking agreeing with the OP.

His FAQ deals directly with one-issue voting.

[JeffR]

98. Not looking to attack. Just misinterpreted your post.

I get your POV now.:)

[Beelzebud]

125. Np, I should have written more than I did, I guess.

[donco6]

64. Wow. And who the hell said anything about that?

:eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

71. Damn, did it take you all day to come up with that?

[readmoreoften]

80. I'm glad you've agreed with my OP.

I'm sure you read it thoroughly.

[Beelzebud]

82. I did read it, and I do agree.

Why so many jumped all over my comment is a little odd, but oh well.

All I said was "One-issue voting is bullshit", and it is.

[readmoreoften]

95. Cool. Then I'm glad we're on the same page.

I also hope that our rights are one of your issues. :)

[Beelzebud]

99. They are. For sure. I'm 100% for gay rights.

I just think it's silly for people to wait until 2 weeks out from an election to start suggesting (not you, but others) we purge certain dems from the party. It's too late for that, 2 weeks from an election. Talk about shitty timing...

I'm not the enemey, even if a few posters above you think I am. I'm still trying to figure that one out. No I didn't type up a few paragraphs, but I thought I was entirely reasonable in saying what I said. One issue voting IS bullshit.

I'm an atheist. I NEVER get to vote for the type of person I'd like to.

[readmoreoften]

102. I'm an atheist, too.

And, if there was a "one" issue I'd vote against, it'd be stopping America from becoming an impoverished 2nd world theocracy.

[MGD]

77. IMO, you are oppressed because you allow yourself to be oppressed

I would love to see a large group of armed homosexuals marching into a courtroom like the black panthers demanding equality. Your cause just won't be taken seriously by enough people until you make it serious. Don't get me wrong though, I know you are being fucked over royaly by America and I support your cause.

[readmoreoften]

93. I agree to a large degree.

It's a tough situation. I am definitely in support of a more aggressive stance. However.

1) Most of our families are straight. We did not grow up separate from straight people so we have great sympathy for them.
2) As soon as we do, we lose the support of rank and file liberals. (may not be such a big deal, though.)
3) We go to Halliburton Camp as enemy combatants.
4) We prove the RR's point about us.

But my heart is with your suggestion.

[ThomCat]

96. We'd all get rounded up like all the Muslim imigrants

right after 9/11. We'd all disappear and never been seen again, and then laws would be quickly written to criminalize all of us on the assumption that all GLBTs are terrorist.

Fight our way up is hard, complicated work, but we'll get there.

[MGD]

137. If you allowed that to happen, yes. It could happen anyway. It has before.

Fight our way up is hard, complicated work, but we'll get there.

Not in your lifetime.

[ThomCat]

139. We will in my life time

if our supposed allies stand up with us.

But the vast majority of straight people don't care, don't want to care, and won't risk themselves to get involved. So we're doing it almost entirely alone. That takes longer. But we'll still succeed.

[Neecy]

111. .I allow myself to be oppressed???

I'm sorry, but if I did what you're suggesting I'd spend the rest of my life in prison, where I would most assuredly be oppressed.

We HAVE fought back many, many times. I lived in San Francisco during the White Night riots. ACT UP was a model of civil disobedience. We've fought in the courts and we've taken the fight to the streets. Arming ourselves and blasting our way into a courtroom really seems counterproductive, though. What exactly would we gain from that?

[MGD]

136. I knew that would get a response or two. hehehe

I understand your points and respect them. I'm simply saying that the model of civil disobedience adopted by the black panthers was highly effective. I believe Huey Newton did more for black equality than MLK. Americans respect strength and tend to shun weakness IMO.

Arming ourselves and blasting our way into a courtroom really seems counterproductive, though. What exactly would we gain from that?

What have you gained by not doing that? Incidentally, I never suggested blasting your way into a courtroom or anywhere else for that matter.

http://www.blackpanther.org/legacynew.htm

[Neecy]

103. People wonder why we're bitter...

I gave loads of money to Bill Clinton in 1992, donated hours and hours of time to volunteer for his campaign, and in return I got Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA.

Nice kick in the teeth. Hey, ignore me - fine. Just don't make my life worse, okay?

But I'm still a Democrat and I still vote a straight-party ticket. Why? Because there are still other issues I care about and Democrats represent those views better. That doesn't mean that I consider the lip service we get from the party acceptable - I don't. Harold Ford's comments last night absolutely nauseated me. But in all honesty, there's very little alternative.

[readmoreoften]

104. I guess the thing that pisses me off, is that when the people we

support screw us over, not only do we get screwed over, we also face a flurry of people who scream GET OVER YOURSELVES! YOU'RE RUINING EVERYTHING! when we voice the fact that *the very leaders we are choosing openly oppose us for political gain.*

The message is "We hate you for existing. Shut up. You're lucky we tolerate you."

And that's our BEST HOPE.

[ThomCat]

105. And according to many "moderate" democrats here

that's the best we should ever expect.
x(

[Neecy]

106. What pissed *me* off the most ---

After DOMA was passed I kept hearing some Democrats trumpet the theory of triangulation, and how clever Bill was to hijack the GOP agenda by adopting it!

Neato, huh? Great strategy! Too bad no one bothered to tell me about it when I and many, many, MANY in the gay community gave boatloads of dollars and months worth of time to him in 1992. All of a sudden I was just someone to be kicked and used as a pawn in a beltway political strategy. Yes, I really *loved* that. I even got to be demonized in the process! Loved it!

And people on this thread have smacked us down for even raising the issue of how the party has treated us. Walk a mile, folks.

[ulysses]

107. insert any particular goal

and it's the same argument.

The truly big changes are made by the people, and the leaders follow.

[readmoreoften]

112. That's the main problem, isn't it?

The main problem is the bigotry and ignorance of many Americans. And that bigotry and ignorance is actually taught to them by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, which owns about 1/6th of all global media.

[ulysses]

113. it is, although a lot of that bigotry and ignorance

didn't need Murdoch - it's been around in the American psyche for a long damned time.

[readmoreoften]

118. It has, but they are milking it for ALL it's worth.

The in-fighting NewsCorp causes by focusing on our issues in a biased way is a problem all unto itself. Even more so, Newscorp puts everyone into a disinformation coma.

[Irreverend IX]

122. One question that bears asking...

Which is more important to you--a right, or a word?

Same-sex civil union laws are probably doable in several states without too much political fallout. Get those pushed through the legislature and you've got the same _rights_ that straight married couples have. But if you want to fight for gay _marriage_, if that _word_ is so important to you, then you're going to draw a catastrophic backlash. To the Neanderthalic creatures who begrudge gays their existence, the difference between "civil unions" and "gay marriage" is the difference between "Eh, whatever..." and "Vote Republican to kill all faggots!" But if you let civil unions pass and wait a few years, with gay couples picking up all the trappings of marriage, you'll eventually be able to put motions through to change "civil union" to "marriage" in the court documents and no one will take any notice. Homosexual couples will have probably all been referring to each other as husbands and wives anyway. If you're willing to be aware of the impact certain terms and PR choices will have on the voting public, there's no reason you can't work with Democratic officials for greater civil rights parity. But if you want to parade naked through the city center shouting "Gay marriage now!" you'll be seen and treated as political kryptonite.

[greeneyedboy]

126. the word has a legal meaning & is recognized by other states. CUs aren't.

[Irreverend IX]

133. That can be changed if the CU law is properly written. nt

[readmoreoften]

138. Not likely.

And the whole issue of CU is a complete straw man argument. The theoretical "jane fundie sixpack homophobe" isn't fooled by semantics. She hates the Dems who vote for Civil Unions as much as the Dems who vote for Same-Sex Marriage.

The only way you will be able to win the fundies is if you REALLY throw us to the wolves. The Democrats have been throwing us to the wolves for the past decade. The only way they'll accept you is if you go in for the kill.

Only a tiny portion of voters give a shit about the CU/Marriage difference-- and most of those people are hardcore dems anyway. Dems don't lose elections for being pro-gay marriage (who but Eliot Spitzer even says they are?) Dems lose for being perceived of as pro-gay, period-- or more accurately not being anti-gay enough.

[Irreverend IX]

142. I think you're overestimating their intelligence...

I know a few things about how words and brains interact, and "gay marriage" strikes much more of a raw fundie nerve than "civil unions." If no one is fooled by semantics, how come Karl Rove and the other wingers have spent the last couple decades mastering the art of doublespeak? Jane Fundie Sixpack Homophobe sure saw through their ruse with "No Child Left Behind," and the "Contract With America," didn't she?

And I'm not trying to get the fundies to "accept" Dems, and I don't think other pro-CU Dems are either. Hell, even if the party went anti-choice and promoted a homosexuality ban, they probably wouldn't vote Dem after all those years of listening to Rush. We want them to be listless and dispassionate about politics and stay home on Election Day. After the Foley scandal and "Tempting Faith" these guys don't take much stock in politicians, but the prospect of "GAY MARRIAGE!" could be to get them up and fighting for the neocons again. We need to instill in them the idea that politics is a worldly charade and that their days would be better spent praying for the things they don't like to go away.

[readmoreoften]

144. Great. I agree. But their pundits will call it gay marriage no matter what.

If NJ votes for civil unions, the Focus on the Family national radio broadcast and every fundie church in America will have a sermon about how gays have "what's tantamount to gay marriage". Then they'll add "they can't try to sneak it by us by calling it a 'civil union.'" There is no winning.

Sure I understand the point about keeping quiet before an election. But we have no control over when a court ruling comes down because a judge retires. There's nothing that can be done about it.

[Irreverend IX]

148. "But we have no control over when a court ruling..."

True indeed; this NJ marriage thing looks like a tempest in a teapot to me, and there's no way the Dem deciders could have had any control over it. And whatever the pundits and fundies say, "civil unions" can act as a wedge into the straight, suburban, Will and Grace-watching consciousness that's not overtly homophobic but gets a bit queasy at the thought of "gay marriage."

[Chovexani]

216. Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage.

They are second-class citizen status written into law, period. As many others have and will continue to state, civil unions aren't federally recognized, so if you want/need to move to another jurisdiction you are fucked. Not to mention the fact that civil unions don't confer all the rights that marriage does, only a portion.

And you have no idea how much it saddens me that a ignorant homophobic twit like yourself (parading naked through the city center? Did you find that particular talking point on Focus on the Family's site?) would choose one of the coolest anime characters of all time as their handle.

[Mythsaje]

222. The state should attend to civil unions

and leave "marriage" to religion. Churches should be able to determine who they're willing to marry and the state should simply tend to the contractual agreements between consenting adults wishing to enter into a domestic partnership with other people, regardless of gender.

I think that allowing the Repugs to frame the debate as if they shouldn't be two very separate issues just feeds the beast.

[readmoreoften]

223. "parade naked through the city center shouting"

Careful, your viciousness is showing. Better tuck it in your pants.

[alarimer]

131. Need to capture the Democratic party from within

Start small: city councils, school boards and the like. We can transform the party through education as well.

I agree with every word you said. There is no timetable for human rights. We need candidates who will truly stand up and not merely pander to whatever "soccer moms" or Nascar Dads group it is this week. But that's the problem with the way politics is done in this country.

[Zhade]

146. And can people please stop saying "gay rights"?

We're talking about EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS here. They're not special rights; they're the rights all straight people get by default just for being straight.

If you can't see the problem with that, people, the fault lies with you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. You know any GLBT people who make minimum wage?

You know any who struggle to pay their medical insurance?
You know any who struggle to pay tuition?
You know any who prefer that their family members not die in a pointless war?
You know any who want to be confident that their government is protecting them?
You know any who are concerned that their government considers their constitutional rights are merely obstacles?
You know any who think that the constitution is more than just a "fucking piece of paper"?

If so, then you should know that your post is bullshit. Democrats are doing things for GLBT people.

I support your right to marry. I support your right to adopt. I support your right to the same benefits that I enjoy as a married heterosexual.

I also recognize that there are a lot of people who don't. I'm okay with bait and switch if it's necessary. Once we own the reins of government, we can act, until then we can only talk.

[readmoreoften]

150. Oh please. Did I say that I'm a one issue voter? No. I said the opposite.

Did I say that GLBT people aren't any of those things? Or that there isn't a complicated imbrication between sexual orientation and economics? No. I didn't. And if you didn't notice, I answered all your snide remarks in my FAQ.

I just told people to stop pretending that Democrats are going to take a stand on GLBT issues "when the time is right". The time is never going to be right.

[King Coal]

170. Hey ReadMO, do you want to put your money on it?

The time will be right. You will have your civil rights. We have to win an election. When we win, I'll be the first one in state to call my Senators and Representative to express my concern for your civil rights. What else would you have me do? Do you think that most straight people don't have relatives they love who are gay and lesbian? Be strong. WE ARE ON YOUR SIDE!!! My whole family are yellow dog Democrats. We always have been very liberal. Why use words to pick a fight?

[KG]

160. if there's one thing i've from being one DU for 5 years, it's that

the right thing should only be done when it's convenient for democrats.

it's seems that it hasn't been convenient for about 25 years.

[cboy4]

162. I know. It's so difficult to understand why the Republicans consider

Democrats spineless, isn't it? :eyes:

[Tesha]

173. Amazing, isn't it? (NT)

[Jamastiene]

212. Moving to the right to get votes hasn't helped our party.

And yes, you are right. It is never convenient nor is it ever on democrats' minds unless we constantly remind them that they got our votes. If there was a VIABLE third party with a backbone, I'd be willing to jump ship. Until then, I have to dodge the wheels of the bus to survive for another round of fake friends ditching us at the last minute.

[JerseygirlCT]

174. Honestly, while I understand your frustration

and agree completely with it, I think the bigots' time is running out.

As you say, I don't know that this will happen as a *result* of any politician's actions. Rather, I think society will become increasingly aware of the injustice, and policitians will begin to follow suit.

I look at kids now, and the idea of discriminating against gay people is just foreign to them. (Maybe I've raised and know the right kids...) I hear more tolerance from people when I talk about it. I think as more and more people realize that the nice couple down the street make wonderful neighbors, that some of the nice people they interact with on a daily basis happen to be gay, well, I think things *will* come around.

Which doesn't give me any more patience with those too cowardly to just frame the issue as the civil rights issue it is, and simply stand up for the right thing. I'm not saying this to excuse or explain cowardly behavior. But I do think time is on the side of change, regardless of the desires of the hard-right bigots.

[Hamlette]

180. read Master of the Senate and a history of gay marriage

I'll find the title if you want but there was a good book out this year tracing the history of gay marriage world wide. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that there were several vocal visable gays who did not want gay marriage in the 70s and 80s.

Master of the Senate is a great history of the US Senate and civil rights. I still haven't made up my mind on LBJs role in that battle, but at least you have to recognize it took years and eventually we won.

I'm not as pissed at generic Democrats over this issue as I am at blacks. It disappoints me no end that big movers and shakers in the "gays are icky" movement are black churches.

Pisses me off.

But just like the fundamentalists will never leave the GOP even if they don't think the GOP is doing enough to turn this country into a theocracy, those of us who have fought for civil rights (for minorities, women and gays) will stick with the party that has helped us the most.

Oh, and we'll stop trashing Dems in public. It doesn't help. We need to do for the Dems what the GOP did, take back local politics and gerrymander the hell out of Congress.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Strawman]

182. Everything you say is right

And I suspect in 2008, you'll see the Clinton people giving candidates similar advice to that which Bill Clinton gave Kerry: come out against gay marriage. I give Kerry some credit (I guess) for not taking that advice, but he didn't exactly voice positive support for gay rights or gay marriage either, did he? Couldn't bring himself to be an open bigot to pander for votes, but couldn't bring himself to be a full-throated advocate of civil rights for gay people. Why should anyone who supports civil rights for gay people feel good about that?

The sad reality is that most candidates won't hop on that badwagon until it has almost arrived in the station. Politics is a worthy activity and people can make a difference. People in their communities who care can raise awareness and change minds.

But most politicians aren't worth a shit in my book, even many with a D after their name. I can never understand the people around here who go ga-ga about the most ordinary politicians and demand that we all do the same. I can eat a turd sandwich if the alternative is starving to death, but I sure as hell don't have to say it tastes good. Know what I mean?

[readmoreoften]

205. I know EXACTLY what you mean. :) /nt

[JNelson6563]

183. Actually, for any truly progressive change

it will take a lot longer than an election cycle. The more people who get active in local and state politics the more possible this will be.

It will require much hard work in local party building. You build a strong organziation and you'll have more viable candidates that you are able to support. Strong local organziations get county and city officials elected. Those are who make excellent candidates to go on from there, State Rep., State Senate, US House and Senate. It takes years of hard work supported by true determination.

You can have big protests, know everything that's going on through the internet, write excellent posts, donate to deserving candidates near and far but, unless power is seized locally and on up, the well intentioned and passionate among us will remain truly powerless.

Look at how previous groups changed things. Hard work, long years of stepping up their efforts to achieve justice constantly, amassing political power and then, getting elected.

I've been working at it for four years full-time now. It's a long hard slog but we have made a lot of progress in this region of my state (the reddest one, of course). Come election night, we'll know how much progress we have made.

Until this work is done and true progressives are elected to enough positions, permanent positive change will elude us. State court rulings don't have the staying power that legislation signed into law does.

Just my .0125 worth.

Julie

[LeftyMom]

190. "With the rise in homeschooling?"

First of all, the fundie homeschoolers haven't had their kids in public schools for generations. They left when school prayer was on it's way out and racial diversity on it's way in (and generally the latter was a much bigger issue than the former.) They set up small church schools where they could control content and enrollment until a change in tax law in the 80s made many of those schools unprofitable and led to their mass closures, at which time they began homeschooling in earnest.

Now, many people who were for the most part progressive and motivated primarily by the desire to teach their children well were already homeschooling in a rather hostile situation including many states where home education was illegal. The fundies piggybacked on their work and legal successes, set up their own parallel organizations and demanded to be portrayed in government and the media as the face of homeschooling.

The religiously motivated homeschoolers are a minority, and the hatemongering fundamentalists a minority of that minority. They always were. They probably always will be. You owe the rest of us an apology.

[readmoreoften]

201. No. Fundamentalists are by no means the "minority" of

homeschoolers. I believe in the documentary Jesus Camp, the figures were cited at 75%. There is an absolute movement in America to radicalize fundamentalist children through home schooling. Of course the movement has been building over the last three decades, but there has been a marked shift over the past decade. Did I say "all homeschooled children are the enemies of gay people"? OF COURSE NOT. I have no beef with educated parents who want to educate their own children. I probably would homeschool myself if I had kids. But do I have a problem with lunatics with no education creating an army of brainwashed soldiers? Yeah, I have a big problem with that. Do I have a problem with Liberty University-- which now has 25,000 students all intent on destroying our judical system in favor of a theocratic bizarro-world? Yes. I have a problem with that.

According to the Department of Education, homeschooling has gone up drastically.

The U.S. Department of Education (Institute of Education Sciences; NCES) released in August a report dated July 2004 entitled “1.1 Million Homeschooled Students in the United States in 2003” (by Princiotta, Bielick, & Chapman) in which the authors estimate the number of homeschooled students in the United States (i.e., homeschool population size). Dr. Ray, however, still estimates that there were 1.7 to 2.1 million K-12 homeschool students in the US during the 2002-2003 year Consistent with Dr. Ray’s findings (see Worldwide Guide to Homeschooling), the researchers found that homeschooling has grown about 7% per year during the past 4 years.

I'm sorry you're offended. But I'm sure no one thinks that liberal parents homeschooling their kids will harm gay people. I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of what I said. Cheers.

[Deep13]

191. Ds have been quite supportive of gay rights.

The fact that most do not support marriage should not detract from the fact that most support a ban on workplace discrimination, AIDS research (not just a gay issue, I know), hate crime legislation and various probate and insurance rights. The fact is in most states there are two kinds of politician: gay marriage opponents and unemployed. I don't agree with them. I voted against our superfluous gay marriage ban in Ohio, but it passed 3-to-one anyway. I don't know why some many people have such a gut reaction to gay marriage, but they do. I don't see where the harm is and if something is not harmful, it should be legal. I would like there to be gay marriage here, but it will not happen in my lifetime. That mountain will not come to Mohammed. Besides telling people in conversation why I think gay marriage is harmless, I don't see what I can do about that.

On the other hand, single-payer national health insurance may be a reality one day. Also, only Ds seem to have any concern for global warming or other environmental issues. The Ds have consistently opposed runaway "defense" spending. They mostly support reproductive rights while the Rs oppose rights for some reason. The Rs would like to dismantle public education as they are in the process of doing here. Ds support public education. The Rs have tipped their hand and shown themselves to be against democracy itself while the Ds defend it. I could go one, but you get the point.

[readmoreoften]

197. Really? I don't remember ENDA passing or even getting a fair hearing.

I have no faith in the current crop of Democrats to protect GLBT people. None. I do think that if change comes, the Democrats will be the party to hop on the train that we create from our grassroots efforts--by "we" I mean GLBT people, not democrats. Marriage is by FAR not our only issue. In fact, it wasn't even an issue we were pushing. The RR pushed it on us.

I vote for Democrats because they are better in almost every other area. However, I have an extremely low opinion of the integrity and courage of a large chunk of who we are voting for on Nov. 7th.

I would vote for a homophobe who voted against the MCA, the Patriot Act, and the new Insurrection bill before I'd vote for a pro-gay candidate who voted for it. If I'm in a detention center held without charges, employment law, hate crime legislation, and marriage benefits won't do me *that* much good. (Although, actually, they might do some good.)

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

194. kick.

[Occulus]

196. Oh, thankyouthankyouTHANKYOU

I'm acerbic. I'll admit that. But I'll also state very publicly that that doesn't bother me in the least. If I make you uncomfortable with what I say, you're uncomfortable for MY reasons. If I make you uncomfortable with what I say, you're being MADE uncomfortable. I'm manipulating you like a ball of clay- and I'm not ashamed to admit that, because those who feel that way deserve that sort of treatment.

There are a lot of people here who think exactly in the manner you stated. A lot. the "cost us the election" threads are a prime example of that mindset.

I won't tolerate it any more. ANYONE I see saying such things WILL be excoriated. Viciously, and mercilessly.

THERE. IS. NO. EXCUSE.

And I WILL NOT apologize for what I had to say to one or two or several posters in the last couple of days. You all DESERVED it. Each and ever one of you. You know who you are.

Shame on ALL of you.

[Bluebear]

199. Especially the "deleted subthread" here.

The homophobic bullshit that was displayed here today is not memorialized anymore because the subthread has disappeared, but I will not forget the words, the anti-gay quotes from right wing sources. Disgusting.

[lonestarnot]

207. Too late to recommend! But not to late to kick.

[DFLer4edu]

214. A couple of things to keep in mind which are signs of hope

Anti-gay sentiment is not on the rise. Just because some bigots are incredibly loud does not mean that there are going to be more and more bigots. As a whole, young people are much more accepting of gays than their elders. I think Kerry coming out for civil unions was a huge step in the right direction. I don't think it hurt him, the majority of the country being in favor of civil unions. Hell, my Grandma, who was raised baptist, is for civil unions! Do I wish Kerry had been supportive of gay marriage and said so? Hell, yes! But did you really expect him to say he supported gay marriage? I didn't. Kennedy was in theory in favor of equal rights for African Americans, but he wasn't very vocal about it, except in the broadest of terms, talking about everybody's rights and liberties. Kennedy's white house went nuts every time "protesters made the United States look bad on the international stage." But it was eventually Johnson who got the Civil Rights Act though. It is our job to be like MLK, it is our job to keep the fact that gays and lesbians are denied equal rights front and center. We do this by protesting, by speaking up and saying that gay bashing is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry. It is our job to prod democratic politicians to take more and more liberal stances on the issue. It is incredibly frustrating to me that our presidential candidate did not support equal rights for gays. I hope our 2008 candidate does, although I won't be surprised if they tow the same line as Kerry. It is our job to keep pushing, to keep making progress. States are starting to move toward legalizing gay marriage. It is an incredibly slow process, but this is much the same way that women got the vote. We need to reach a critical mass. When we do, even if the leader of our party has not made it a central part of the party platform, good democrats (Kerry included) will pass the legislation. After all, it was Johnson who got the Civil Rights Act through congress. I liked your FAQ, because what it told me was that you're pissed as hell (we need more people who are fuming about the way our country treats its citizens), but aren't throwing democrats under the bus.

[readmoreoften]

218. No. I'm definitely not throwing the Dems under the bus.

We are just going to have to grow some serious spines to combat the encroaching fascism. On all levels. Come on, if you can't vote against torture, for habeus corpus, and you hand Bush dictatorial powers, you can't do much for us. I do believe that if we lose this election and we're in the same boat in 2007, then we seriously need to clean house and get new, grassroots dems. We're strategizing ourselves into obsolences on every damn issue. Not just gay rights.

[Sapphocrat]

235. Bravissima! Well said. n/t