Not gay, but believe that now isn't the right time for their rights? Read on!

[foreigncorrespondent]

I must say I am getting bloody tired of visiting a LEFT WING message board and finding right wing talking points, where the rights of gay people are concerned.

We are not bullies/lesbian militia/feminazi/fags/you people/add your own here when we are defending our right to simply live as human beings in this world.

Our rights are not wedge issues and certainly are not open to debate from people who have the very rights they deny us.

And none of this is a question of morality either. If you believe that, then you have absolutely no idea of what morality truly is. Two people wanting to make a life together because they happen to love one another isn't immoral. What is immoral is you entering our bedrooms to tell us what we do in there is.

I am sick and tired of seeing my U.S. LGBTIQQ brothers and sisters being told to support the repuke party because they don't agree with a Dem's view of tings which concern us NOT you. When you cast a vote, you are casting that vote because you believe in what the person stands for, right? Well why can't we do the same?

So let me ask you this. If yo believe we shouldn't take a stand for our rights, then what rights are YOU willing to give up? Taxation? Hospital visitation? Immigration? Marriage? Housing? Employment? Tell me, which ones, because this is what you tell us to give up?

[EFerrari]

1. K&R

:applause:

[Solon]

2. I believe anyone, regardless of orientation, who isn't for full equal rights...

for GLBT people are simply homophobes, and deserve no respect. It seems simple to me, but what do I know, just a straight white guy.

[LeftyMom]

4. Seconded.

There's no excuse for it. Either you favor full equality for all of us, or you don't. And if you don't, you don't get to call yourself a progressive, a liberal, or a DUer.

[Clintonista2]

22. Absolutely

Within another thread regarding John Edwards' stance on gay rights, a member of DU actually said "I dont believe in same sex marriage, does that mean I should leave DU?" The post was (thankfully) deleted, but it's still sad to see comments like that here of all places.

[LeftyMom]

26. It doesn't surprise me anymore, but it still disappoints me.

I honestly think some of our posters would have been saying the same thing back in the 60's about racial equality. Honestly, I think some of them still do, but just have the good sense not to post it (except in immigration threads.)

[foreigncorrespondent]

69. Sadly...

...it isn't the first time something like that has been said here, and it won't be the last.

Welcome to DU (I know it is belated but still) get used to seeing those kinds of comments (and worse) on a regular basis. Especially around election time.

On edit: I wanted to add that, my sister has this friend who is straight and married. This friend (who I consider a friend) is married to a real homophobe will flirt with me every chance she gets. And I mean real serious flirting that gives me a big head because this woman is hot. Anyway she has two daughters and she told me a few backs that she is raising her daughters to be lesbians. If only people could all be as cool as that, this world would be a lot better off, don't you think?

[SallyMander]

141. What's to "believe" in????

This comment ticks me off to no end... I know a bunch of straight people in unhappy marriages -- should i be able to say i don't "believe" in their marriages? And make them get divorced?


:wtf:

[LostinVA]

77. Exactly -- there is NO WIGGLE ROOM on the issue of civil rights

[EFerrari]

3. kick

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. Liberals doing nothing to address this issue is better than what conservatives might do.

In what situation would you be worse off?

[EFerrari]

7. False dilemma. Since when do liberals agree to the

abrogation of human rights?

No. Not again, not today, not ever again.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. it isn't a false dilemma,

If the left pushes this today, everybody will lose. You might not be too pragmatic about something you take so personally but this is the one thing that could cost the democrats the 2008 election.

Now is not the time, and it certainly won't be the time when Duncan Hunter is president Justice Scalia is considered the liberal on the bench.

[EFerrari]

19. If the left doesn't push this today, they need to cede their name.

lol

[foreigncorrespondent]

23. You never answered my question.

What rights are YOU willing to give up? And stop hijacking my thread with your hypothetical fear mongering.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

36. what ballot initiatives brought otherwise apathetic conservatives to the polls?

I will give up my second ammendment rights,

I am sympathetic - but pushing this now will only hurt everyone, including yourselves. Hypothetical fear mongering would be claiming the vengeful spirit of Jerry Falwell will come down on the world. Not pointing out the potential for dire consequences for the Democrats should this battle be fought now.

I understand why you feel the way you do, and I have no personal objections to marriage for anyone to anyone, but giving the republicans their golden goose issue on a silver platter when this comming election year could wipe them out is not productive. Please wait until there is a more condusive situation in Washington - rather than giving the neocons a lifeline in their moment of oblivion.

[EFerrari]

38. We are the voting majority. We don't need the 30 percenters

to do this. We need leadership, plain and simple.

[foreigncorrespondent]

40. Again fear mongering!

So you wouldn't be willing to give up the very rights you expect to keep going without, huh? I.e: marriage, employment, hospital visitation, housing, etc? You know the ones which spell out "you are a family in the eyes of the law?"

And didn't this kind of fear mongering run wild here on DU during the last election concerning what was happening in New Jersey in regards to gay rights? And didn't the Dem win regardless?

Let me tell you something. Had it not been for cop outs like yourself I would have been married years ago. The result of that marriage would have been, I would have become a citizen of the U.S. hence you would have gained another Dem voter. Now? Well the relationship is over, thanks to unjust laws and cop outs like yourself.

[donco6]

45. Do you know how fucking long we've heard that?

I'm 47 years old. I'm not oblivious to politics, the political process, the games you have to play as a politician. I've been in political circles, supported specific candidates, given a lot of money to the party itself (too much judging by the phone calls I get every f-ing night asking for more). But we have heard "It's not time yet, the country isn't ready" for DECADES now. We need a candidate who will drop a couple and be a boy dog. Take on the RW-ers directly for a change and pull off the masks. Stop the pandering, the simpering, the whining and call these people out. THAT'S what I'd pay money for.

[flvegan]

55. Is "sympathetic" just another word for "sell out"

Yeah, I'm going to beat this point into the ground.

But hey, I'll be happy to "nudge, nudge" and "wink, wink" someone in the polls if they aren't overwhelmingly public about their views but only if I KNOW, for sure, what they'll do in office.

[LostinVA]

79. Yes, it is

[TommyO]

83. Which century will be the right time to push for my full equality?

[flvegan]

27. That's a fucking sell-out.

I will NOT sacrifice my kin, nor what's right.

Fuck that. If the current left can't carry it, then find a fucking candidate that can.

[donco6]

30. Isn't that the same argument as "Fight them over there,

so we don't have to fight them over here"? To whit: Yes, it may be nasty to have to put up with this {lack of civil rights; nasty war}, but it could be worse! You could be facing {ultra-RW Republicans in office; terrorists at your doorstep}.

That's a classic false dichotomy.

On edit - used the wrong type of brackets.

[EFerrari]

31. Yes, it is the same argument. n/t

[Maat]

48. No, he's not.

Scalia is considered the most conservative member on the bench.

Maat, J.D.

And, since the fundamental right to marry has long been recognized, what we are standing for is equal protection of the law; so, now's the time to stand up for it (because it's always the time to stand up for equal protection of the law).

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

50. you miss the point...

If the conservatives get their way Scalia WILL be the most liberal justice on the court as the right seeks more and more extreme justices.

[Maat]

54. Believe me ...

there couldn't be a more rightwing guy. What they want to do is have a solid 5-4 majority, which they don't have now. They will appoint a good lackey next time, a la Roberts and Alito. Those guys do it for the power; they are not like Scalia, who really (very frighteningly) believes what he says. The other guys are just 'bought.'

[LostinVA]

78. What the fuck ever

I am so tired of this RW meme, because that's what it is.

"Rights delayed are rights denied." MLK, Jr.

[siligut]

100. Oh crap. Stop standing behind RW talking points.

Just crap! The left will cede the election if they fail to stand up for the left and the left is for equal rights for all people. Nothing has changed except gays are starting to see the light and are pushing for what they deserve, what we all deserve.

I am so tired of the fucking RW “Xians” who preach “family values” like they have corner on the market!

[Occulus]

148. Well, and a big "fuck you" to you, too

I'm gay. That's how I read that.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[foreigncorrespondent]

8. The one...

...where the voter believes by doing nothing he/she is doing everything. Same goes for the person running for election.

[Danger Mouse]

87. I don't agree with this. While it's true that it would mobilize conservatives to some extent...

not doing something is just being cowardly. We've been nothing but cowards on so many issues, and I think we really need to make a stand on this. Why are we letting fear rule our actions as a party?

[Mojambo]

6. No timelines when it comes to human rights. n/t

[flvegan]

You got that MOTHERFUCKING RIGHT!!

You're damn right that this isn't a wedge issue.

Not only should "you" take a stand for "your" rights, but straight, blonde-haired blue-eyed, hetero male asshole Stormfront wet dreams like me should be standing RIGHT FUCKING BEHIND YOU.

"It has to start somewhere It has to start sometime
What better place than here, what better time than now?"

I'm not willing to give up any of my rights, and I'm sure as shit not willing to give up my fight for yours.

[EFerrari]

11. . . .

:toast:

[MuseRider]

17. WOW

that was great!

[motocicleta]

125. what he said

I'm so sick of cowards, lily-livered yellow-bellied cowards, claiming other humans do not deserve my rights because then "we" will lose an election. "We" are losing a lot more than an election when we do not support civil rights.

[Madspirit]

9. k&r...n/t

[Dhalgren]

10. K&R! Well said and absolutely right!

If one citizen does not have full rights, then we none do! This isn't about "their" rights, this is about OUR rights. The Democratic Party cannot survive if it accepts the idea of second-class citizens.

[bullwinkle428]

12. I can't believe how many otherwise apparently intelligent people are willing

to fall for the garbage RW talking points such as "thought crimes" and "special protections" when it comes to hate crime legislation! :banghead:

I honestly don't think it's all that complicated a concept to grasp! I don't even allow myself to get caught up in those threads for fear of dropping a bomb on someone and getting TSed, but it's awfully tempting at times...

[jtrockville]

13. Never give up the fight for human rights.

For everyone. Period.

[EFerrari]

28. We don't forget, we don't give up, we don't go away.

:kick:

[Maat]

56. Amen, Sister!

See ya' at the next march!

[MuseRider]

14. Brava! K&R

Perfect response.

[WhollyHeretic]

15. I stand with the GLBT community. Civil rights is not some pet issue

Civil rights are at the core of being a liberal and a decent human being. I don't understand how people can ask others to wait for their civil rights, we only have a finite time on this rock.

[EFerrari]

18. Sing it, GreenJ.

:thumbsup:

[burrowowl]

65. It is Under HUMAN RIGHTS!

the U$ of A has no HUMAN RIGHTS, e.g., ERA, Rights for Children, etc.
Civil Rights and Human Rights are different and the U$ of A has no Human Rights Laws!
Althought I think the Preamble to the Constitution would be for Human Rights as well!

[foreigncorrespondent]

66. Speaking of human rights!

I was so sad last week to hear that Australia (who used to be a world leader when it came to human rights) is no longer ranked in the top 10 of the human rights list that was released last week. That just goes to show you what happens to a country lead by a conservative idiot who has no feelings or respect for others.

Human rights shouldn't even be an issue any more. It is the fucking 21st century yet these conservative and moralist idiots are moving us back into caveman days (no offense to any cavemen who might read this. ;))

[Sapphocrat]

20. K&R

:thumbsup:

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Thank you!

This is one K&R that really means the world to me! :)

[Withywindle]

21. Recommended! Yes!

I still can't believe some of the lame excuses people use for waffling on this issue.

I can't understand the mentality that bigotry ought to be treated with kid gloves or worse, "respect" if it's a matter of "faith." BULLSHIT. Ideas don't deserve "respect" or even "tolerance" because of religion. Ideas, like people, either earn respect or they don't on their merits. And the idea that LGBTQ people and relationships are in ANY way inferior to hetero ones has about as much merit as the "Rapture Ready" belief that solar flares are caused by angels on the sun. (Less, really! Space is still mysterious to us. Human rights and equality shouldn't be.) And it has about the same proper place on DU: the Lounge, being mocked mercilessly.

[BR_Parkway]

71. I respect that 7th Day Adventists don't believe in blood transfusions

that's fine, I support their right to do that (and their right to die without getting that medical treatment if they so choose)

That doesn't mean that I should have legislation that says I can't have one when needed just because their religion doesn't agree with it.

I actually support the KKKristian who says he doesn't believe in marriage equality, again they have the right to believe as they will. But what they believe shouldn't affect me and my partner any more the blood transfusion scenario.

And no, I'm not supporting any candidate who thinks my rights to be treated as an equal citizen are politically expendable. I've had it with politicians who are dying to hold up their hand and swear an oath on our Constitution but don't know what it says or how to follow it. I've had it with candidates saying what they think will get them the most votes, instead of speaking from the heart and actually meaning it and trying to be leaders and make a difference in this world.

If they are willing to make me 2nd class on some issue for votes or campaign contributions - then how far is it for them to make someone else 2nd class for the same reasons. I've been a member here for a few years now - and watch as a certain group here constantly tells the GLBT community to "just wait your turn" so that some candidate willing to sell us out for votes can get elected - then watch as that same group screams and gnashes their teeth when that same candidate sells them out on some other issue (war funding comes to mind, free trade another) and I sit back and almost laugh.

What did you people think you were getting? A strong minded leader who would represent you? When he or she doesn't have the courage to represent me?

All you've done with your "just wait, time isn't right" message is enabled one more pandering politician - and then you're surprised at the results. It's happened over and over again, yet you keep on telling us to wait and expecting different results from those you help elect because they were willing to tell us to wait to be considered equal citizens as well. Insanity...

[alarimer]

72. I do not respect religious beliefs that are bigoted

Just because it is in your "religion" to discriminate against gays (or women for that matter) does not make it right. It is wrong and ought to be condemned, by other religious people and by non-religious. None of this tolerance for sick, twisted beliefs from me.

Except for that I agree with what you said. There is too much pandering for votes by saying any damn thing to get elected.

[BR_Parkway]

75. They don't have to accept me - they just can't stand in my way

[Danger Mouse]

89. When religious beliefs are designed to hurt other people, I lose respect for those beliefs.

These homophobic 'Christians' with their bullshit 'love the sinner hate the sin' line make me want to :puke:
Guess I'm a pretty liberal Christian...a real radical...you know, what with my belief in equality for all...not like Jesus ever preached that kind of message. Feh.

[FreeState]

95. JWs not Seventh Day

"Do Adventists give and accept blood?

Adventists promote good health practices, including the use of blood transfusions where the screening of blood is of a safe and high standard.
The Sydney Adventist Hospital has its own Pathology Department where patrons can donate blood.

Often at regional meetings, the Adventist Church will invite groups such as the Australian Red Cross Blood Service to collect blood from church members. Adventists in southern Queensland have been donating blood at their regional meetings for more than 30 years."

http://adventist.org.au/about_adventists/misconceptions#one

The Jehovah's Witnesses urges its members to refuse to accept blood transfusions and to not allow them to be given to their children. This is based upon four passages in the Bible which they interpret as prohibiting the consuming of blood

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm

[Erika]

24. K & R n/t

[EFerrari]

25. kick for my friends.

[ComerPerro]

29. anyone who supports Repigs just simply because they don't agree with Dems on this issue is idiotic

sorry to say.

I get your point, but turning around and voting for Repigs isn't helping your cause.

Not every Dem is standing up for gay rights like they should, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this alone is a good reason to turn around and vote for a Repig who campaigns on a platform that says the gay lifestyle is immoral and a disease.

[EFerrari]

32. This isn't an appeal to vote for the Thugs but for Democrats

to stand up.

[foreigncorrespondent]

34. I know it isn't helping the plight of LGBTIQQ people...

...by voting repuke. But tell that to the really REALLY stupid people who have said it in the past right here on DU.

[ComerPerro]

37. wait, people are saying that here? That those people, to "protest" Dems, should vote Repig?

[donco6]

41. What I've seen is . . .

people who get irritated when you question a Dem candidate's statements or stand on something, and others come in to say, "Well, you think you'll get anything better from a Republican?" As if asking a candidate to . . . oh, I dunno, . . . CHANGE HIS STAND might be an option?

[foreigncorrespondent]

42. It has been said in the past, yes.

And what is more funny is, it has been said to me. You know the woman who cannot vote in U.S. elections, and who probably never will now. Which means I can't vote for repuke or Dem. But being progressive, I can stand up for what is right with my voice.

[ComerPerro]

43. thought your name might give the foreign status away, lol

[foreigncorrespondent]

49. One would think!

But now, when I am presented with something so stupid, I simply laugh and say to myself "I see stupid people." ;)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

133. seconded. supporting republicans because the dems arent liberal enough

is the heights of stupidity.

[Clintonista2]

33. If you think about it, Liberals win every issue over time

If you think back 100 years ago, every liberal cause since then has been won. The civil rights movement, the womens movement, etc, were all liberal causes that have been adopted. 100 years from now, things like gay marriage will be normal, it is unavoidable.

[EFerrari]

35. So, can we not avoid it a little harder?

lol

:kick:

[venable]

39. Until there are full civil rights for everyone

we have failed.

And as of now, we are failing.

Full and irrevocable civil rights for LGBT must be made a permanent part of our laws and our culture.

I do believe we will get there, but I also believe we have a longer way to go than most allow.

We will get the laws before we get the hearts and minds of those who oppose these rights, but eventually, finally, the culture will come around.

[AnnieBW]

44. Can I get a HELL YEAH!

This straight chick will go to the mat for GLBTQ rights! I'd rather hang out with Queer people than with uptight Fundamentalist Christians any day!

[ldf]

109. well, you come right over HERE, girlfriend

:-)

:hug:
:toast:

[Maat]

47. I hear you.

I have always been supportive of my GLBT family, and have been an active member of PFLAG for some time now.

Same-sex marriage rights! We have a bill going through the California legislature right now (it might be vetoed by Arnold again, but we'll keep working on it). A great case is winding itself through the California courts. We have equalized domestic partnership rights and marital rights out here (sadly, as my friend says, that does not resolve the problem of federal benefits).

[EFerrari]

57. Federal benefits? Isn't that an oxymoran?

:silly:

[Maat]

58. Yeah, HeeHee ..

although I shouldn't be laughing, I should be ...

:cry:

Eh ... laughing's better for the soul.

[marmar]

51. Your rights certainly are not wedge issues....

and it's very sad that everyone can't see it that clearly. If anyone is denied full participation in society in any way, the citizenship of each and every one of us is diminished.
My grandfather grew up in Jim Crow Arkansas, where he had to use the "colored" water fountain and attend the shabbier schools. Separate wasn't equal then, and it still isn't.
And to those people who insist it's not the right time to stand up for full LGBTQ rights, when will it be?

[lonestarnot]

52. I want no one to give up nut'n!

:P

[rasputin1952]

53. All of us are people first, and that is where we start discussing

Rights and Privileges. Each person deserves exactly the same Rights and Privileges as everyone else.

Being a human being is an amazing thing, but when our fellow human beings are cast as lower class citizens for what ever reason, we are treading on some pretty nasty ground. On an individual level, some people are a little OTT for me, say bank robbers, murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like, but these are individuals and they are, thankfully, a minority. But each of us is born w/inalienable Rights, we can lose those Rights because of behavior that is criminal, but until those Rights are taken through the law, each and every person should be treated with the dignity and accorded the respect of any other person.

We have an obligation to ensure that Rights and Privileges are accorded to everyone. Equality cannot be surrendered, it cannot be taken from people who merely want to live a life of peace and honor. Gender, sexual orientation, race, color, religion....who cares...Let people live in freedom and equality w/o the fear of being physically abused or ostracized...:)

[spoony]

131. That was beautiful.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. If you're asking politicians to have courage, you're asking the impossible

John Kennedy spent 3 years in office looking at polling on civil rights before he finally decided to give his full support. Democrats will support gay marriage when it either becomes popular, or they decide that they can't do without the financial support of gay rights groups.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't stand up for your rights, I'm just saying that politicians (or at least the ones running for President) aren't going to follow you. You can either vote for the party that is for gay rights as long as things don't move too fast, or the party that would like to set gay rights back about 100 years.

[foreigncorrespondent]

60. Or simply...

...not vote at all. Which in my case, is what will be happening.

[EFerrari]

62. With respect, politicians always or usually FOLLOW.

We make this a priority, they have to deal with it.

It's that simple.

The Republics will never set back gay rights because the GLBT movement has done good, difficult work.

Our challenge is to bring gay rights into full equality. Any one who can't handle that should get into another line of work. That is the challenge of our generation.

/oops

[Hippo_Tron]

67. Let the Republics get another Supreme Court appointment or two...

And they will do plenty of setting gay rights back.

[EFerrari]

81. I don't see that happening. We've come too far.

:)

[Swamp Rat]

61. I have already given up all of those things... not by choice.

Thank you Katrina and Dubya. Nevertheless, I like your idea.

Here is something I made last year when I thought it was about time heterosexuals take a stand on behalf of their repressed brothers and sisters:

[EFerrari]

63. There's something more us sorta straight folk could be doing.

I congratulated Gavin Newsom at an event in Golden Gate Park, but so what.

There's something here about making common cause.

Once, someone on a list I moderated emailed me and asked if there weren't so many new members, all gay. I said, yes. We're all gay here now.

We have to find the channel, the gesture that will resonate.

[Swamp Rat]

64. Well, I was hoping something would have resulted from my paltry effort,

but we can never give up trying to make America the shining beacon of freedom and equality for all.

If we fail, the rest of the world will grow very large and scary... to put it mildly.

[foreigncorrespondent]

68. Swamp Rat...

...I reckon I am in the same boat as you. I gave up on a lot of things myself back in February of this year. I have lost the will to really fight, the will to live in a society that refuses to recognize my validity as a person, but today something clicked in me. I think it was when I saw someone say something to someone who means a lot to me which wasn't cool I snapped and this thread is the result of that.

I love the graphic BTW. It really is perfect. Now if only all the city halls would begin issuing them. :)

[Nicole]

70. Not gay but believe it's past time for equal rights.

We can't wait until the conservatives are ready to do the right thing, history has proven that it will never be the right time for them.

Liberals fought for the right to vote for women and African-Americans. Conservatives fought against it.
Liberals fought to end segregation. Conservatives fought to keep it.

Where would we be now if we gave up those fights because the time wasn't right? The time is always right to do the just thing. I refuse to let some conservatives convince me otherwise. That goes for conservatives of either party.

I'm with you in this fight, for however long it takes.

[LostinVA]

80. Thanks to you and the other righteous straight people in this thread

Your comments are ALWAYS noticed, believe me!

:hug:

[bigwillq]

92. Thank you Nicole

for your support. :hug:

[treestar]

73. There are still a lot of right wngers in this country

They still vote. Maybe the answer is to try to convince them. It may have to be grass roots rather than expecting a candidate to be able to sway them that much. It almost seems that a Presidential candidate is in no position to change people's minds. Perhaps we need leaders in the same sense as Falwell, not Presidential candidates or even specifically politicians. Somebody to directly combat Falwell and his ilk.

I recall the NOW leaders - but can't think of the equivalent person for gay rights - in fact, whatever happened to NOW, and who is the President of it now? Bushco has been allowed to narrow the national dialogue - it has been attacking such fundamental things, that we are scrambling to remain a free country for everyone, period.

But maybe the equivalent of NOW with a leader putting themselves out in the public the same way would help get the mass of Americans in the middle to see that the right wing nuts are just, well, nuts. Because really it is all just very reasonable and white straight men are a minority. Anyone who is not white and a lot of women will understand how reasonable gay rights are, except for fundies and wingnuts. And a lot of white straight men will, too, so really it seems it is a minority that is in the way. They are just so vocal. So merely getting the repukes out of office could make a huge difference.

Everything people want on DU is quite dependent on getting another Democratic congress and a Democratic president - get the emphasis back on life as normal, rather than the constant crisis of terra, terra, terra that has allowed the right wing to monopolize the dialogue on their issues.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

134. ---

:thumbsup:

[gollygee]

74. It's really sad that there's any debate at all about this

especially on a supposedly progressive forum like this.

[LostinVA]

76. Hey, the NJ same sex marriage cost us the 2006 election, you know

Oh wait... it didn't, did it? We won both houses of Congress.

Nice OP, FC.

[Goblinmonger]

82. An atheist K&R

We hear the same rhetoric all the time about issues concerning us. I can't imagine how shat upon a gay, vegan, atheist would be.

[Divine Discontent]

84. a Christian K&R

I stand with all my fellow brothers & sisters in this life with varying beliefs and say there's no discussion on civil rights for ALL people regardless of belief, sex, origin, etc...

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[spoony]

130. Hear hear!

[Danger Mouse]

85. I am a Christian, and I think it is a MORAL IMPERATIVE that gays have the right to marry.

I am sick and tired of people thumping on the Bible to justify their homophobia.
GAYS SHOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT GUARANTEED TO STRAIGHT PEOPLE...TO DO OTHERWISE IS GROSS INJUSTICE.
Somehow it's still 'okay' to hate gays in this country...thank you very much, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and your ilk.
I'm so fed up with it at this point...
This is not a political issue. It's an issue of equality. Morality. The true morality is not that it is wrong to be gay. The true morality is that it is WRONG TO CONSENTING ADULTS TO MARRY ONE ANOTHER JUST BECAUSE OF PREJUDICES YOU GOT FROM A BOOK.
:rant:

[yardwork]

86. Thank you!

k&r

[myrna minx]

88. A big K&R for my GLBT friends and family.

I am shoulder to shoulder with you.

[nam78_two]

90. Straight and I agree-K/R.nt

[David Zephyr]

91. Hey, foreigncorrespondent! Watch the "famous DU'ers" who will dodge this thread.

If you are sick, let me tell you what makes me even sicker!

It's faux liberals who post with self-righteous indignation here about everything from the war in Iraq to circumcision, but then carefully dodge any threads like yours here because gay people make them squirm and uncomfortable.

After years here at at the DU, believe me, I know just who they all are. We queers give them the willies and they think our fucking civil rights are something that will just have to wait. So that's what makes me even sicker. Phonies that despise you and avoid ever standing up with you or being seen in your threads.

So fellow GLBT and friends of our back-of-the-bus crusade for basic civil rights and security, start watching who doesn't post in such threads. It's actually a lot of fun and is a lot like the atomic accelerators where they search out for theoretical particles by smashing atoms together and looking at what WASN'T there in order to identify what should have been there.

Some of the DU's most notable posters are always conveniently AWOL in threads that deal with our fundamental human rights. Get out your notepad and start keeping score. It's really quite easy.

In any event, I stand with you, foreigncorrespondent, and agree with every word you say.

[foreigncorrespondent]

101. David, my friend...

...it makes me a lot sicker too. Same with the idiots who show their homophobia in threads where they think it will go unnoticed, but in threads like this, which confronts them head on, they avoid. They are gutless my friend.

[David Zephyr]

102. Gutless.

But at least the homophobes that post pretending to be "tolerant" are posting, the ones that avoid the threads altogether are far more insidious. In any event, thanks for your thread and letting off the steam. Every election cycle, we are lectured that 'this isn't the right time' and blah, blah, blah.

One of our Democratic candidates is homophobic and I think most here already know it.

[David Zephyr]

103. Gutless.

But at least the homophobes that post pretending to be "tolerant" are posting, the ones that avoid the threads altogether are far more insidious. In any event, thanks for your thread and letting off the steam. Every election cycle, we are lectured that 'this isn't the right time' and blah, blah, blah.

One of our Democratic candidates is homophobic and I think most here already know it.

[Downtown Hound]

93. Yep, the time for gay rights was a few million years ago

when humans first appeared on the planet.

[RetroLounge]

94. I am NOT willing to give up anyting...

and neither should anyone else.

It is way beyond time for this fucking country to join the civilized world.

I stand behind you, with you, next to you or anywhere you need me to be on this issue.

It sickens me that my best friend could stand up in my wedding but I cannot stand up in his.

RL

[EFerrari]

96. What you said, RL.

:kick:

[NMMNG]

97. Amen!

:applause:


We are tired of being told to get to the back of the bus.

[brer cat]

98. Not gay, Christian, and progressive.

No ONE left behind, no ONE left outside, no ONE cast aside. We either believe in civil rights for 100% or we don't believe at all.

K&R

[geniph]

99. Can I get an A-MEN on that?

*applause*

[Mnemosyne]

115. Amen! knr n/t

[huskerlaw]

104. What rights are YOU willing to give up?

Exactly.

I'm hetero, but I firmly believe that gays, lesbians, etc. are entitled to every right that I currently enjoy. If we're not willing to join in their fight for those rights, then we should be willing to give those rights up ourselves.

:applause:

[BrklynLiberal]

105. Do we need to quote Pastor Niemoller yet again on this point??

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoller

Rights that are denied to anyone are rights denied to all of us.

[bonito]

106. It's a non issue my point of view

Whats happening is the whacked out, devil for a God, right wing is misinforming the ignorant instead of enlightening them on many fronts getting a rise from morons than manipulating the votes for victory with a cheer.

[RufusTFirefly]

107. It is THE civil rights movement of our generation

Back in the 50s and 60s there were so-called "reasonable" people who argued that it just wasn't time to extend civil rights to our African-American brothers and sisters.

Those who argue that it isn't time for gay rights are cut from the same cloth.

And frankly, those "progressives" who caution us that we shouldn't make a stink about this (and I am a straight male), remind me of those who suggest that we shouldn't take our fellow Democrats to task for voting to allow an illegal invasion by an illegitimate leader.

I say bullshit to both. Enough is enough.

[JerseygirlCT]

108. Very well said. I completely agree. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

110. while in principal no rights are less than others:-

i will not use gay marriage as the only measure of a democratic candidate.

we considered gore too right wing and a lot of people in the left supported nader. bush won.

we considered kerry too right wing and bush won again.

republicans winning and controlling the debate in this country is hardly helping lgbt rights.

so while i support that we have equal rights, i do not expect any of the democratic candidates to support gay marriage. i will however vote for a democrat.

[foreigncorrespondent]

112. You can sell yourself short...

...that is your decision. But I won't sit by and sell myself or any of my LGBTIQQ short. We deserve the same respect and dignity as every other person in this world. And THAT is what THIS is all about.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

116. its real courageous to say that on a message board.

in real life people are dying because of bush's policies. because gore/kerry were not liberal enough.

so whatever! i will vote within a party that is likely to cause less rampant ravaging on humanity.

:eyes:

[foreigncorrespondent]

122. If you believe...

...I would hide behind a computer screen to make statements like I have, then you are very sadly mistaken. I am not the kind of person to sit down and shut up so others have their cake while I miss out.

[RufusTFirefly]

119. Oh really?

"I won't let the fact that my candidate is a segregationist stop me from voting for him. After all, he has lots of other wonderful ideas. And besides, the other guy is even worse."

Can you imagine yourself saying that?

If not, why are you willing to overlook (or delay) a fundamental issue of civil rights?

Failing to stand up for the rights of other Americans demonstrates a lack of courage and a failure to lead.

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

121. your argument is fallacious. you are pretending i have a choice between

a pro marriage candidate and an anti marriage candidate.

i am choosing between 2 anti marriage candidates, i will pick the one who doesn't bomb brown people willy nilly.

[RufusTFirefly]

128. Swell. And may the best bigot win, eh?

That's just great.

Politicians made the decision to "bomb brown people willy nilly" for the same reason they aren't showing some guts, morality, and common sense on the issue of gay marriage: because they thought not only that they could get away with it, but also that it might actually improve their chances with swing voter yahoos.

That sort of bloodless calculation disgusted me then, and it disgusts me now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

132. actually thats bullshit. had gore been in power and won the 2000 elections

we wouldnt have bombed iraq.

but ofcourse he wasnt liberal enough :sarcasm:

if kerry had won 2004 we would have been out of iraq already

but ofcourse kerry wasnt liberal enough :sarcasm:

:eyes:

[RufusTFirefly]

135. Gore lost because the election was stolen.

Or hadn't you heard that?

It also didn't help that his campaign was badly mismanaged and that the MSM served as the GOP's PR firm.
But if it makes you feel better to believe the fairy tale that liberals cost the election, I'm not going to explode your little faith-based fantasy.

As for Kerry, he voted to give a demonstrably dishonest, military fuckup a blank check to bomb Iraq. The vast majority of delegates at the Democratic National Convention disagreed with him. Nice. Like many of my fellow Democrats, I worked hard to get out the vote in 2004, although my heart wasn't in it: Our goal was ABB, not JFK. Not exactly inspiring.

Once again, the election was "lost" in 2004 because it was stolen. But let's ignore that and keep moving further and further right, robbing the Democratic Party of the courage and vision that can still make it great.

Go ahead. Keep lowering your expectations. You'll eventually hit bottom.

Or, as Earl Weaver once put it, "If you play for one run, that's all you'll get"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

136. the election wouldnt have come to close if people didnt keep propogating

that gore wasnt liberal enough, or charismatic enough or he was really no different from bush.

go ahead keep being divisive. it sure as hell helps the liberal causes.

fyi: i have a gf whom i would like to marry. however, i also like to be rooted in the reality of politics today, not politics of idealism.

[RufusTFirefly]

137. "By denying a group of individuals the right to marry,..."

...we denigrate that entire group and deny them citizenship." -- California Assemblyman Mark Leno, June 5, 2007 (the Assembly approved Leno's bill 42-34)

I can marry and no one will question it. No one will treat me as a second-class citizen, deprive me of hospital visitation rights, or look at me with scorn or suspicion.

That's because, by luck or by chance, I am attracted to persons of the opposite sex. It isn't my choice or my fault. It's just the way I was born.

And yet others through no choice of their own, because of the way they were born, are robbed of these rights.

Why should I care? After all, it doesn't seem to affect me directly. But I do care, and it makes me very sad and very angry.

"C'mon Rosa, just go to the back of the bus and quit making a fuss." (some anonymous pragmatist)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

138. ok, so you believe someone who openly supports gay marriage can win this presidential election

right?

on edit: moralizing me and letting me know how important gay marriage is a bit redundant, i really would like to be married.

[RufusTFirefly]

139. Yes. I do

And the only way to support gay marriage is openly. To be a stealth supporter of gay marriage is to imply that it is a position to be ashamed of.

Supporting gay marriage is about the 14th Amendment and family values.

Last time I checked, those were bedrock American ideals, not left-wing talking points.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

144. well then i guess that the basis of our difference. i dont think a dem candidate will

win if he/she says that they are for gay marriage.

[bicentennial_baby]

145. That's not why Gore didn't become President

and you know that. That's also not why Kerry didn't become President, and you know that. If republicans are controlling and winning the debate in the United States, it's b/c the Dems don't have a compelling or strong enough message (throw a little touch of MSM voodoo into the mix as well)...It's not b/c supposed Dem candidates were overly concerned with the right-wingness of Gore or Kerry. Get real.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

146. actually i dont know that. i think a large part of why gore lost and why the dems have taken on

a losing mentality is because he was judged as no different from bush.

the last 8 years has proved, beyond a doubt that he would have been very different from bush.

i think the reasons the dems cave in is partly because there is no unity in the left wing movement. one wrong vote and you are a betrayer to the cause. unlike the right wingers who plod on and on and support their leaders throw thick and thin. this strategy pays off. explains why the supreme court is now so stacked against us.

[Chovexani]

111. Kick!

I, for one, am getting tired of being thrown under the bus. It's pretty filthy down there.

[foreigncorrespondent]

113. Isn't it though?

I have blonde highlights in my hair, and they are now black from the grease off the bus. :( I want my highlights back. ;)

[Taliesihne]

114. Although I empathize

The answer to your post is in it. This is an issue of rights, not of morality. As such, the avenue for change rests in the judicial system and not the legislative one. Lawsuits need to be filed from Alaska to New York for various violations of the 14th amendment. Trying to fight this as a political issue is point blank a loser. It belongs in the courts as that's where one will get permanent and lasting solutions to these obvious discriminations.

Just my two cents anyway.

[donco6]

117. So, supporting politicians is of no use, then?

We should pour our money into supporting Lambda Legal, filing court cases to change the federal precedents?

Unfortunately, the politicians are the ones who confirm Supreme Court Justices. Only by electing liberal politicians can we hope to change the makeup of the court to get a positive ruling. And this current crop of politicians - both in the Congress and running for it - don't have the testi- . . . er, intestinal fortitude to take on the RW politicians who do everything in their power to keep us in check. So you've basically said . . . we're pretty much fucked.

[Taliesihne]

126. Re:

We should pour our money into supporting Lambda Legal, filing court cases to change the federal precedents?

If you wish to see the changes in your lifetime, yes. And you don't need to change the federal precedents. The ones supporting the cause for equality are already there.

Unfortunately, the politicians are the ones who confirm Supreme Court Justices. Only by electing liberal politicians can we hope to change the makeup of the court to get a positive ruling. And this current crop of politicians - both in the Congress and running for it - don't have the testi- . . . er, intestinal fortitude to take on the RW politicians who do everything in their power to keep us in check. So you've basically said . . . we're pretty much fucked.

No, not at all. Keep in mind that a conservative court decided Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Education, and the People vs. Larry Flynt (:P). And things don't necessarily have to escalate to a federal level if folks like Lambda and the ACLU see a 50 state strategy as the way to go.

You do have a good point about getting politicians in place to appoint Scotus justices, but even the most blowhard conservative judge is still a judge first....meaning that ultimately they are there to ensure justice, which often transcends one's political feelings on something.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that you stand a much greater chance of seeing immediate results and getting a fair shake if the issues are approached from a legal standpoint, where individual rights are given more weight then the combined hysteria of the populace - which is quite often the result in politics as we've seen these last few years.

[foreigncorrespondent]

120. I'm sorry...

...but going through the court system doesn't always work. Yes the LGBTIQQ community has had some large wins going this way, but the money isn't there to take every issue through the court system.

Our only hope in getting the rights is to lobby the politicians who make the laws. Activism has proved to be the one thing that works through out history. And I don't mean violent activism either because violence really doesn't pay. But peaceful activism does work. We just need our MLK or Rosa Parks to stand up and begin.

[Taliesihne]

127. The legal system

has done more to even out inequalities in our society then any other American institution.

And I find it odd that you would bring economics in to this. Are groups like Lambda and the ACLU charging for their services? And if something needs financial support, wouldn't you rather contribute to a group that is going to be fighting for your one issue and your one issue alone?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

118. I'm straight, and I'll stand up for you.

[Colobo]

123. Every American should get equal treatment under the law. Basic and simple.

[ninkasi]

124. It's absurd that this should even be an issue

We are all entitled to the same human rights. To not recognize the rights of GLBT members of society to enjoy these rights is outrageous. This is not about "granting" anybody certain rights, those are rights humans should acknowledge without debate, or question. Any society which recognizes the importance of stable, loving relationships, is a society which will prosper.

When I think about the toll our brothers and sisters pay just to live like everybody else in society, it's mind boggling. Let us all share equal rights, and instead of the time, energy, and money spent fighting to deny equal rights to others, there are many, many other things we can spend our energy addressing, like Bush's war against Iraq, global warming, and financial equity.

I'm so tired of the bigots calling the shots. I'm a straight woman, and the whole thing infuriates me, I can't even imagine what pain anybody other than heterosexual must endure, in order to try to live a happy life. It's past time for this to change.

[Evoman]

129. I am with my gay brothers and sisers.

Every person who is married, but is against gay marriage, should be forced to get a divorce and lose their marriage benefits. I'm sorry, but unless you are willing to fight for the right of others, YOU DO NOT DESERVE YOUR OWN RIGHTS.

People talk a big game about equality, but they are so full of shit. Gay people just want what we hetero's already have...they are not taking anything away from us. And I'm sick and fucking tired of people who would fuck around with OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS..."Get to the back of the bus...we will get to you eventually once we're in power". Yeah...right. You have to fucking stand up, for gods sake.

I told myself, once I became concious of this issue in my teens, that I would NOT GET MARRIED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES until gay people could do the same. In 2004, marriage became legal for gay people in my province, much to my gf's relief I'm sure.

[bullwinkle428]

140. Look at how those bastards in the debate last night totally marginalized

the idea of equal rights, with regards to the issue of the translators shown the door for letting the DOD know they were gay. Using the same tired old bullshit excuses..."We can't get bogged down discussing this / 'enacting a social experiment' :eyes: in a time of war!"

Of all of the nausea-inducing moments in last night's debate, that part made me the sickest... :puke:

[SallyMander]

142. 'scuz my ignorance...

But what does LGBTIQQ stand for?

I am familiar with LGBT... and i've seen it with one extra Q for those who identify as queer... but I? (intersex?)... and the other Q?

Thanks!

~Sally

[RufusTFirefly]

143. Doesn't hurt to Google

I didn't know what the last three letters in LGBTIQQ stood for either. 'Til I checked, that is.

[trashcanistanista]

147. No.

Not gay but believe in equal rights for all. Yes to gay marriage and yes to spousal employment benes. And while I'm at it, yes to tough anti-discrimination laws for gays and others in the LGBTIQQ category.