Gay rights are not "controversial"

[Prism]

And people who treat them as if they are and put equality "up for discussion" are not liberals or Democrats.

Just my two cents.

[uppityperson]

1. k&r

[muffin1]

2. Agree 100%

K&R!

I can't believe it actually has to be said.

[myrna minx]

3. .

:applause:

[EFerrari]

4. I'll K&R to that.

[boston bean]

5. those are the people who allow the issue to be used as a political football, and imho

if one isn't firm in their support of equal rights no matter who is in office, you are not a friend of those fighting for equality. In fact, might as well be in bed with the enemy.

Equal rights are non negotiable.

[freesqueeze]

6. I agree...

so many being against equal rights is the controversial part.

[DoBotherMe]

7. K&R

[Tailormyst]

8. Right on!

[JuniperLea]

9. I agree...

But others may not. I'm having a hard time thinking I have the right to foist my belief upon others.

We can't play thought police... people have a right to believe what they choose, but they don't have the right to foist their beliefs upon others or treat others differently because of those beliefs.

I prefer to think of gay rights as human rights. People have the right to think what they want about gays, but they don't have a right to discriminate against other human beings.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

31. I'm not saying they should...

I'm just trying to interject something here that I think will help people.

[Prism]

19. Equality under the law is not "foisting" anything on others

As long as we have a secular government and a secular constitution, it doesn't much matter what religious beliefs people hold. They do not have any kind of right or prerogative to strip citizens of their human rights.

There is a difference between policing thought and simply labeling it with true terms. When weakly papering over the continued denigration of the movement towards equality, some people like to use euphemisms like "discussion" or "reasonable disagreement" as a way of side-stepping what is really going on.

Bigotry.

[JuniperLea]

30. I think you need to read my post again...

Really... in order to outlaw bigotry, you would have to become the thought police... I'm saying I don't care what people hold in their minds as long as they don't treat anyone else differently.

[Prism]

37. We agree there

I guess I'm misunderstanding what you meant by being hesitant to foist your beliefs on others. No bother ^^

[JuniperLea]

53. As disgusting as it feels...

People have the right to what they think... even bigots. We can't force anyone to accept anyone else for who they are... we can't force bigots to accept gays and we can't force gays to accept bigots. Most streets go both ways. I think it's important in these discussions to understand this as any attempt to force people's views in either direction is wrong, and not conducive to a live and let live environment which is ultimately what we need.

[boston bean]

62. Can we expect a progressive community to back up their words on equality?

or should we just chalk it up to a "disagreement" or "controversy" when they shit in the face of the LGBT community?

[JuniperLea]

69. Jesus God... what the fuck are you talking about?

Based on my comment, yours makes zero sense.

[boston bean]

73. makes perfect sense to me. nt

[JuniperLea]

74. That may well be...

But it's not conducive to conversation if only one person understands what they are saying.

What I'm saying is that progressive people should support equal human rights, even if they don't agree with or condone the lifestyle of the other human being. You cannot force someone to condone or accept the ways of another... period.

Is that worthy of your mean-spirited snark? I think not.

[boston bean]

77. Then we are saying the same thing, it was not snark and no one is really

worthy of my snark when I give it my best! LOL

do you think everysingle person who calls themselves a progressive supports LGBT rights?

If you do, then that is where we part ways.

If you don't then you are amongst a friend.

[boston bean]

81. on second thought, i just re-read your post and I am not sure that we do agree.

I understand you cannot change a bigot, but do they deserve a seat at the table?

Should their feelings be taken into consideration?

Hell, no. We don't negotiate with bigots. Bigots aren't into negotiation.

[boston bean]

82. ^^ is in response to juniperlee^^

[JuniperLea]

87. You need to read my next post...

About Granny... it might make my point more clear.

[muffin1]

108. Yeah, your second reading was spot on.

I'm a little tired of the whole 'tolerance of intolerance' meme myself.

[JuniperLea]

143. So you think it's ok to force someone else to accept you as you are...

Without giving them the same in return? I call that hypocrisy. We don't have to like it, but we shouldn't be hypocritical about it either.

[JuniperLea]

86. If they don't...

Then they lie when they call themselves progressive... friend:)

My concern is that sometimes people think they need to force someone to accept them... they can't, just like the homophobe can't force someone who is gay, not to be gay, a gay cannot force a homophobe to "accept" their own homosexuality.

Example... my great grandmother was a very staunch Fundy. She was the most loving person I've ever known. Her neighbor was the most flamboyant gay man I knew in the 70's, he was a precious soul... very giving, very friendly. These two people were very good to each other... they helped each other all the time... he took her to the grocery store when she needed to go, and she helped him with his garden... they really were pretty damn cute:) But one day, after Tony left, Granny turned to me and said, "Pray for Tony! He's going straight to hell!" She firmly believed this, but Tony never knew...

Does that make sense? She never treated him any differently than she did anyone in her own family, but she had very strong beliefs about his lifestyle.

We should all be so gracious.

[muffin1]

105. Nope. Sorry, that does not make sense to me.

I know you love you great-grandmother - probably as much as I love my fundie father. But my father will never be gracious in my eyes for believing that gay people will burn in hell. Or for believing it's a 'lifestyle'. He has been around too long to believe such nonsense. How is it that I know better, but he doesn't?

I think it's great that your relative was pleasant to a gay person. But I don't find it so charming that she thought someone so kind would burn in hell.

[JuniperLea]

138. Then you want to be the thought police...

And I think that is hypocritical. We can educate, but we can't force people to believe as we do. To demand that another take you as you are without taking them as they are is hypocritical. They feel you are in the wrong just as strongly as you feel they are... and you both have that right as long as you don't deny the other their basic human rights. I can't impose what I feel are "decent thoughts and beliefs" on another, and they can't impose what I feel are indecent thoughts and beliefs on me. I don't have to hate them for it, if they aren't harming someone else. I think live and let live is the best case scenario.

[muffin1]

141. Do you feel the same way about racists?

About the KKK? I am totally serious with my inquiry. As long as KKK members - or say, teabaggers merely march and chant their hate, without using violence, do you respect their beliefs - that is, take them as they are?

I'm not saying I want to *force* anyone to believe the way I do. I certainly don't aspire to be a member of the thought police.
I just don't feel the need to RESPECT someone who holds ignorant views.

[JuniperLea]

142. Where did I say I respected their beliefs?

I can take them as they are without hating them back, without denying them their free speech, and without respecting their beliefs. I don't have to associate with them in any way... I don't have to agree with them. That's what live and let live is all about... that is what being progressive is all about too.

For the record, I think all the above-referenced groups are vile and disgusting. I also hate seeing any kind of animal print worn, even if it's fake. I have no right to force either of those conclusions on anyone else.

[muffin1]

146. Taking them as they are, live and let live

are just other words for being tolerant. I do not tolerate people who discriminate. So yes, maybe you're right. I discriminate against people who discriminate.

Spreading hate and fear through ignorance DOES hurt other people. Gay people's rights are being denied everyday in America. Gay people cannot marry the person they love. The cannot join the military. They cannot adopt one of the millions of children who need loving homes. In many places, they can't work as teachers, or coaches, or even work in many places in the private sector. In my lovely state of Virginia, they can't even enter into a contract together.

Anytime someone works or speaks against equal rights for all citizens, it causes more pain to the oppressed. People who would actively hurt oppressed people are full of ignorance and hate, and not deserving of tolerance and understanding. I will never condone it. I understand fully that they have a RIGHT to think and speak hateful words. But I will fight them every step of the way. They will just have to deal with my intolerance, I suppose. I'll still sleep at night.

By the way, you've used the word 'lifestyle' a couple of times in this thread about gay issues. It's orientation.

[JuniperLea]

147. I wish you could read your post from my perspective...

Yes, spreading hate and fear does hurt people... and hating them back only spreads it further, don't you see? We don't need to hate back in order to support gay rights. It is absolutely possible to support those rights without hating a pathetic group of ignorant people. It makes all of us in support of gay rights every bit as bad as them.

They have every right to free speech; if we take it away from them, we must also take it away from ourselves.

Thanks for the lexicon schooling; much appreciated. I'll watch it... I was using their terminology, which probably wasn't the best idea given the message I have been trying to convey;)

There will be bigots and racists always. We may win a few over through education, but we will never, ever win one over by using their same hateful tactics. That's all I'm saying... the high road has a loftier view, but you don't have to brag about it;)

I've been doing a lot of thinking and reading lately about passive resistance, about pacifist demonstrations, etc. My hero is Joan Baez... I often wonder: What Would Joan Do? :) I'd sure love to pick her brain on these issues. She's pretty bad-ass... but in the most beautiful, peaceful way.

[muffin1]

150. And I wish you could read your posts from my perspective.

I've never had a beef with you, JuniperLea. I don't really have one now. I think we're both talking past each other a little - what I'm trying to say makes perfect sense in my head. Apparently, I'm just not great at conveying what I'm thinking about this particular topic.

I don't HATE stupid people. I hate speech and actions that cause pain to innocent people who just want their part of the American Dream. I really, truly get that homophobes and racists have the same right to free speech as anyone else. I just don't let homophobic or racist comments go unchallenged. To be mute when faced with ignorant speech is to be complicit, I believe.

Maybe we will never see eye-to-eye on this. But that's OK. It's a message board, and it's purpose is an exchange of ideas.

:hi:

[onpatrol98]

156. I get what you're saying...

Your grandmother did not seem to harbor hatred. In fact, she said that you should pray for him. In her mind, she was still loving him and was concerned. In addition to having a friendship with him, she felt you should both pray for him because she sincerely believed he was going to hell. Apparently, she wasn't trying to convert him. Nor, was she telling him daily that (in her opinion) he was going to hell. This puts your grandmother in a very favorable light for me. I think that's part of what being tolerant means. She just happened to have a different religious belief.

I bet the neighbor felt that way, also. Clearly, he had to have some inkling of what she might believe. But, he also, helped maintained that relationship. I think the world could definitely use a lot more relationships like these. Where you simply learn to live and share life together.

:grouphug:

I believe the earth is a better place because of grandmothers.

[Zhade]

185. IT'S NOT A FUCKING LIFESTYLE!

GodfuckingDAMMIT. It's an orientation.

[awoke_in_2003]

157. there is private bigotry...

and institutional bigotry- civil rights handles the second, only individuals can control the first. With marriage equality people are still allowed to be small minded bigots- nothing stopping that. Plenty of asshats are still opposed to interracial marriage, but they can do nothing legal to stop it.

[dencol]

113. Why did you bring up thought police?

That is outrageous. People can think whatever they want, but they should be expected, and even forced to treat people equally.

[JuniperLea]

139. That's exactly what I'm saying...

There's a lot of hate going on here, and I think it's dangerous. It helps no one. And to demand that someone else take you for who you are without giving them the same right is hypocritical. I don't have to hate them or even care what they think as long as they don't deny someone a human right because of those thoughts.

[dencol]

151. I don't care what people think.

I just care what they do. I have finally learned this lesson, and it has restored my sanity!

[JuniperLea]

152. Me too!

It's very liberating.

[Iggo]

10. GAY RIGHTS ARE CIVIL RIGHTS.

I have a certain opinion of people who think civil rights are "controversial", and I'll keep it to myself.

[etherealtruth]

78. Gay rights are HUMAN Rights

[Iggo]

91. That, too.

[awoke_in_2003]

158. "I'll keep it to myself"

I won't- they are small, closed minded little bigots.

[Deep13]

11. But, but, but, it's their faith and stuff!!

Observe.

Gay people are evil = hateful bigotry

Gay people are evil because the bronze age morality of my religion says so = a sacred expression of faith. Those who dispute it are hateful and intolerant and bigotted themselves.

Understand? Me neither.

[QC]

33. "God is in the mix!" n/t

[muffin1]

49. I just love that God is dragged into the conversation

whenever people are talking about gay issues. They don't give a rat's ass about god when they want to wear cotton/poly blend clothing. They don't care about god when they want that delicious two-for-one shellfish dinner at Red Lobster.
Shit, they don't even care when god said, "Thou shalt not kill". Nearly every god freak I know is pro-death penalty.

But a gay person wants equal rights???? Oh no! God says "no". I almost wish there was a god, so he would reach down and smack the shit out of each and every one of these hypocrites.

[QC]

64. And it's funny how religious teachings on war and social justice, say,

never seem to figure into the debate, but let the queers get uppity and suddenly God's all over the place.

[Mari333]

12. knr

[laughingliberal]

13. knr. nt

[unpossibles]

14. This is why I don't understand the Log Cabin Republicans

A small handful of my friends are gay conservatives/Libertarians and it never made sense to me. They claim it's for economic reasons, but the idea of selling the rights of your fellow humans for the price of nominally saving a few bucks in taxes (and often not really) frankly disgusts me.

As for people who think gay rights are "controversial" or "special rights" I often think it's because they assume it's 100% a choice (a "lifestyle"), therefore any discrimination, bigotry, violence, etc. is the victims' fault. Again, this disgusts me. People can think what they want to; I fully support their right to be bigots, actually, but that right ends at the tip of their own noses.

[Prism]

17. But Democrats are just as guilty of it

That's what's at the heart of the current debate between this administration and Congress and the LGBT community.

What is the price of our rights? The last election? The next election? How much power is worth sacrificing equality for "a few more years". If here and now is never the right time because of some phantom benefit to be gained by the party, when will it be the right time? What price are we being asked to pay for the sake of the political class?

The President himself signaled that LGBT rights are controversial the minute he proclaimed "God is in the mix" and said he could not support marriage.

If our own side cannot support us unequivocally, what chance do we stand against anyone else?

[muffin1]

21. Beautifully said.

I used to be part of "why are some gay people republicans" club. No more. I don't see much of a difference between the two parties when it comes to equal rights. Discrimination is EVERYWHERE.

[unpossibles]

22. I agree, and it pisses me off

BUT that said, 10 years ago I learned the hard way just how awful the "greater of two evils" can be. As much as the Democrats don't support us very well, the Republicans are worse as they actively campaign against GLBTQ rights.

[boston bean]

25. That is why it is so important now, that we hold majorities and the executive that

LGBTQ rights are advanced NOW!

To listen to people saying wait, is infuriating and backstabbing.

[unpossibles]

60. I totally agree

But I also know that it's an uphill battle. I don't think we should wait, but we do need to understand that it won't be easy.

[boston bean]

61. point is you don't expect the political party you belong to, whose platform says it believes in

equality to turn its back on you. And to worse to make your issue a political football.

You expect true and honest and support, not insults from your "friends".

[coloredbait]

27. huh!

some Dems do it, 'secretly campaign' behind your back. cowards.

[Prism]

38. That dichotomy doesn't work for me anymore

I'll certainly not be voting for Republicans in the near future, but I cannot in good conscience reward nor support politicians who think human rights are negotiable.

These politicians sit idly by while people suffer when it is wholly within their power to do something. They are holding my family and my community's rights comfortably hostage.

They can't have my money and my time as well. No more.

[Dr Morbius]

115. I cannot agree with the President on this.

God is not in the mix. This is about how government treats people, and it's not about anything else.

[QC]

34. For the past couple of years, I have felt like a Log Cabin Democrat. n/t

[unpossibles]

58. well said. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

15. No they are not!

EQUAL RIGHTS NOW!

[Starry Messenger]

16. k & r

[Renegades of Funk]

20. All we are asking for is

Equal Rights not special rights.

[Initech]

23. I 150% agree!!!!!!

[coloredbait]

24. hey now.

you got my vote. you should be able to act like a fool, or a moron and get married and pay taxes just like the rest of us fools and morons.

[uppityperson]

45. Being gay = "act like a fool, or a moron"? Ah.

[Tailormyst]

63. pssssttttt

I'm thinking the fools and morons remark was geared towards the institute of marriage and not calling GBLT folks fools.

[uppityperson]

66. possibly

Am watching due to other posts also. Could be innocent.

[Tailormyst]

67. Yup yup

It's been a rough day here on DU.

[coloredbait]

93. hey now

only fools and morons, gay or straight, fall in love, get married, deal with life, stupid relatives, crappy jobs, pay high taxes.

[uppityperson]

100. And the only reasons women get pregnant is by intention or through ignorance

"abortion........no. it benefits the ignorant pregnant female only".

Only fools or morons have crappy jobs, pay high taxes. Only ignorant women get pregnant unless intentional.

Ah.

[Tailormyst]

130. omg did he say that?

[uppityperson]

148. Yup. eom

[onenote]

26. i agree that they should not be controversial, but

its a twisting of the meaning of the word controversial to say that they aren't.

[boston bean]

28. LGBT rights are NOT controversial for a liberal of democrat, or atleast that's

how it use to be.

Now, we must not rock the boat, even though we hold every majority and the executive.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[onenote]

32. Again, I wholeheartedly agree that they shouldn't be

but the very fact that you're posting this suggests that there is some controversy. My sense is that to the extent that there is "controversy" it arises from differences as to political strategy for achieving LGBT equality. I would add that I'm not sure when it was that people who called themselves Democrats universally supported LBGT rights.

[boston bean]

36. It is not a political strategy, you either support equal rights and do the right thing, or you don't

to say it's controversial, obsfucates the simple fact that it's about equality.

Equality is NOT controversial.

To give into that thinking, or if one believes the controversial argument holds any merit, you might as well throw in the towel before the fight begins.

That is the point the OP is making.

[onenote]

40. and the point I'm making is that you can't declare something to be non-controversial

where there are disagreements about the issue unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word "controversial".

I wish like hell there was no controversy about this. I believe that there shouldn't be any controversy. But that doesn't change the fact that there is "controversy" as that word is ordinarily understood.

[RobinA]

137. You Are Misusing

"controversial." Equality is, in fact, controversial. Meaning, people disagree about it. "Controversial" is not a judgment, it's a condition resulting from disagreement. I am an atheist and as such believe that the existence of god is silly nonsense that isn't particularly worthy of debate. However, for me to say that there is no controversy over the existence of god is just ridiculous. To ME it isn't debatable, but that certainly doesn't mean people don't debate it.

[laughingliberal]

39. As a lifelong Democrat, I've never known a time when I favored discrimination against any group

and I don't remember discrimination ever being included as a plank of the party. I only go back about 37 years, though.

[onenote]

41. and I also am a life long Democrat who never has favored discrimination

but the point I was making was in response to the suggestion that persons who called themselves Democrats or liberals in the past never would have supported the continuation of laws that discriminated against gays (such as laws defining marriage as the union of a male and female). If there was a time when every person who calls themselves a liberal or Democrat was demonstrating for the recognition of same sex marriage, I missed it.

To be clear, I believe that the administration can and should be moving much more aggressively on these issues. But to suggest that there is no "controversy" surrounding them is to ignore reality.

[laughingliberal]

42. There should be no controversy about it, I think is the point.

And it is a valid point. Why in the hell is there any controversy among Democrats about whether equality is the right thing to do or whether it's the right thing to do?

I know what you're saying but it is tiring to see all the crap talking points excusing the lack of real effort on this from our leaders.

[onenote]

46. I see it more as controversy/disagreement over how to achieve equality

politically rather than whether its the right thing to do from a moral standpoint.

Again, I think the administration is being unduly cautious and should be far more aggressive in pursuing the reformation of discriminatory laws and policies.

[Prism]

48. It really isn't, not at all.

Here's the problem in a nutshell. There are a lot of people who will mouth the words "I support equality!" in mixed liberal company. It's the socially acceptable thing to do and it makes them feel morally and politically evolved.

However, whenever rubber meets road, there is this mysterious habit of it never ever being the right time, the right place, the right methods, the right words.

People can say whatever they want, but when their actions repeatedly contradict their stated support, then what's really going on here?

At best, it tells me you don't find human rights to be a particularly important issue worthy of oxygen when it isn't your equality being affected.

At worst, you not only don't care about equality, but you find your hostility towards the LGBT community a more compelling impulse to speak to and act upon.

There are way too many people whose efforts involve a bare minimum statement of "I will support equality!"

And my answer to them, invariably, is "Great. When do you plan on starting?"

The President does this. During the protest, he repeatedly said "I agree with you. I agree with you." But this is part of that deception. He agrees with us in words and sentiment, but when it comes time to actually do something, he either does nothing or he actively pushes against our equality.

This is unacceptable. This is not support. This is not moral agreement on an issue. It is rhetorical agreement torqued by active moral and physical opposition.

[onenote]

65. you're painting with a very broad brush

Undoubtedly some who counsel for going slow on reforming laws and policies that discriminate against the gay community may well be latent or even not-so-latent homophobes. But saying that they all are homophobes is akin to suggesting that those Congressional leaders who countenanced the passage of watered down civil rights bills in 1957 and 1960, before much stronger bills were passed in 1964 and 1965 (and even those bills were later strengthened further) were latent or not-so-latent racists. Some may have been. Others were politicians making political judgments about how best to get from point A to point B without getting derailed.

Again, and I say this every time, I agree with those who think that the administration is being unduly cautious in not pursuing a more aggressive effort to adopt rules/enact legislation dealing with disrimination against the gay community. But I'm not going to demonize those who think a slower approach is a political necessity by calling them out as bigots.

[Prism]

70. But when it's a pattern of behavior . . .

And, to be perfectly honest, these "go it slow" approaches aren't generally the only sentiments coming out of those I'm referencing. I have very, very, very rarely seen someone advocate the go it slow approach while not also simultaneously making unrelated bigoted remarks towards the LGBT community. The problem with bigotry is that it's commonly a package deal.

After years of experience, you begin learning which words are accompanied by other words and attitudes. If it were only advocating a "go it slow" approach without any other attending bigotry, that would be one thing.

But in my experience, the number of people I've encountered who that describes is vanishingly small.

You may think it's a broad brush, but I'm actually being generous here. It's usually a lot worse than that. Much, much worse.

[onenote]

80. fair enough. where someone exhibits bigotry through their comments

then I would agree with characteizing their position as being motivated by bigotry.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[mitchtv]

35. One more thing... LEADERSHIP

OF THE GAY CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT is the purview of Gay people. And, while we appreciate any help and support we get from strait society, they will not set the agenda and tell us what our priorities are.I know many here think they know better, they don't.I have been a Democrat for over 40 years, their leadership in this matter has been nonexistent, Listen up or pay the cost.

[Odin2005]

43. "Contrversial" is a euphemism for "a lot of people are bigots".

[RainDog]

44. People who call out the gblt community for pressing for equal rights are assholes.

and, sure, some democrats are assholes, but the party platform makes it pretty clear that if you claim to speak for the party, you're NOT when you try to marginalize those who constitute that same party.

some people need to come out of the closet and recognize they're really right wing assholes, maybe.

[NoSheep]

47. Thank you

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[havocmom]

51. ABSOLUTELY! Equal rights are not special rights

and none of us have rights unless all our brothers and sisters have them too.

[Solly Mack]

52. True, true.

[QC]

54. Kick! n/t

[Unvanguard]

55. Of course they are. Most of the population opposes marriage equality.

Something like twenty-nine states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, more than half of states have no legal protections for LGBT people, only a handful have same-sex marriage and only a handful more have meaningful legal recognition for same-sex couples. And none of this is for lack of trying on the part of gay rights advocates. They are not "up for discussion" in the rational sense, no--the case for equal rights is obviously correct, and nobody should pretend that this is the sort of thing about which reasonable people can disagree--but the simple reality is that the public is not there yet.

The extent to which this serves as a legitimate excuse for hesitant Democratic politicians, however, varies. When it comes to DADT and ENDA, which despite the controversy enjoy broad public support in principle, they need to act.

[EFerrari]

59. I don't think that's right that most American oppose marriage equality.

and the trend is to supporting marriage equality, afaik.

6.11.2009
Gay Marriage, State by State: A Tipping Point?
by Andrew Gelman @ 10:56 PM


http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/gay-marriage-state-by-state-tipping.html

[Unvanguard]

68. There's lots of polling data on that question that confirms what I said.

So, for instance, from this month, there's only 39% support: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

I follow the same-sex marriage fight pretty closely, and I've never actually seen a national poll that shows majority support for same-sex marriage. I'd be happy to revise my view if you could show me one.

I'd add also that what people say in abstract is likely to be more supportive than what people will say after a well-funded and deceptive hate campaign such as that which was unleashed in California in 2008, and it's at least plausible that there's a difference in intensity between supporters and opponents, so these are imperfect maps onto how much genuine political support there is for LGBT rights. So, for instance, the polling data has consistently suggested for years that strong majorities support legal recognition of same-sex couples, but only a minority of states--I think something like a third, last time I counted--provide such recognition, and DOMA, which will not be repealed anytime soon, forbids the extension of federal legal rights to same-sex couples in any fashion.

You're right about the trend, though. We'll win this fight, but it will take a while.

[muffin1]

71. I don't care how many people want same-sex marriage.

We need LAWS to end the discrimination. The majority should NEVER be allowed to VOTE on the rights of the minority.

For laws to be enacted, we need strong leaders with strong moral compasses. Sadly, I'm sure that means that I won't see equality in my lifetime.

[Unvanguard]

75. As far as the justice of enacting it, it doesn't make the slightest difference.

As far as the policy options open to doing so, it does.

This would be a different matter if litigation were consistently successful, but it isn't, and sometimes it backfires.

[onenote]

88. sadly, even passing laws doesn't mean you will see equality

I daresay that a lot of women and minorities who are protected by laws barring discrimination have more equality on paper than they have in reality.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be pushing aggressively to change the law...we should. But saying that you don't care how many people want same-sex marriage but that you want laws to end the discrimination --- well, in a democracy, its not always that easy to enact a law without any regard to how many people support its enactment.

[boston bean]

96. Again, Equality under the law is not based on whether a majority likes it or not.

please do not conflate the two.

[onenote]

103. the poster I was responding to suggested they didn't care how many people supported

same sex marriage, they wanted laws that would provide equality. They added that they didn't think they'd see equality in their lifetime.

My comment (1) pointed out that getting a law passed requires popular support. And even if you get a law, you don't necessarily get real "equality" in practice as we know from the unequal treatment still accorded to women and minorities.

In short, my point was don't conflate the concept of equality with a law.

[boston bean]

182. Since when does a law require popular support?

No, you cannot make people behave a certain way, but atleast the force of law will be on your side.

[EFerrari]

72. I don't want to overstate anything and looked at that poll, too.

Isn't 1500 odd people sort of a small sample? I know nada about statistics.

The search that I did shows that the country is about evenly split on civil unions.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11689/support-gay-marriagecivil-unions-edges-upward.aspx

so it's not civil rights that people have a problem with but the Ken and Barbi-fied image of what a marriage is that the right wing has spewed all over us with support from supine Democrats.

I guess that I'm happy Mr. Lincoln didn't have Gallup available to him.

[Unvanguard]

83. The sample size is fine; the margin of error is +/- 3%.

You don't have to poll a large percentage of the public to get accurate polling results; all you need, if you have a representative sample (which is the real challenge), is a sizable absolute number. That's not the only poll with those results, either: indeed, the poll you cite is comparable.

Actually, I think it is civil rights that people have a problem with. I'm speculating a bit here, but my supposition is that what people find offensive is the notion that same-sex relationships are somehow comparable to their own: on grounds of fairness they find it hard to defend denying same-sex couples legal rights, but they object to the notion that same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are on equal ground, are legitimate and worthy in terms analogous to their own. Hence their support for civil unions, and hence the fact that all the evidence suggests that socio-culturally, even civil unions that are formally equivalent to marriages are marked as inferior, and are "merely legal", devoid of any of the social power and meaning that marriage possesses.

[EFerrari]

94. The "merely legal" part seems to me to be the civil rights part.

It's the other, less objective, more emotional part that attracts all the wackos. As if the contingent of 50% failed straight marriages can somehow be diminished by gay marriage -- any more than it diminishes itself via divorce. lol

[Unvanguard]

102. I disagree. It's a civil rights issue just as "separate but equal" was.

Because it means that the law is intentionally assigning a status publicly-recognized as inferior and less significant to same-sex couples: it is a way for the state to institutionalize anti-gay bigotry, and to deny same-sex couples meaningful access to a central civil institution that is a constitutional right.

Civil unions mean very little in some ways; they are rarely enacted despite ostensible public support, they are often not very comprehensive, and when they are comprehensive they sometimes incite anti-gay initiatives of their own (e.g. in Washington last election). There's some polling evidence, too, that people mostly "support" them as a response to advocates of marriage equality than as an independent matter of justice: that is, they might say "You shouldn't get marriage because you can get civil unions", but not particularly advocate for--or, indeed, when push comes to shove, actually oppose--offering them to same-sex couples. (Support for civil unions climbed significantly after Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage.)

[EFerrari]

107. Right, I agree it's a civil rights issue and was only suggesting

that most people don't seem to be against the "rights" part. But, you may be right that some people support civil unions as a backhanded way to deny marriage rights. And that's depressing.

[Unvanguard]

110. Sorry, I see what you're saying now.

And you're right, the legal rights themselves arouse less controversy, though probably more than the polling results might indicate.

Perhaps in part because over these past few days I've been reading the federal Prop. 8 trial transcripts, which have extensive personal and academic testimony to the failure of theoretically-equivalent domestic partnerships/civil unions to actually provide something even approximating marriage, I am feeling particularly emphatic right now about emphasizing the difference.

[EFerrari]

111. The passage of H8 radicalized me entirely and I'm only a supporter.

I'm still angry about that.

[onenote]

90. I'm curious -- are you implying a majority of the citizens of the union

-- the states that didn't secede -- were opposed to freeing the slaves through the Emancipation Proclamation and that Lincoln took that action without regard to the politics of the decision?

[closeupready]

56. +1000.

Talk about them being 'controversial' is de facto apologism for homophobia. :mad:

[unhappycamper30]

57. K&R

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

76. I would have to say that the mere existence of this thread if proff that it is.

If it wasn't a controversial topic, then would you have posted this thread?
It shouldn't be cotroversial, but it is.
Simply because a self-selected demographic holds a homogenous viewpoint does not mean the viewpoint is not controversial.

[boston bean]

79. what should not be controversial is LGBT rights amongst liberals, progressives and democrats.

[Orsino]

84. They shouldn't be, but are...along with many other human rights. n/t

[TheOther95Percent]

85. Agreed.

[csziggy]

92. Human rights should not be controversial but that is how low we've sunk

Since the ERA stalled, human rights have been backsliding. The denial of gay rights are just one indication. There should never have been any thought of allowing torture, of ignoring the Geneva Conventions, of treating people who are lured to this country to work for substandard wages as criminals, etc, etc, etc.

This country used to be a leader for human rights, but in the last thirty years we have become one of the adversaries to human rights. I am ashamed of our record.

[xchrom]

95. Recommend

[DesertRat]

97. Right on

:thumbsup:

[pecwae]

98. k&r.

[harry_pothead]

99. K&R

[tbyg52]

101. +7 nt

[amborin]

104. K&R

[ruggerson]

106. recommended n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

109. I agree completely.

The "wait" should have long ago been over.

[AmericaIsGreat]

112. Actually, they are.

But they shouldn't be.

[hayu_lol]

114. Aw C'mon guys...

The title of this thread is incorrect. Almost everything that we do, say, express in any way, is controversial. To say that this is incorrect is to bury one's head in a bucket of sand.

To paint a house white in a brownhouse neighborhood is controversial to some.

Equality is one subject, controversy another.

Most Liberals would like to have equality in all human relationships. Then we can go about our business without the nuts and cranks and loons bothering any of us.

[lib_wit_it]

116. Heard that. K&R!

[Lerkfish]

117. I agree with the title completely. The second part is more grey

I think you can be liberal in all other aspects and still be a homophobe, unfortunately.

I think the proof was the last election when gay rights were expendable. (not in my mind, but in the mind of a seeming majority of posters here)

[handmade34]

118. unfortunately "gay rights" are controversial

I believe in human rights and there is no controvery for me, but... we are a big country, with lots of people, fundamentalist Christians and bigots alike. All of us that are aware must fight for human rights, just as we have been doing for years. I agree with your premise that anyone who would put human rights of any kind up for discussion (personally) is not a Democrat.

I understand in the bigger context, many people may recognize the need to "put it up for discussion" understanding that the rights of all people, including the LCBT population must be supported (not as in- questioning it)

[boston bean]

120. Why is it that the point of this thread is overlooked by some.

Can you discuss the controversy within liberal, progressive, democratic atmosphere?

[Laughing Mirror]

154. Good question

And an obvious answer would be, yes, you can discuss the controversy within a liberal, progressive, democratic atmosphere, providing you're in one.

[handmade34]

163. there should be no controvery in

a liberal, progressive, democratic atmosphere democratic.org....

""Reclaiming Our Civil Rights & Liberties...
We believe in the essential American ideal...

Unfortunately, for too many, that ideal is not a reality. We have more work to do. Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that's the America we believe in.

We all have to do our part to lift up this country, and that means changing hearts and changing minds, and making sure that every American is treated equally under the law"

"It is not enough to look back in wonder at how far we have come; those who came before us
did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time.
That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America.
We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation,
and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive
bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all
attempts to use this issue to divide us"

[QC]

121. DADT repeal has the support of 75% of the public,

so why is The Fierce Advocate so terrified of doing anything about it?

[riderinthestorm]

119. K & R back to the top of the page, where this belongs. nt

[tekisui]

122. knr!

Bigots and bigot apologists, neither are liberal positions.

[sui generis]

123. were you on DU running up to the 2008 election?

Occasionally STILL catch whiffs of the shut up n vote crowd. I think most of the truly ignant ones are gone or in hiding.

[YOY]

128. Oh no Sui...I know one who is very open about how he feels the "left" should be used when useful

and ignored at all other times.

[cbdo2007]

124. If gay rights are not controversial then why all the controversy over them?

[TZ]

126. Ummm civil rights were "controversial" back in the 60's

I seem to recall governments sicking dogs, riot police and water cannons on those "uppity" types who believed blacks deserved equality.
There are plenty of homophobic bigots in this country who don't belive lgbt people should have equal rights. What the OP is saying is that PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS should not be calling gay rights not important. :eyes:

[Hepburn]

125. Marriage is a HUMAN right...

...no need for further discussion of the issue as to what kind of parties are allowed this civil right. If one has reached a certain age, is not under duress and has the capacity to consent to a contract ~~ that satisfies IMO all of the interests which involve legitimate state interests in using its power for allow those parties to form a contract. Race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, etc., in no manner enter into that equation. It is simple contract law. There is nothing controvesial about allowing two parties who able to contract to be allowed to do so in order to govern their own lives as they wish.

JMHO

[d_r]

127. I'm with you

[YOY]

129. +1

n/t

[defendandprotect]

131. For many . . . human rights for others is still "controversial" . . . !!!

:)

[grahamhgreen]

132. Gays would have been GETTING MARRIED since the dawn of thime if the Bible hadn't said to kill them!

[William769]

133. Amen Brother!

[RobinA]

134. Nonsense.

"Controversial" means that people disagree in a significant way. The perceived morality of either side doesn't change whether, in fact, people disagree.

[boston bean]

135. So you believe, that people who identify as progressives can be bigots?

and homophobia and bigotry is a perfectly acceptable position to hold within the Democratic Party? And be welcomed into the progressive community?

[JuniperLea]

140. "Position to hold"

That's a right... you can't be the thought police... you can "hold a position" and not use it to hate on people, or use it to deny another their right. For example, I hate abortion with a fiery passion... but I would defend most earnestly and strongly a woman's right to make that decision with her doctor. Live and let live is very, very progressive.

[cbdo2007]

144. How do you define "progressive"?

By people's thoughts or by their actions?

How do you judge their actions, by their vote "Yes" or "No" on same sex marriage, or by their attitudes toward and acceptance of same sex couples?

[RobinA]

153. No, I Believe

that "controversial" means that people disagree on the issue in significant numbers. There's nothing about "should," "acceptable," "bigotry" implied by the word.

[boston bean]

170. What do you and I disagree about concerning LGBT rights?

[foxfeet]

136. K&R

[redqueen]

145. Hear hear!

K&R!

[AuntPatsy]

149. Too late to recommend but will kick for the truth

[Norrin Radd]

155. Absolutely.

[awoke_in_2003]

159. k&r...

too bad that way too many here don't see that.

[ZombieHorde]

160. Controversy = public debate. nt

[Prism]

161. I meant in Democratic circles

Unfortunately, it's too late to change the OP for clarity.

I'm talking about liberals and Democrats who stand around all day wondering if now is the right time for equality, because it's all so controversial.

That is a horseshit sentiment that has no place in our party.

IMO.

[ZombieHorde]

162. I agree that now is the time to support gay civil rights.

Unfortunately, it's too late to change the OP for clarity.

I have made many unclear OPs here on DU. I totally understand.

[Divine Discontent]

164. amen

[TeeYiYi]

165. Maybe this is just semantics, but...

Gay Rights ARE controversial. Should they be? NO! Are they? YES.

And, I agree... the discussion predicates along party lines. Republicans = rabid. Democrats = not so much.

TYY

[saracat]

166. Funny how both Gay Rights and Women's Rights are considered

"controversial" and both are relegated to bargaining chips by the Democrats but racism is not and is considered untouchable and unacceptable. I have heard many alleged liberals wholeheartedly engage in both sexism and homophobia without blinking an eye yet if one was to even mention race, they would be apoplectic! Why are not all these issues equal? Are they not all human rights? We do not have choices as to gender or sexual orientation anymore than we do skin color. What is so hard to accept about granting ALL our citizens equal rights?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

167. In this world of hate ...

and violence, we need love. Love is not controversial, should not be controversial, love is needed. Just please get over the sex differential.

People, all and any people, in this "free' country have rights. Rights to be concerned about their loved ones, rights to protect their loved ones,
My rights, as a father, extend to my sons, my wife's to her daughter. Same sex. What's the controversial point? None.

But let that be a concern from one male/female to another of like kind, not related, but in love with each other, controversial! Think Not!!!

We are all homosexual.

Ron White, the comedian, said it best. follow link (LOL)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0eiDhxYpJA

[anigbrowl]

168. They should not be, but they are.

Acknowledging that opposition exists isn't an endorsement of it.

[Gman2]

169. No such thing as GAY rights. Just human rights.

[BlueIris]

171. K&R. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

172. Any civil rights are not - nor should they ever be up for a vote

Gay rights, women's rights... and on and on.

Just the very idea that someone claiming basic human rights - rights that are theirs by birth, not given to them by anyone - just the very idea that there's anything controversial about that... it's ridiculous.

[onenote]

174. how do you pass laws protecting civil rights without voting for them?

[pleah]

173. K&R

[varelse]

175. K&R

[JackDragna]

176. Of course they're controversial..

..which is why they're such a hot-button issue and worth fighting for. Causes that everyone supports do not need champions and people to fight for them. It is because gay rights are controversial that we must not back down and let it get tossed aside. Controversial causes are the only ones worth defending.

[BlooInBloo]

177. If one pretends that "controversial" means whatever you want it to mean, then sure.

[onpatrol98]

178. President Obama Supports Civil Unions Not Marriage

Same Sex Marriage does not fit the President's definition of Marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBi1F-XFPzc

[Pryderi]

179. only 169 recs? K&R

[Pryderi]

184. Went down to 168 recs...

[av8rdave]

180. I would be very curious, if there were a way....

To see a Venn Diagram of racists vs. homophobes/anti gay people.

I have no scientific or statistical evidence to back this up, but my guess would be there would be a HUGE intersection of the groups.

I'll bet the two groups have very similar mindsets, fears and deep seated feelings of inferiority.

[proudohioan]

181. Human rights should never be controversial. We are all members of the Human Race.

[walldude]

183. K&R...

We live in bizarro world for sure. We debate things like equal rights and torture, like there is some reasonable alternative to a persons rights or to torture. There is no reasonable alternative. Period. Glad to see your thread made it to the front page. I have done a few of these and watched them drop like a stone. There is a surprising number of people on this board who believe that political expedience is more important that GLBT rights.

And now they won't do anything with elections coming up. Then it will be on the backburner while they deal with "something more important" then it'll be an election year again, etc, etc.

This is going to be an issue that Democrats are going to have to be forced to deal with. Problem is there are very few Democrats who think that a persons rights are as important as being re-elected and keeping their power. And the Dem supporters are willing to allow them to continue like this. If you dare to say "I won't vote for a Democrat who does not support equal rights for the GLBT community" then you are berated, and told it'll be your fault if the Republicans win back control.

It's frustrating as hell for me and I'm not even gay.