Newsom Blasts Dems For Not Supporting Gay Marriage

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/020905newsom.htm

you go!

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom got a reception usually reserved for a head of state Tuesday when he addressed students at Harvard University.

Speaking at the John F. Kennedy School of Government Newsom dismissed accusations that his decision to allow same-sex marriages helped reelect President George W. Bush and motivated voters in 11 states to approve constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

"That train had already left the station," Newsom said. "This was going to be used as a wedge issue regardless of whether or not some crazy mayor was sworn in in San Francisco or not."

[Shakespeare]

1. SO proud of Newsom--has backbone & is doing the right thing. n/t

[davidinalameda]

2. one of the few Democrats that is doing something right

he's awesome

[foreigncorrespondent]

3. This man...

...just won my respect all over again for saying; "We’re talking about marriage here. It is an institution of stability." THAT is what EVERY Democrat in office should be saying!!!

[spunky]

4. While I think he's intentions were noble,

he did help scare conservatives into reacting to this issue. I live in Mississippi. I kept reading day in and day out people saying how disgusting it was to see the TV images of same sex couples in SF getting married. He opened pandora's box. All of a sudden other mayors started trying to do the same thing. And while I thought it was great for all the homosexual couples who got to get married, I immediately also thought that it would have an enormous backlash. And it did. It absolutely scared a lot of conservative Christians into mobilizing.

In fact, I'd say he probably did more harm than good as far as getting same-sex marriages recognized.

And while the Mass. Supreme Court decision also fanned those flames, I honestly believe that had Newsom not done what he did, there would not have been as many same-sex marriage amendments on the ballots in November.

Did Newsom get Bush re-elected? Maybe not. Did his actions help Bush get re-elected? Absolutely.

[Shakespeare]

5. That myth has already been disproved.

The issue that got Bush re-selected was security. Terra. It wasn't the scary gay people that did it.

But hey, let's ask them to sit in the back of the bus just a little longer, out of political expediency.

[spunky]

7. I didn't say that.

I'm not saying the issue should be ignored for political expediency, nor do I believe that. He did what he thought was right, and good on him for that. But where I live, the discussions I've heard, and the opinion articles, letters to the editor etc. that I have read indicate pretty clearly that his actions had very strong reprecussions.

Its not a perfect world. Sometimes doing what is right and standing up for the things you believe in will have negative effects. Its sad but true.

[Shakespeare]

8. Yes, you did. And you just said it again.

"But where I live, the discussions I've heard, and the opinion articles, letters to the editor etc. that I have read indicate pretty clearly that his actions had very strong reprecussions."

The gay marriage "backlash," and the alleged emphasis on "moral values" in this election, simply did not happen. The media latched onto some questionable polling information immediately after the election, but more in-depth analysis since then has disproven that either of those things helped Bush get re-elected.

[spunky]

10. No, that is not what I said.

I said that it had reprecussions. I said that it helped re-elect Bush. I didn't say it was the only issue involved. Every action has reprecussions.

I don't care what the exit polls say. I find it impossible to believe that not a single preson who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to vote showed up at the polls on election day to vote against gay marriage. And I'd bet every penny I have and every penny I will ever earn that people like that DIDN'T vote for John Kerry.

And if there was no backlash, why did so many states scramble to get anti-same-sex marriage amendments on the ballots after his (and the Mass Supreme court's) actions? Coincidence? I doubt it.

But lets agree to disagree. You can listen to the polls, I'll listen to what I hear and read real people, voters, around me saying.

[Shakespeare]

16. You just said it AGAIN. I think you misunderstand my original point.

I didn't say you said it was the ONLY thing that helped Bush--but you are definitely claiming that it DID help. It didn't. Post-election analysis has completely vindicated Newsom on this front.

People who voted for Bush because of the gay marriage issue were--NEWS FLASH--going to vote for Bush anyway. It DID NOT win him new voters. That's what has been disproven.

I'm not talking about exit polls. And thanks for that kneejerk little insult about "I don't follow polls"--that sounds familiar; I don't follow them, either, but I do watch for solid, informed analysis, which is quite a different animal.

Let me say this one more time: Anybody who voted for Bush who opposed gay marriage WAS GOING TO VOTE FOR BUSH ANYWAY. It was NOT a net gain for him.

Again, myth disproven. Newsom vindicated.

I'm still shaking my head that in the days following the election, we actually had DUers saying we should back off on gay rights issues. Over my dead body--I expect my GLBT friends to stand up for my rights as a woman, and I will likewise stand up for their rights.

[spunky]

17. I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying it changed who they

voted for, I'm saying it helped bring them out to the polls.

Obviously a Conservative Christians who is against gay marriage would never have voted for Kerry. My point is that without all the gay marriage fear propaganda spread in churches throughout this country, they might not have voted at all.

Voter turnout in this country is generally abysmal. Anything that could help either side turn out more voters than normal could very easily have had a bearing on the outcome of the election.

As far as analysis of the exit polls, I've seen several stories saying the Kerry voters were more likely than Bush voters to answer the polls. They can analyze the exit (or any other polls) until they are blue in the face. If the polls are not a representative cross-section of voters, they are meaningless. You feed garbage in to SPSS, you get garbage out.

That's my last word on this. I'm sorry you don't like my opinion, I'm sorry my opinion differs from yours. I'm glad Newsom did what he did, but I still believe he helped bring the Christian Right to the polls on election day and that that increase in conservative voter turnout had an effect on the outcome of the election.

[Shakespeare]

18. Your opinion relies on flawed and incorrect information.

Your info on exit polls and voter turnout is incorrect. It's not a matter of "opinion," it's a matter of cold, hard facts (and has been discussed here in great detail).

But you go right on thinking that.

on edit: Let me explain why I'm not just shrugging this off--it's not personal. All of the vague trends you cited are simply false; they've been disproven. I can't just agree to disagree on that, because doing so allows that phony information to float around out there, and allows legions of people, mostly on the right, but, sadly, also some on the left, to argue that the GLBT community shouldn't enjoy the same rights the rest of us do. And that is WRONG. I refuse to give them that ammo; I refuse to agree to disagree and just drop it.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

159. link to cold hard facts?

[athenap]

30. There's always a bogeyman

I don't necessarily believe that the actions of Newson--or any other of the states/governors/lawmakers who encouraged or passed legislation of fairness and equality in commitment (that's my personal gay-marriage meme--everytime someone brings it up as "gay marriage" I correct them and say "it's about equality in commitment," because Ohio's shameful amendment carried language so harsh that anyone in a civil or common-law union--man, woman, or goat--that one's for Santorum--is potentially affected).

The religious right is fighting against a societal change that extends further than the law or the election--they're fighting against the progression of society. Society is accepting of gays. They've become part of our culture. They're here, they're queer, and we're getting used to it. The religious right *hates* that. They can't stand anything, really, that suggests a plural society, and gays have become their bogeymen. They were bound to inflate the "booga booga" factor, using whatever they had at hand...they'd make up stuff if they didn't have anything, and blow it out of proportion if they did. Look at their arguments--"gay marriage will destroy society?" And yet nobody can come up with a halfway coherent explanation as to why.

We shouldn't be blaming this on the people who've done the right thing. We should be blaming those who rightly deserve it--the fearmongering bigots whose worldview is so small and fragile that they are compelled to destroy that which is different from them, because deep down they know that they have no true faith or understanding--that their worldview is so shaky that one small upset will collapse their entire house of cards.

[Zhade]

172. Awesome post, welcome to DU!

NT!

[jdj]

222. His wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle-Newsom, helped prosecute Diane Whipple's

case, she was the gay woman who was killed by the dogs in San Fran.

I really feel like this influenced his decision, and I think he did a brave thing.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

245. Very well said, thanks

I hate to hear people suggesting that by Newsom doing the right thing, he did the wrong thing.

When I worked in Iowa for Howard Dean, I canvassed with a guy who had been with his partner for many many years. We kept in touch after we returned to our own lives -- bonded indeed by those days spent together in the bitter cold suburbs of Des Moines -- and I was thrilled when he wrote to me and told me that he and his partner took a trip to SF that month and had a real wedding.

Newsom showed tremendous courage and conviction, and he earned my full respect. It's not his fault that there are so many narrow-minded people in this country.

[The Doctor.]

243. I agree with you, you are absolutely correct....

The Firestorm of Gay Marriage that Newsome lit DID bring more people to the polls... INCLUDING many who wouldn't have voted if they hadn't seen all this hullabaloo on the TV.

Of course, I'm also talking about the opponents of gay marriage, as well as the droves who came out to support it who might not have otherwise.

Yes, it affected MANY people.

[Q3JR4]

110. ....

I'll march with you to protect your rights as a woman any day Shakespeare!

:yourock:

[Shakespeare]

114. Thanks! We've ALL got to stick together!!

I will always "err" (quotation marks used intentionally) on the side of doing the right thing, because that is never, ever a mistake.

:toast:

[Zhade]

Thank you so much for saying this.

Thanks to all on our side, in fact!

[readmoreoften]

67. You know conservatives don't like the poor either

So are we supposed to change our stance on economic issues to gain conservative votes?

If Kerry said, "You know what... I think the president isn't doing ENOUGH to protect our security. We need to go into Iran, Syria, and maybe even France" he also would have won the votes of jingoistic assholes. He also would have trumped Bush on the ability to scare people.

If the DNC came out and said: The Democratic Party is the Party of the Lord Jesus Christ. I bet those freepers would've hopped on board.

Bush was going to use Gay Marriage as a wedge anyway. Even if NO MAYOR IN THIS COUNTRY ratified same-sex marriage, Rove would've plastered the media with Gay Pride Parade pro-same-sex marriage photos.

Basically, what you're really saying is that gay people should shut the fuck up completely-- no demands for visitation rights in hospitals, child custody, job security. Just husssshhhhhhh and wait until the good democrats get back in office. But when the good democrats got back in office, the only thing that would happen would be NOTHING. Because the first time a democrat mentioned that gays should be recognized as full citizens, the SAME JINGOISTIC IDIOTS would whip up anti-democratic fervor and do THE SAME THING THEY'RE DOING NOW.

What you don't understand is that their hate is not going away. The ENTIRE WORLD is progressing on issues of gay and gender discrimination. Are GLBT people in the US going to sit back and watch other citizens of other countries be treated fairly, while they are beaten, murdered, isolated, and constantly in fear of losing their jobs? Of course not.

The theocrats must be dealt with swiftly, intelligently, and directly. Remember, many believe that homosexual conduct should be a capital crime. Also, remember, that if they ever got their way, you'd probably be next.

[TheWraith]

176. Sorry, but you're dead wrong.

I don't know how you could possibly assert that gay marriage didn't help Bush "at all", or that this is some kind of myth. It is, as you put it, a cold hard fact, regardless of whether or not you want to see it. If you look at the actual vote data, the places with the biggest increases in turnout for Bush versus four years ago are the strongholds of religious fundamentalism. Places like Colorado Springs, for instance, and western Ohio. And the fundie churches spent a hell of a lot of time and effort dragging their people out to vote. Argue politics versus principle if you want, but there's no logical and rational way to deny the facts of the case. The gay marriage issue brought the fundies out of their holes in droves.

[greeklady]

183. At the risk of getting bashed here

Yes, you are correct. I personally know six different people who probably would NOT have voted otherwise and they all said this was the issue that galvanized them to vote. The gay amendments DID help Bush, unfortunately. :mad:

[Divine Discontent]

181. that's not necessarily true...

because I saw in one-on-one voter interviews about why people were voting for bush or kerry, some young guy with his buddy said no question about it, his #1 reason for supporting bush was keeping gays from getting married....


there's tens of thousands just like him...

bigoted, and sometimes even closeted, jerks.

God bless Mr. Newsom

[VegasWolf]

6. Yes, but did Newsom do what is right? Absolutely! As I remember

people in Mississippi wern't too happy about blacks
sitting in the front of the bus.

[Old Mouse]

25. I mean no insult

but as a black and an extreme liberal progressive, I ask you to please refrain from comparing the gay marriage issue to America's Jim Crow past. It does neither justice.

[StuckinKS]

45. You are right that they are not exactly the same thing

because no two groups' experiences of prejudice are ever the same.

Is the Hispanic experience of prejudice in America the same as the African-American?

How about the Asian-American? Native-American? Jew?

No, they all pale in comparison to the African-American experience, mainly because of slavery and its aftermath. The gay experience is no different. It differs in a great many ways but shares many common features as well.

But it does no one any good to degrade the plight of another oppressed group. It doesn't matter if you have a handful of shit or a mouthful of shit. It's still shit.


Edited for clarity of intent

[VegasWolf]

83. Point taken, I wasn't meaning to compare one with the other in

terms of an apples to apples comparision. Slavery was
extreme. What I am pointing out is that prejudice against
minorities seems to be a constant. Conservatives who
fight change do a disservice to all. Hate crimes against
any minority should be outlawed. Freedoms restricted to
minorities should be outlawed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. If anyone can explain to me how gay marriage affects the lives

of straight people, then I might believe they were scared into the enemy camp by it.

All it did was give people a forum in which they could express their prejudice. They were already in the enemy camp. I can't imagine that anyone who opposed gay marriage voted for * solely on that basis, particularly since Kerry also came out against it.

Strawman.

[spunky]

13. Yeah, they passed a ban on same sex marriages here and now

one of the bills the new Mississippi legislature is considering is one that would remove the blood tests and three day waiting period for marriage liscences. That will do far more to undermine marriage and increase divorce rates than same-sex marriages ever could.

[Anakin Skywalker]

56. Well Said.

[Tinoire]

239. I think you have to stop thinking like you and start thinking like them

First trick of manipulation- know thine enemy, know how he thinks, know what makes him tick and why. I already posted this in this thread but since it's so long, here goes again...


Linguistics professor George Lakoff at the Free Speech Movement Café. (BAP photos)

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

What are some other examples of issues that progressives should try to reframe?

There are too many examples, that's the problem. The so-called energy crisis in California should have been called Grand Theft. It was theft, it was the result of deregulation by Pete Wilson, and Davis should have said so from the beginning.

Or take gay marriage, which the right has made a rallying topic. Surveys have been done that say Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Well, the same surveys show that they also overwhelmingly object to discrimination against gays. These seem to be opposite facts, but they're not. "Marriage" is about sex. When you say "gay marriage," it becomes about gay sex, and approving of gay marriage becomes implicitly about approving of gay sex. And while a lot of Americans don't approve of gay sex, that doesn't mean they want to discriminate against gay people. Perfectly rational position. Framed in that way, the issue of gay marriage will get a lot of negative reaction. But what if you make the issue "freedom to marry," or even better, "the right to marry"? That's a whole different story. Very few people would say they did not support the right to marry who you choose. But the polls don't ask that question, because the right wing has framed that issue.

Do any of the Democratic Presidential candidates grasp the importance of framing?

None. They don't get it at all. But they're in a funny position. The framing changes that have to be made are long-term changes. The conservatives understood this in 1973. By 1980 they had a candidate, Ronald Reagan, who could take all this stuff and run with it. The progressives don't have a candidate now who understands these things and can talk about them. And in order for a candidate to be able to talk about them, the ideas have to be out there. You have to be able to reference them in a sound bite. Other people have to put these ideas into the public domain, not politicians. The question is, How do you get these ideas out there? There are all kinds of ways, and one of the things the Rockridge Institute is looking at is talking to advocacy groups, which could do this very well. They have more of a budget, they're spread all over the place, and they have access to the media.

Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues. They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity. People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and Democrats don't understand that. Look at Schwarzenegger, who says nothing about the issues. The Democrats ask, How could anyone vote for this guy? They did because he put forth an identity. Voters knew who he is.

(snip)

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[davidinalameda]

11. how long does it take to get a measure on a ballot

the marriages started in February or late January I believe

you're saying that these ballot measures were ready to go for November in less than 10 months time?

I think the Mass. ruling played a bigger part in the ballot measures than what Gavin did

[spunky]

14. Can't speak for other states, but there was no discussion of it here

until after the Newsom stuff.

[davidinalameda]

38. in Mississippi?

I find that hard to believe

[spunky]

46. Just searched the Clarion-Ledger's archives (Jackson, MS paper)

and there is no mention of a marriage amendment prior to Feb. 2004. After Newsom. And the Clarion-Ledger is by far the biggest paper in Mississippi.

[dsc]

168. You should

They were talking about such an amendment when I lived there from 95 to 97. While they didn't do it they did discuss it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

12. Oh please!

Stop blaming the queers for Bush*s win! Remember there wasn't a move from the gay community for same sex marriage when the repukes began talking about a federal marriage amendment!

They began talking about a federal marriage amendment while the bitch from hell was drawing it up in order to put their feelers out there. Then what do ya know, a federal marriage amendment was introduced months AFTER they began talking about it, and saw the line the Dem's would take.

They had every intention on using this as a wedge issue because they realized that the weak-kneed Dem's would fall right into their trap. And THAT is exactly what happened!

Instead of the Dem's coming out and taking the proper moral ground, and then turning the fight to where it should have been (i.e: economy, Iraq, soldiers deaths, etc) they turned their back on a large part of their voting base!

If you want to blame anyone for Bush*s win, how about putting blame where it needs to go (i.e: Bush*, the repukes, Diebold, your own Democratic officials, etc.)

The same thing happened here in Australia with the Australian Labor Party. When Howard introduced a measure to disenfranchise the gay community from ever marrying here, Latham, the weak-kneed leader of the ALP supported it, and guess what happened to him? He didn't get elected PM last October. And now, he is a washed up has been, because he lost the leadership of his own party too.

[Old Mouse]

24. I agree

This well-intentioned miscalculation put at risk decades of progressive domestic partner success.

But I think many people are too invested or polarized on either side of this issue for this sort of discussion to take place. Conversation on the issue can easily be thrown into a "with us or against us" mindset.

[6th Borough]

182. I don't think your home state had any chance of going for Kerry...

this election cycle, regardless of any "wedge-issues", no offense. In the future, economically Miss. should, in a more rational world, vote Democratic...I don't see this happening any time in the near future, however. I seriously doubt the "gay agenda" tipped Mississippi into the "red" column. Even slightly.

[JerseygirlCT]

203. I think that sometimes

you have to go through that backlash before you get to the point where people are saying: what's the big deal?

I'm sure it played into the hands of the bigots to some extent. I'm torn about that: do you do what's right, even when it causes short-term (or perhaps long-term?) harm? Or do you choose the more expedient course?

I'm one of those people with absolutely no conflicting feelings about gay-marriage. It's a civil rights issue, and there's absolutely no civic reason gays shouldn't be granted every right hetero citizens are. I understand that even many people with otherwise open minds still feel a bit hedgy on the issue.

So how to we move beyond that w/o people like Newsom willing to ruffle feathers -- even if it riles up the bigots to action?

[Mich Otter]

223. the TV images of same sex couples

Did you notice how much playtime those images got while there were virtually no programs or stories that showed how decently Gays live? The media is stacked against the human rights side of the issue and very supportive of feeding the pitiful bias of the bigots.

[Shakespeare]

224. I don't understand your point.

I found those images deeply moving--and it made very, very clear that these are normal folks, just like any hetero couple. Some young, some old, some kind of saggy and worn, others attractive. The treatment of those images was, almost across the board, very positive.

I don't agree that showing the images was bigoted--I think it actually helped our side.

[Mich Otter]

232. "I don't understand your point."

I'll try to explain myself here. Sometimes I have a hard time getting written words to say exactly what I want to present.
I think the people who have a disposition to view gay relationships as something that offends their values got to see the images and had pretty much no opportunity to to see programs learn about gays and their lives.
Why doesn't the media choose to show more pairs of ladies kissing? Ladies kissing just doesn't get the gut reaction that guys kissing does with much, (I would assume mostly males), of our society here in America.
I think there is a bias in the media to stick to just showing gay males kissing rather than presenting information in the programing which would, hopefully, enlighten Americans about the fact that being gay is a normal part of life and society. Instead, the media choses to portray gay people almost exclusively by using images that causes the most negative reaction. The media shows itself to be intent on fanning the flames of bigotry.
America, as a nation, needs to do a lot of maturing. We need to move past so much of the racism, sexism, bigotry towards homosexuality, as well as learning more mature ways to deal with sexuality in general, dealing with drug use, etc...
I hope this makes some sense.

[mutus_frutex]

251. Postponing civil rights fights for political reasons

is a very illiberal thing to do.

As in the case of black civil rights, the fight is made of small fights that build to the big issue. In the case of gays the fight for marriage is a big fight that is fought in many small battles.

[Cocoa]

15. not all dems are in SF

he should go a little easier. Taking a strong pro-gay-marriage stance is a lot easier for the mayor of San Francisco than it is for others.

[davidinalameda]

42. bullshit

sorry for the profanity but that is a crock

you and the other apologists want all the queers to get in the back of the bus and settle for second class citizenship

and some of those apologists include the so-called leadership of the gay rights movement

the Democratic Party is becoming nothing more than Repuke lite and this is one issue that I refuse to settle on

[w4rma]

19. Fight for civil unions. Stir up too much dust over "gay marriage" and

they'll rewrite the Constitution banning it thereby setting the precident towards rewriting it to curtail alot more rights.

[SnowBack]

20. Glad at least SOME Democrats have backbones...

As opposed to people who try to shove us Gays and Lesbians to the back of the bus.... "Civil Unions are the same"

Bull.... There are over 1,000 rights and responisbilities that come with marriage. Rights we DESERVE...

Marriage is the only equality we will accept. Whether people in Mississippi can deal with it in 2005 or not.

Separate is NOT equal.

They can't rewrite the constitution if the Democrats grow spines and stop trying to be Repuke-lites.

Find some candidates who actually BELIEVE in something and take back the House or Senate.

Us darn "uppity queers" wanting marriage... Just WHO do we think we are? We should shut up and accept Civil Unions.... I will when straights accept that their marriages get turned into Civil Unions.

[w4rma]

21. Gay marriage is supported by only about 33% or so of the population

That's all. *And* it's a major wedge issue that Repugs can, and will use, to expand their power and remove other liberties.

I'm sorry but I'm just stating the cold hard fact that gay marriage in America won't happen any time soon and it's a political career killer for any major politician to support it. Newsom has assured that mayor of San Fransisco will be the pinnacle of his political career, where as otherwise he might have moved up towards getting elected as governor otherwise.

Sure, it's "brave" for a politician to support this. He has a "backbone". He's also assured that he won't go any further than mayor for the next 20 or 30 years, at least.

[IndianaGreen]

22. And a majority believe that Jesus is God

Does that make it alright that the majority makes it mandatory that people believe in Jesus? Does prejudice, however widely held, make it alright? Think of Nazi Germany or the segregated South. A majority felt that their prejudices were just fine!

[w4rma]

23. The folks with the power determine what is "alright" and what isn't.

At least until we get to our afterlifes.

[IndianaGreen]

231. which is why the Gnostics were declared heretics

by a Church backed by the Holy Roman Emperor.

[SnowBack]

33. Gay marriage has already happened in America

And people in Massachusetts are already getting used to it...

And the haters will eventually be replaced by supporters.


Over the long haul, Gay marriage WILL happen in the U.S. (I'm just stating a hard cold fact, whether bigots can deal with it or not.)


And expect to see Newsom become a major political force in the U.S. - not just San Francisco...

[Shakespeare]

36. Yup.

The NY courts are dealing with this now, and will come down in favor of it. It'll go like dominoes, with red states lagging farthest behind.

Those who keep saying "people just aren't ready for it" need to step back and take a long, hard look at themselves on this one. It comes down to basic constitutional rights. Period.

And Newsom is, in my opinion, our brightest rising star. And why? Because he's sincere and wants to do what's right, and is willing to put his own ass on the line for it. You can't go wrong with that.

[DrWeird]

35. Interracial marriage was only supported by about 15% of Americans.

back in the sixties.

So would you like to outlaw interracial marriage?

[sffreeways]

233. Wrong

I know Newsom personally and I know where his money and backing is coming from and it's coming from behind the scenes uber wealthy progressive republicans in CA with ties that go right into the oval office. Trust me...he's a rising star gay marriage and all.

[athenap]

39. Actually...

<i>Us darn "uppity queers" wanting marriage... Just WHO do we think we are? We should shut up and accept Civil Unions.... I will when straights accept that their marriages get turned into Civil Unions.</i>

I think that's a pretty good idea. I know here in Ohio, most people didn't read our amendment further than the "no marriage between same sex couples" part and completely ignored the far more shameful "no other union to approximate" clause. In fact, the people I talked to didn't really think it through when I pointed out that common law partnerships were affected, longtime het partners were affected, and anyone seeking a partnership that wasn't classified as "marriage" for any reason was affected. People were actually uninformed enough to believe that without the amendment, their churches would be forced to marry gays (for the record, as far as I know, any church can marry whomever it wants--it's just a question of whether the officiant is also licensed by the state to perform a state marriage as well).

In spite of the fact that in many cultures, marriage is a purely secular thing, in ours, it's turned into a religious thing. So take the state out of religion and the religion out of the state and render all state-sanctioned unions as "civil unions" and let the churches have religious "marriages." The civil unions will determine benefits and rights and such, and the marriages are the blessings of churches or deities.

So this thinking person and married het is all in favor of civil unions--for *everybody* that wants them.

[readmoreoften]

70. Exactly. If we fought for civil unions we'd get bupkis

Do you REEEEALLLLY think that if we even entertained this 'civil unions' argument that these theocrats and their legions wouldn't put out APBs that said

THE QUEERS WANT CIVIL UNIONS!!!! NEXT THEY'LL WANT MARRIAGE! BETTER PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

[w4rma]

85. Sen. Kerry ran on civil unions. He supported them.

So did every other Democrat in the primary, including Lieberman.

AND Cheney says he supports them. So did Bush.

[Shakespeare]

89. Yay! That puts us right in league with the republicans, then!

Yay, us. :eyes:

[w4rma]

121. That would be fine with me if it were true. It would mean the issue would

not be used as a wedge issue and other, more important, issues could be focused on and dealt with.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has full control of Congress and have not signed into law *any* pro-gay policy, including civil-unions. They plan to spend their "political capital" on tax cuts for the wealthy and destroying social security, etc. etc.

[Shakespeare]

125. There are ALWAYS going to be wedge issues. Our job...

...is not to concede the right thing just because they're hollering longer and louder. It's quite apparent you think we should abandon the issue as long as we're in the minority.

I vehemently disagree. You don't ever concede on an issue of rights. Ever. As I've said (more times now than I can count), our goal should be to educate and persuade. Not to give in. And working on this concurrently with other issues like social security is neither impossible nor counterproductive. It is, simply, what we have to do.

[Tinoire]

238. Not a good idea to call it "Gay Marriage"

I thought this from the start and got flamed but I still strongly believe that calling it marriage was too "in your face" to pass. Like it or not we have to respect the finesse of properly framing and phrasing things.

Seek the same thing but frame it differently... eg. "The Right To Marry"

(You can tell I've been paying attention to Lackoff ;))



Linguistics professor George Lakoff at the Free Speech Movement Café. (BAP photos)

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

(snip)

What are some other examples of issues that progressives should try to reframe?

There are too many examples, that's the problem. The so-called energy crisis in California should have been called Grand Theft. It was theft, it was the result of deregulation by Pete Wilson, and Davis should have said so from the beginning.

Or take gay marriage, which the right has made a rallying topic. Surveys have been done that say Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Well, the same surveys show that they also overwhelmingly object to discrimination against gays. These seem to be opposite facts, but they're not. "Marriage" is about sex. When you say "gay marriage," it becomes about gay sex, and approving of gay marriage becomes implicitly about approving of gay sex. And while a lot of Americans don't approve of gay sex, that doesn't mean they want to discriminate against gay people. Perfectly rational position. Framed in that way, the issue of gay marriage will get a lot of negative reaction. But what if you make the issue "freedom to marry," or even better, "the right to marry"? That's a whole different story. Very few people would say they did not support the right to marry who you choose. But the polls don't ask that question, because the right wing has framed that issue.

Do any of the Democratic Presidential candidates grasp the importance of framing?

None. They don't get it at all. But they're in a funny position. The framing changes that have to be made are long-term changes. The conservatives understood this in 1973. By 1980 they had a candidate, Ronald Reagan, who could take all this stuff and run with it. The progressives don't have a candidate now who understands these things and can talk about them. And in order for a candidate to be able to talk about them, the ideas have to be out there. You have to be able to reference them in a sound bite. Other people have to put these ideas into the public domain, not politicians. The question is, How do you get these ideas out there? There are all kinds of ways, and one of the things the Rockridge Institute is looking at is talking to advocacy groups, which could do this very well. They have more of a budget, they're spread all over the place, and they have access to the media.

Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues. They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity. People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and Democrats don't understand that. Look at Schwarzenegger, who says nothing about the issues. The Democrats ask, How could anyone vote for this guy? They did because he put forth an identity. Voters knew who he is.

(snip)
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003

[StuckinKS]

29. So, blacks should have fought for better water fountains

and restrooms during the civil rights era, rather than the right to use the same ones as the whites?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[DrWeird]

27. Every democrat supports gay marriages.

At least the ones that aren't sham democrats.

[Shakespeare]

28. Touché. Well said. n/t

[dolstein]

31. Every Democrat supports the Iraq war.

If you take offense at my statement, perhaps you should rethink your own post.

[DrWeird]

32. No real democrat supports the war in Iraq.

Just like no real democrats are homophobic bigots.

[dolstein]

37. No real Democrat thinks only real Democrats support gay marriage

Personally, I don't have a problem with gay marriage. But I'm not so arrogant as to suggest that if you do, then you can't be a Democrat. Christ, even John Kerry, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, doesn't support gay marriage. Get a grip.

[DrWeird]

40. That's a true statement.

There are some greens, and some libertarians, and probably even some republicans who support gay marriages.

That said, you can't be a homophobic bigot and be a real democrat. Just like you can't be a white supremacist and be a real democrat.

No ifs, ands or buts.

John Kerry's included. That probably cost him the election. The homophobic bigots were going to vote Republican anyway. Kerry lost a lot of homosexual votes, probably because they thought that if the choice was between two homophobic bigots, they might as well vote for the fiscal conservative.

[VegasWolf]

90. Who knows what the current Democrats will do. But any liberal worth

his salt should fight any minority based freedom
restrictions.

[mitchtv]

171. nor should they fight for bigoted Dems for congress

or the senate. We are out of power already, I'll hold out for a liberal Dem.

[Southern Dem 2005]

193. you might be holding out for a while

[mitchtv]

207. so be it

otherwise don't do me no favor with Dino bigots.

[briemann]

34. Whenever I hear Mr. Newsom speak,

I am proud again.

[Misunderestimator]

41. Man.... I can't believe after reading this thread that there are still so

many people who would deny us our civil rights... Shut up with the tired blame game.

And Newsom... :yourock:

[spunky]

43. Just because someone thinks that Newsom's actions helped re-elect

Bush doesn't mean they are biggoted, against gay-marriage, or against equal rights for homosexuals at all.

It is possible to think Newsom did the right thing and at the same time feel that by doing the right thing he may have inadvertantly set same-sex marriage back.

[Misunderestimator]

44. Yes it does.... to say that gay people should have wanted civil unions

and not push for marriage certainly sounds bigoted to me.

[w4rma]

48. Gay marriage or 100's of thousands of alive middle easterners

Gay marriage or social security.
Gay marriage or affirmative action.
Gay marriage or stronger anti-trust enforcement.
Gay marriage or reproductive health.
Gay marriage or a working democracy in America.

Gay marriage obviously gets the back seat for a nearly infinite number of good reasons.

[Shakespeare]

49. Your argument is unsound. This is not an either/or situation.

Let me show you why:

Social security or affirmative action?
A working democracy in America or reproductive freedom?
1000s of dead Iraqis or stronger anti-trust enforcement?

We have a range of issues. All are valid, all should be dealt with in its own way, and has no comparitive value or lack of value when set against any of our other issues.

[w4rma]

52. Everything I state on the right column has majority support

Everything I state on the left column has a slim minority support and huge potential for backlash.

It is an either/or situation.

A progressive politician commits political suicide over this issue and allows someone who is not very strong at all (or opposed to) on all the other issues to take office instead.

[Shakespeare]

54. No, it's NOT an either/or situation.

And only political cowards would try to frame it as such. And if we are run by cowards, our party is dead.

We're completely on the right side with this issue (as with the others). Where we fail is our use of language and ability/willingness to frame the debate. That's not a problem with the issue, it's a weakness in our tactics.

And I'll edit to add something I said in an earlier post in this thread: This issue is about basic constitutional rights. I know what side the democrats should be on whenever a question of civil rights comes up--and it should have nothing to do with political expediency. The courts are in the process of working through this. Mass has already come down in favor. New York is on the verge of doing so. This genie is not going back in the bottle--period.

[w4rma]

59. I'm sorry, but at this point and for the forseeable future, it IS an

either/or situation because there are enough Americans who will vote against a politicians based only on this issue to make it an either/or situation.

[Shakespeare]

61. If you truly believe that, then you have already surrendered.

And, by the way, post-election analysis has already shown that the gay marriage issue didn't result in a net gain of votes for Bush.

Again, your argument doesn't work. The right wants you to think that, of course, so at least one side of this issue has been successful.

Basic constitutional rights. It's not either/or. Basic civil rights.

[w4rma]

63. If it didn't result in a gain for Bush, it's because Sen. Kerry opposed

gay marriage and supported civil unions.

Civil unions gain votes. Gay marriage loses votes.

Go to the politicians when gay marriage gains votes.

[Shakespeare]

65. You have data on that?

"Civil unions gain votes. Gay marriage loses votes."

I'd love to see some hard data on that statement.

Kerry, in my opinion, made a huge mistake by saying he supported civil unions but not gay marriage.

Good lord--that we have people in our own party so ready to prevaricate on important issues just blows my mind. THAT is why we're in the minority. If we fought with the determination the republicans have--and I think we're beginning to do that with the grassroots movement of the last few years--then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Sorry, but I'm not compromising, giving ground or agreeing to disagree on this (and a number of other issues). It's my responsibility as a democrat to help others see that this is the right thing to do--and it's your responsibility to...instead of wasting your breath talking about compromise.

[w4rma]

66. Civil unions have support of about 2/3's of the US population. (nt)

[Shakespeare]

69. No, I want data that shows that gay marriage LOSES votes.

Because, once the hysteria and hyperbole die down, analysis seems to show that's not actually the case. It's pretty much a wash along party lines, with no net gain or loss for either side.

The civil union argument is a half-assed sop to the GLBT community, and they deserve better from their own party. Until they're granted ALL of the same rights and privileges under law that heterosexual couples have, then civil unions are mostly meaningless.

[w4rma]

71. About 2/3's of Americans oppose gay marriage.

And there are multiple WELL-FUNDED organizations devoted to pouring resources against *anyone* who even looks like they might support gay marriage.

[Shakespeare]

80. But my point, still, is how many will vote for a candidate based on that?

A rather vague statistic, with no link. You keep saying "it'll cost us votes," but all of the post-election analysis is showing that it really didn't. Being against a single issue does not a swing vote make. It was security, not gay marriage. Some of you remain fixated on this last election and seem to take as gospel that the gay marriage issue cost us votes--and should therefore be abandoned--when it simply did not.

And if you're ready to concede on this issue just because the other side poured more money into it--well, that's just sad. I keep saying "we have to fight harder, we have to persuade," and all you keep coming back with is "people are against it, the other side fought harder." Rather misses my point completely, doesn't it?

[Misunderestimator]

81. So because the hatred exists... we should back off... instead of educate.

I hope you realize that you're obsession with blaming gays only shines more light on the importance of the issue.

[w4rma]

87. Instead of educate? No. I said to take it to the people BEFORE you

take it to the politicians. Not the other way around as you and some others suggest.

[Misunderestimator]

98. Round and round we go.....

how does supporting and defending gay marriage so that people can begin to be educated about it and elect politicians who support it instead of reacting out of some RW fundamentalist spun homophobia not accomplish that goal? I am done with your spin.

[w4rma]

104. I don't have a clue what you are trying to say in that post. (nt)

[RaleighNCDUer]

188. Perhaps those well funded organizations are creating the

appearance that 2/3's of Americans oppose gay marriage?

The polls tend to frame it as the government imposing gay marriage upon America. Well, nothing is going to force any particular priest or preacher or rabbi or imam to conduct gay marriages. If a gay couple wants to be married and their church is against it, they can change churches.

Those numbers are flipped when the question is posed about equal rights, non-discrimination, etc. 60% of Americans favor civil unions. What is a civil union, other than a non-religious marriage? It is a government sanctioned, secular marriage.

Government has no business being in the religion business. All marriages should be government sanctioned civil unions, which specify the rights due to couples. If you want marriage beyond that, then you go find a preacher.

[gottaB]

190. Data

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

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm

[Shakespeare]

191. Your data doesn't show that.

In fact, it shows that only 2 percent of those polled consider gay marriage a major issue.

Nowhere does it indicate in any way that votes were lost because of the issue, or that votes would be lost.

[gottaB]

192. The data aren't mine

In my opinion your reading of the data is rather selective, but not entirely unreasonable. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to reserve judgement on this matter.

Peace.

[readmoreoften]

88. Yes, but then those same people voted to destroy all

possibility of civil unions in their same-sex marriage amendments. It's a bunch of bullshit. They don't support civil unions.

[w4rma]

100. You assume this issue is a priority for folks AND that they are paying

attention to the fine print in these bills.

[Misunderestimator]

50. Predictable response.... civil rights should not have to take second seat

to anything... All of those issues are important. But thanks for proving my point.

[w4rma]

53. Then you convince another 15%-20% of Americans that gay marriage

is a good thing, then you take it to the politicians.

[Misunderestimator]

57. How about we convince the democratic party to stand for what it has

always stood for... civil rights... and how about you take your superior attitude somewhere else. Just because a majority doesn't want a minority to have rights, does not mean that it's the proper thing to do.

[w4rma]

60. Because that's not how a democracy works. In a democracy

you convice the people before you go to the politicians.

[Misunderestimator]

62. And sometimes you stand up for those in the minority being run over

by the majority. And democrats... no... Americans... should ALL want equal rights for all. Seems to me that you're too busy convincing people to not support civil rights for gays... that's a shame.

[w4rma]

64. I support civil unions, therefore I support civil rights for gays. (nt)

[Misunderestimator]

68. Good for you... but what about the 1000+ federal rights that we still

wouldn't have? :eyes:

[w4rma]

72. What about other rights that we have lost? (nt)

[Misunderestimator]

74. Yes, what about them too?

Really.... what IS your point here?

[w4rma]

77. You a single issue voter? (nt)

[Misunderestimator]

79. Apparently you are single-issue obsessed.

Let's go back and re-read.... I said that all these issues are important. Where did you get "single" out of that? :eyes:

[w4rma]

93. Quite the opposite.

While civil unions are a priority issue for me, gay marriage has no priority whatsoever with me. The only effect that this issue would have on my voting decisions is if the politician was naive enough to run on this issue as his/her most important issue at which case I'd vote against them in a primary and for the Democrat in the general.

[StuckinKS]

91. I AM!

if my civil rights are that issue. Merely because I cannot full enjoy all the benefits of the other issues if I am not equal.

[w4rma]

94. You must never have voted then, since there is almost no politician

in America, not even most Greens (remember that Nader thinks that this issue is a non-issue as he does on most social issues) who supports gay marriage.

[StuckinKS]

Oh, I've voted and always Democratic

What I was saying is that this issue is NUMBER 1 for me.

My partner and I were married in SF on February 15. We are native Kansans but had spent the last 11 years in the Bay Area. We adopted three special needs children while in California. We are now back in Kansas to care for sick in-laws. Kansas' House and Senate just passed a very restrictive anti same-sex marriage constitutional amendment that will be before the electorate on April 5.

I testified before the House and we have offered ourselves for numerous interviews. It seems many gay couples in Kansas are still frightened to have their photos or real names in the media. So we have been educating the people by being out.

So your flippant comments are not appreciated. If we wanted to settle for civil union rights, we could all just move to Vermont, Massachusetts or California. Then all the good little Dems who think our battle for equal rights is ill-timed would be free to spend their time on all those more important issues. Then, we could live in our ghettoes, happy with our separate, but un-equal status.

Sadly, this doesn't sound so great to me. I will fight for my equal rights, without apology. Everyone that opposes me is either a bigot or an obstructionist.

[readmoreoften]

95. I vote that we should take away your civil rights.

let you see how it feels for a little while. Would that convince you and the other 15-20%

Let's face it. You're a bigot. You believe gay people are less important than heterosexuals. It's pretty clear.

[w4rma]

97. You'll need to convince about 30% more of Americans to get majority

support for that. Sorry. Probably more.

And no I'm not a bigot. Are you a troll?

[Shakespeare]

99. FINE. Then we'd better get to work.

Which is what we've been saying....and saying....and saying. But some folks would rather continue to throw rocks at guys like Newsom, based on inaccurate information.

It didn't cost us votes (unless, perhaps, among the gay community). It has been stage managed by the right into a big, faux wedge issue. The only way we beat it is to fight harder, and that includes educating the populace AND expecting our elected officials to show some spine and insist on equal rights for all. Simultaneously.

[w4rma]

107. Where did I say it cost us votes? I *didn't*.

63. If it didn't result in a gain for Bush, it's because Sen. Kerry opposed gay marriage and supported civil unions.

Civil unions gain votes. Gay marriage loses votes.

Go to the politicians when gay marriage gains votes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1224645&mesg_id=1225205&page=

[Shakespeare]

109. "Where did I say it cost us votes?"

Um, here:

"Gay marriage loses votes."

[w4rma]

113. I said it didn't cost us votes since Dems didn't run on a pro-gay marriage

platform. Not that it *wouldn't* cost us votes if we did.

[readmoreoften]

115. well then what's your problem?

you're not even making any sense.

[w4rma]

131. See post #55. Old mouse explains it perfectly. (nt)

[Shakespeare]

117. LOL!!! Excellent prevarication, w4rma.

John Kerry, is that you? You sly dog.

[w4rma]

119. Bullshit. I have been fully truthful and consistent with you.

Don't call me a liar.

[Shakespeare]

138. I'm not calling you a liar.

If I were going to do that, I'd say it explicitly. I just think you're spinning yourself in circles so hard that you get a little confused by your own argument. That last post just happened to crack me up--that is all.

Look, we're in the same party, and we agree that supporting gay marriage is morally right (or at least you seem to indicate that you believe it is). There are two sides to this within our party--those who are going to wring their hands and worry about expediency--that is a necessary if unpleasant thing to do. It has its place. I, however, am going to keep backing all the tacticians up against a wall and stay in their face until we all stand united on this. I am going to talk and talk and talk in an effort to educate and persuade, within my party and outside my party. I don't think I'm going to change your mind any time soon, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying.

There are tacticians and there are agitators. Both are important. I happen to be an agitator.

[w4rma]

142. Actually.

I never stated either way whether I think gay marriage is morally right or wrong or even whether I've decided one way or another. I'm only speaking on terms of tactics.

You say you are an "agitator", but on this issue, because of it's unpopularity, agitation is only going to result in more anti-gay marriage amendments all over the country because of the balance of power.

You are basically agitating in favor of anti-gay marriage amendments, until the balance of power is taken away from the theocrats.

[Shakespeare]

143. On that, we disagree.

It depends on how the fight is fought. And I don't intend to stop fighting.

And I believe I stated in my previous post that I wasn't *sure* you agreed gay marriage is morally right.

So much for my attempt at reaching an understanding. :eyes:

[w4rma]

145. Understand you need to convince regular, non-political people

not folks like me.

And I mean *convince*. Not just trying to get them aware of the issue, but convince them that your side is the correct side.

[Shakespeare]

146. Uh, yes, I understand that quite well.

But thanks for condescending, just the same.

[Shakespeare]

152. Since you've edited your post to tell me how unsuccessful I'll be...

I'll remind you that without the agitation of Alice Paul and her group, women would probably still be deprived of the right to vote. And the same with union agitators, and other civil rights agitators.

That's why it's call "agitating." It stirs people up and gets the issue right up on the front burner. And that leads to action. And progress.

Bang a drum. Be a squeaky wheel. And educate people in the process.

We would have achieved NONE of our goals as a party over the last couple of centuries if it hadn't been for the work of the agitators.

[StuckinKS]

153. So, we'll tip the balance of power

to the Democrats who are afraid to stand up for me and my rights. And then they will let us have equal rights?

Doubtful. They will find a way to parcel out some small concession so they can pat themselves on the back until they have to run against some fundie. Then they can say, "Well, at least we didn't give the queers marriage."

I would rather encourage the Gavin Newsomes of the party even if it takes forty more years to achieve equality. In the meantime, I will still support most Dems because they are a better fit with my other ideals, even if they fail miserably when it comes to my rights.


FYI, here in Kansas, Dems voted for this evil amendment as often as Republicans. Some of them even led the way. The Kansas Dem. Party provided zero leadership. My House Representative voted agianst the amendment, a change from last year's vote. I'd like to think it was because I was relentless in lobbying her and telling her our story.

[StuckinKS]

158. It sounds like you are arguing for "supplication"

"Oh please Democratic candidate. I ask as I bow before you, won't you please stand up for our rights? But only if it's convenient, or doesn't cost you politically, or doesn't hurt the national party in any way. We humble gays are cognizant that electing Democrats, no matter their views, is our only salvation. So please pour your blessings upon us and we will remain quiet and in the background and support you with our time and money. Please toss us a bone, if you think of it."

[kayell]

198. Or so you suppose. I haven't noticed that selling our principles

down the river has proven to be much of a winning strategy.

Seperate but equal wins votes. Integration loses votes.

I'm with the person above who knows bigotry when seen.

[readmoreoften]

112. Yeah right, I'm a pro same-sex marriage troll in a democratic forum...

I'm just wandering around DU, proclaiming support for same-sex marriage, civil rights, and separation of church and state trying to start problems with all the REAL DEMOCRATS on this board. (????)

No, basically, you seem to think my rights are worth less than your rights. That makes you a bigot. You might want to take a look at that. You can call me a troll all day long, but the truth is the truth.

So all this "Go out and Convince America" crap that you spew... What are YOU doing to convince Americans to fight for gay civil rights? Or is it just gay people that should be out there fighting for themselves, while you blame us for the rise of this proto-fascist state and call yourself 'part of the solution'?

[w4rma]

116. You could be lying.

You could be trying to trick Dems into supporting an issue that will help Republicans. I can't read your mind. I can only analyse what I can see.

[readmoreoften]

120. And maybe you're a klansman, what a baseless accusation

As if I'm the ONLY PERSON ON DU who supports same-sex marriage!!!!!!

Hear that? I'm a 'tricky freeper' who is trying to push the very unpopular idea of gay civil rights in a progressive forum.

Sorry, honey, I'm a real dyke who's really affected by these policies.

[w4rma]

132. Whatever you are you're being counter-productive.

And therefore, you might as well be working for those who are anti-gay.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[w4rma]

141. Well, maybe you don't mean to be.

But, that doesn't change the fact that you're being counter-productive.

There are only two ways gay-marriage will become national policy. You lobby Republicans successfully, since they are in the majority and *they* pass the law. Or you help Democrats gain a majority by staying away from wedge issues where Dems are perceived to be on the unpopular side, so that Dems *can* get a majority, again, and *then* you lobby Dems, instead of Republicans.

[readmoreoften]

144. you haven't been studying this long have you.

We've been lobbying since the Mattachine society in the early 1960s. We are going nowhere without a major civil rights movement. That movement is already underway. You can be a part of it and fight beside us. Or you can stand in our way. But, well, you know the jingle... we're here so get used to it.

And if you don't want to fight beside us. Then, please, just get out of our way as we come through.

[w4rma]

147. Understand you need to convince regular, non-political people

not folks like me.

And I mean *convince*. Not just trying to get them aware of the issue, but convince them that your side is the correct side.

[readmoreoften]

154. Do you understand that 'convincing' people of my humanity

is the day-to-day fact of my life? Stop acting like you have the answers for what gay people should do to survive. Every day, I walk down the street with my partner. I smile at strangers. They see how happy we are and how much we love each other. After awhile, they come to see us as two people who love each other and not 'sick perverts.' Yes, you have to interact with people for them to understand that you are a real textured human being.

The problem is that in 'convincing' people that we are human too and that our relationships are worth respecting, we have to be 'out' and being out means that we are at risk of physical violence and murder on a daily basis.

Two friends of mine were gaybashed into the hospital over the summer in separate incidents. You have to be visible to convince people that you're human.

So please don't tell me what I need to do to help my community or how I'm counter-productive to my own survival by the very fact that I'm actively fighting for my partner and I's health, safety, and security.

[sffreeways]

236. Oh you're a bigot alright

and an obnoxious one too. You offend the queer community on this site consistantly and that could not possibly be by accident. I suppose you serve an important purpose none the less since your commentary is a perfect example of what has gone terribly wrong with the democratic party and in that respect you make it possible for those of us that know better to educate those that don't.

On Edit:

This issue is the issue of our time. When we turn the corner on this we will turn the corner on the rest because those people that understand the significance of civil rights for our own citizens will begin to understand the rights of others in this world like innocent Iraqis, victims of US torture, the poor, etc. Critical mass you see ?

The same people that oppose equality for the Gay and Lesbian Bi and Trans community are the same people that have little or no respect for anyone that is different than they. When these people finally come to understand what our constitution really means to all Americans the next step in their enlightenment is what it means to the world and we can all begin to realize the promise that America should be and will be despite your cynicism.

It isn't either or. All of the issues you spoke of previously are connected to this issue. Lack of respect for human dignity is at the root of all that is wrong with the GOP and Gay marriage is a human dignity issue as is poverty, war and greed.

[StuckinKS]

103. It seems

you support LIMITED civil rights for gays...not EQUAL rights

[w4rma]

134. I support the possible, not the impossible. (nt)

[StuckinKS]

156. Here in Kansas

it is impossible to not re-elect Todd Tiarht-R or Sam Brownback-R, fascists both.

Should I just work for their re-election (the possible) and then lobby them not to erect concentration camps for gays?

[w4rma]

162. I think a better plan would be to work towards the election of a Democrat

for the long term. Decades down the road. Build trust. Build a foundation.

[StuckinKS]

164. Well, if they're all like you

there's not much chance of ever gaining my full civil rights.

Thankfully, they are not.

You just go along, trying to keep us silent and in our place. We will win our rights in time, not because we have "built trust" with the untrustworthy, but because we have been true to our values and whenever possible we have supported candidates who support those same values.

Your posts have amply demonstrated that you do not support those values and will never lift a finger on our behalf.

Shame.

[kayell]

197. Some how I think that if you support civil rights for gays, you might

bother listening to what we think those rights consist of. I'm rather fond of EQUALITY myself.

[CTLawGuy]

194. thats a good idea

lets take a time machine back to the 1950's Alabama and convince the voters to let the N****rs in their schools :eyes:


Thank goodness for the Courts

[kayell]

196. And in a constitutionally based form of government, you take things to

court to force the government to live up to it Constitutional principles. See Loving vs. Virginia. http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp

[readmoreoften]

92. Ha. We haven't even convinced YOU and you're supposed to

be progressive.

How long should we do our little tapdance 'please give me civil rights routine'? Another 10 years? 20?

Grow a backbone or get out of the way.

[w4rma]

108. Maybe even 50 or 60 years or longer. And even then it's possible

those rights might be rolled back by the backlash.

If you don't have support of most of the population, don't expect the law to stay a law for very long.

[readmoreoften]

118. there is more support for same-sex marriage now than there was for

interracial marriage. That became legal and is now accepted.

So anotherwords what your saying is....

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU QUEERS.

[w4rma]

127. And Democrats lost ALOT of seats over that. Now Dems are in the minority

and the theocrats control Congress, the courts, the media and the executive office. A huge price to our nation was paid for that legislation that soon, may end up destroying our nation and our way of life, but I think it was worth that chance. The situation is different now. Now Republicans are on the verge of actually destroying this nation and large portions of the rest of the world, with us.

I will support nothing that doesn't help Dems get back into the majority. And you can be sure that no Republican will do more than give lip service to gay marriage (or civil unions for that matter). Republicans will use this as a wedge issue for as long as they can.

[Shakespeare]

130. Let me get this straight....

You're suggesting that it was a mistake to fight for legalization of interracial marriages? What other "mistakes" have we made over the last 100 years? I'm guessing Alice Paul would've gotten way, way under your skin.

[w4rma]

135. Well you didn't get it straight. "but I think it was worth that chance."

Why do I have to repeat myself to prevent you from twisting the meaning of my words?

[readmoreoften]

139. you *think* it was worth that chance?

you're not *sure* though...

[w4rma]

149. I am sure it was worth that chance. (nt)

[Shakespeare]

140. That's why I asked.

I'm not twisting your words. I was sincerely asking for clarification.

[w4rma]

150. Cool. Thanks. No problem. (nt)

[kayell]

195. Would that have been your advice to the Lovings back in the '60s?

They'd probably still be forced to "live in sin" or jailed for the crime of marrying outside their race.

[StuckinKS]

73. Well, let's see

This gay American marched against the war in Iraq, wrote letters for affirmative action and faced Operation Rescue during its "Summer of Mercy" for reproductive health. And without same-sex marriage, I am unable to fully enjoy my Social Security benefits at this time, anyway.

All of this so that everyone else can just keep my equal rights in the "back seat."

I say fuck that.

[readmoreoften]

82. GAY MARRIAGE OR A WORKING DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA?

So, if I can't visit my partner in the hospital (and she's a cancer survivor so this is real to me) and if I have no protections against being fired, and if I can't put my partner on my health care when she's dying... you're saying that I live in a working democracy.

A working democracy for 95% of the population is not a working democracy.

I pay taxes just like you.

It's called equal protection under the law.

[Old Mouse]

55. I really don't think you're hearing the argument here

I think everyone here wants equal rights for all people, we're talking about the best PATH to achieve these goals.

We're fighting a battle now that has brought forth every imaginable issue of prejudice, racism, sexism, bigotry and hatred. Old issues and battles though long won are again at risk. And it seems there is no end to how bad it might conceivably get.

We need to get a progressive government in power at all costs. That goal has to supersede all other liberal agendas in order for ANY liberal agenda to survive. This requires long term planning and persuasive treatment of any conservative American who wakes up enough to show concern for the direction we are all headed.

I think we all agree there shouldn't be "gay" marriage or "straight" marrige... there should just be Marriage. But isn't waiting until we get a Democratic administration preferable to wearing a pink star?

[Misunderestimator]

58. A pink star? Oh for god's sake.

On edit... yes, "old issues and battles though long won are again at risk. And it seems there is no end to how bad it might conceivably get." So you think we should just roll over, accept our blows and ask for what we already had instead of wanting equal rights. We should also just give up on women's rights over their own bodies since we're losing ground there... cut and run!!! Great advice.

[Old Mouse]

76. In short, yes

I would go as far as to say at this point you're part of the problem or part of the solution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3081274

You have no apparent goal here but to stop any positive discussion of past tactical mistakes. Would you care to make a positive suggestion on achieving greater gay rights in the current political environment other than labeling people "faux democratic"?

[Misunderestimator]

78. You're attributing a whole lot of stuff I did not say to me...

so... not sure how to answer you other than to say that I am not of the opinion that any human rights issue should be given lower priority than any other. You seem to be... we differ... don't taunt me with such sanctimonious "do something constructive" kinds of comments... it's simply insulting when you know nothing about what I do.

I have nothing more to say to you, faux democrat or not... your words.

[Old Mouse]

86. I apologize

I did attribute a quote to you that was not yours. I cannot abide when someone does that to me, so I can only hope you forgive my error.

But my other comment stands true. We must prioritize our long term battle. The arguments here treat this as abandoning liberal philosophy, and that is a criminal oversimplification.

[Shakespeare]

84. "stop any positive discussion of past tactical mistakes"

WRONG. What you're not getting is that we're not agreeing that it was a tactical mistake. Our discussion should be about how to educate and persuade, on this and every other issue. Period. And never, EVER about conceding the rights of any group in our party.

Shameful. Fucking shameful.

[Old Mouse]

96. That Bush brings up amending the Constitution to limit rights

shows it to be a tactical mistake. That the democratic leadership were so afraid of the issue that they ran from it shows it to be a tactical mistake. That so many laws were passed on the state level outlawing gay marriage shows it to be a tactical mistake.

[readmoreoften]

101. Give me a fucking break

Do you understand or not. The theocratic lunatics and their minions will always hate us. They will always advocate violence against us. our civil rights will always be unpopular. And if the democrats don't want to take a moral stand now, they NEVER will. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER.

There is no 'tactical' in civil rights.

[Old Mouse]

106. You have no knowledgeable history of civil rights

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Old Mouse]

179. I wonder if we have "discussed" before...

Your being an out lesbian, or having dedication to the cause mean nothing to what I said. You've been out for ten years? I went to my first pride event more than ten years before that. My brother was out twenty years before that. You don't know your HISTORY. And you are so prejudiced against anyone with a differing opinion you seem deaf to what they have to say. You don't know what it was like more than ten years ago, so you don't begin to appreciate what gains have been made, or how bad they can get again.

Public opinion is what rules this country. If you want success in civil progress you have to convince the public of your cause. This does not work by demanding, threatening or fighting. This works from negotiation, politicizing, and persuading. If you have been "fighting" for the past ten years I would point out the Coors and Marlboro transformations. They were careful, calm financial victories.

The gay marriage argument in Boston and San Francisco happened too fast, without planning. Hawaii was a victory lost because of how polarized it made the left. And politicians always do what keeps them in office. It is the responsibility of the movement to prove to the politicians why it is in their best interests to help them.

[eridani]

185. Coors was careful?

Is that what you would call the nearly two decade boycott started by Harvey Milk, with quite a few noisy demonstrations?

[Old Mouse]

206. I call an economic boycott

planned end executed. Organized. I call Coors at gay events profitable for the mother company. The reality of DINKs did more for domestic partners issues than anything else. NOT the protests.

[readmoreoften]

234. I was responding to your original post

1. And it sounded like it was written by someone outside the community, because you refered to the gay community in the 3rd person, as a 'they' not as a 'we'. Why would I assume you were gay? I was responding as a dyke might to a heterosexual person displaying hostility to the GLBT community.

2. So I've been out since '89-'90. (I guess that makes it 15 years... time flies) So what? I'm 34. And, you have to know that there are many people who've been out longer than you who heartily disagree with you on this subject. As far as your brother, I mean, why are you bringing him up? Are you PFLAG? My mother went to dyke bars in the mid 60s. So what?

3. I'm not 'deaf' or 'prejudiced' to others with different viewpoints. (And you aren't exactly listening to me.) I simply disagree with the tactics you suggest. I don't see the fact that Coors went from gay-bashing to rainbow flag as a good example of real success. So what if Coors finally recognized that we were an exploitable market? And while DPs are better than nothing, I'd rather have something.

The difference between us (now that I know that you're not a homophobe) is just tactics, I suppose. I disagree with your tactics. And it has nothing to do with being naive to the political process or the processes of social change. I don't believe that the acceptance of GLBT people by liberals is the result of the HRC. It's the result of living our lives honestly and putting ourselves out there every day.

You said "It is the responsibility of the movement to prove to the politicians why it is in their best interests to help them." (once again why 'them'?)

I think it may NEVER be in their interests. I don't believe that these fundamentalist lunatics will ever stop or slow down. They will never stop hating us. And the majority of America will not defend us because they either don't like us or it's not an issue of interest to them.

The truth is whether we're ACT-UP style or Mattachine style, we're all in for a tough battle.

[Old Mouse]

252. Thanks for the thought out posts

My english is as precise as I can make it. The use of the word "them" is correct. But I shouldn't have to swear allegiance to have consideration.

I bring up my brother because all of the volunteer work and time I have done over the years, all of the prejudice and violence I have suffered pales in comparison to his. His days in the hospices and current work in environments I'm not selfless enough to venture shame me. It is not a PFLAG issue. You brought up your time out and active in the political arena, I cannot mention my own efforts when I feel supporting him is of greater merit of anything else I have done in the community.

If you want the support of elected officials, you must supply them with the tools to gain the support of the voting public. Blaming them for a lack of career suicide is counterproductive.

The people who took the 2004 election period to promote gay marriage did so in a disorganized and unprofessional manor. There was no persuasive public relation campaign, no effective spokespeople, and no apparent organization. An overestimation of popular support created an arrogance and unwillingness to negotiate that still clouds the issue today. There was no serious investigation of the opposition, their resources or motivation. To force the public to decide on an issue under these circumstances was a mistake.

It is imperative above all else that the arguments on this subject by the different Christian sects be heard and understood. These churches should have been invited to forums to explain their views and thoughts. There should have been every attempt to engage them in calm, respectful discussion. Without insult, drama or conflict.

And THIS should have been shown to the undecided public. Instead the only message out of the community was "fundamentalists hate us, and they always have"
That statement, true or not, makes the gay community look just as intolerant as the religious right.

[readmoreoften]

254. I respectfully disagree on most points

I agree that there was no persuasive public relation campaign and no effective spokespeople, but I think that might be a pipe dream at this point.

I disagree about "arguments on this subject by the different Christian sects be heard and understood". They have been heard loudly and clearly. There is no way to engage them without insult, conflict, or drama. That's because many of them do hate us. We might be wise to reach out to moderate religious sects in a more organized fashio, but the fundamentalists hate us. There is no reason to lie to ourselves.

[Old Mouse]

256. You should read Jimmy Carter's work on dealing with despots

listening to them, no matter how horrible they are, takes away a lot of their power.

But you are absolutely correct, we're in for a very tough time.

[StuckinKS]

160. But you distanced our civil rights battle

from the most famous of civil rights battles in an earlier post. So that history may only be partly pertinent and perhaps our battle does need to evolve differently.

[Old Mouse]

178. I truly appreciate the civil reply

no real comment, I just wanted you to know that I really appreciate your civil tone. Thank you.

[Shakespeare]

102. What Bush is doing on that issue has nothing to do with gay marriage.

And folks need to stop insisting it's an either/or situation, because it isn't. That our leaders ran from it is the mistake--you've been suggesting that they were right to run from it, and now you're saying they weren't? Make up your mind.

Bad laws do not mean that standing on the right side of a civil rights issue is a tactical mistake.

The only mistake being made anywhere, by anyone, is to think for one nanosecond that this it's okay to deny a group equal protection under the law.

[Old Mouse]

105. That our leaders ran from it

showed continued support was a tactical mistake, which you confuse with a moral mistake.

[Shakespeare]

111. "continued" support? That implies....

....that they had the spine to support it in the first place. They didn't. From square one, they all prevaricated and hemmed and hawed and ducked the issue completely. Support of civil unions is a bogus position, just like "don't ask, don't tell" is a bogus position. THAT was the mistake.

I'm not confusing anything.

[Old Mouse]

124. That any group

thought they could gain support of the American public only because their cause was "just" and didn't spend the time building political and financial support and mounting a positive outreach campaing... with no real plan whatsoever... I would actually call it a cluster-fuck of tactical mistakes. Decades... DECADES of domestic partner rights successes are now at risk. These rights were won quietly, by proving to corporate leaders it was profitable, not morally required, to implement.

Don't blame a politician for not doing ANYTHING you can't prove is in his own best interest to do. Newsom is great, but he's also young and green. In any city other than the great town of San Francisco what the State AG's office is doing to him right now in court would be a career ender. Entering a nationwide political debate with an inadequate understanding of the reality of political dynamics was a tactical mistake.

[Shakespeare]

128. Do you honestly think the GLBT community is doing nothing?

No political and financial support? No outreach? Wow. You really don't know much about this issue, do you?

I don't want a politician who acts in his own best interest. I want a politician who's going to stand up for what's right, regardless of the heat he takes from the other side. It's OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT HIM. And you're presuming that Newsom has an inadequate understanding of politics--that is hardly the case. Hardly the case at all. Which is why he scares the right wing to death.

Also, the little dance between Lockyer and Newsom isn't an attack on Newsom or--though you don't seem to realize it--an attack on gay marriage. It's simply a way of pushing this issue into the courts, where it inevitably has to go. And that's all good.

[Old Mouse]

166. You don't know enough law

The case is about authority. Newsom wanted it to cause a challenge to the marriage issue, but that is not the law he violated, so it's not a constitutional case. The AG came out in political support when the issue was in the press, but basically said he still had to do his job, that Newsom had exceeded his authority.

[Shakespeare]

189. LOL....actually, I do.

Ask me what I do for a living. :eyes:

Of course Lockyer said he exceeded his authority, because he did. That, in fact, was the whole point. That threw it into the courts, and will ultimately challenge the constitutionality of the state law banning gay marriage.

[Old Mouse]

208. The gay marriage wont enter into the argument

that's the fallacy. Of course a law has to go to court to be challenged, but only one of the married couples could represent a challenge to the law needing change. This will only be Mayoral authority over the State constitution, an argument that can't win.

I guess paralegal?

[Shakespeare]

211. No, not paralegal. And I don't think YOU understand the cases.

The lawsuits are not about Newsom. Newsom gave the couples an opportunity to marry, knowing what the outcome would likely be (nullification), which then gives them the opportunity to directly challenge the law. Got it yet?

Gay marriage IS the argument--I'm not sure what you think you're talking about, but you've got your facts all mixed up on this.

[Old Mouse]

213. The married don't get to the challenge the law

without being charged. Maybe you can claim with full annulment, or as the AG is asking for, nullification, they could try somehow to sue to reintroduce the argument to the courts

Gay marriage is not the government's charge. It's authority. Does a mayor have the authority to ignore ANY law he feels morally objectionable. The state says NO. Gavin in front of the Judge has nothing to do with the issue of the moral objection he had. His council is trying rather unsuccessfully to bring that argument to the fore.

But in the larger picture, to claim that this day in court was worth the political backlash currently in full swing is ludicrous. (Check out the FBI stats on hate crimes. )To claim this issue wasn't handled to promote hatred and secure power for the right, guaranteeing legislation less favorable to gays across the country is blindness.

This was a tactical mistake.

(And just in case your the one arguing the case, you need a different strategy quick.)

[Shakespeare]

214. Wow, you really don't understand this.

What, pray tell, do you think they would be "charged" with? This is not a criminal matter.

As I said in my previous post, this is not about Newsom's authority and whether he was allowed to do what he did (in fact, that's already been decided, hence the invalidation of the licenses). What is being challenged is the constitutionality of the law that prevents Newsom from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. And yes, they most certainly do get to challenge that law by filing a civil suit, and are doing so.

What are you referring to when you say Gavin's "council" (counsel?) "bringing the argument to the fore?" What you're saying makes no sense at all.

Your statements are very confused regarding Newsom--I'll say it again--he's not the one bringing suit. The couples are.

We quite clearly disagree on the tactical aspect of this, and that's not going to change. There has not been a violent backlash against gay couples because of this--that's been ongoing and has no connection to the San Francisco or Massachusetts situations.

[Old Mouse]

220. That IS what I said

they won't be charged... that they would have to bring suit.

Of course it makes sense. When Gavin's council presented her case, she tied the issue to the morality of the law challenged.

I think you're misreading my last post - I'll re-read it for clarity - but my points are exactly the same as yours on the couples right to sue, and the reality of Gavin's court situation.

By being nullified rather than annulled, the ability to even file suit by the married couples is comprimized... in fact their case as it stands does not necessarily give a legal argument to put before the court

If they can't show suffering damage by the AG, its a non-issue. Although the issue may be morally deserving of the Supreme Court's attention, it is far from certain that have the case required to get there.

Why were the marriages rendered nullified/annulled? Because they were gay marriages? No, because the entity of the government that granted the licenses did not have the authority to do so. The opposition will, with probable success, argue there is no constitutional challenge of merit, regardless of loss to the suing parties, kick to a lower court.

But still, to claim THIS day in court is a winning strategy? How many anti-gay laws were passed because of the national exposure of this issue? These were not laws that "were going to happen anyway" They were financed and backed by people using the national media coverage of a hot issue to their advantage.

[Shakespeare]

221. No, it most certainly was not clear.

Your post, that is.

Yes, they do have a case--actually, multiple cases--and they're making their way through the system now. It is absolutely vital that the issue be approached this way, because that's the only way a decision will be made regarding constitutionality. It's a pretty clear-cut equal protection case; do we have the right judges in place to make the necessary rulings? Only time will tell. But this is the way it had to be done.

As another poster pointed out much earlier in this thread, these anti-gay measures had been in the works for a long, long time--in many cases, more than a decade. This didn't make the situation any worse; no red state was EVER going to vote in favor of gay marriage, the SF cases notwithstanding. And, getting back to the original post, that's Newsom's whole point. This was already happening, no matter what the mayor of San Francisco decided to do last February.

[Old Mouse]

253. you want it to be equal protection

but the state will try to frame it as a simple misuse of authority. And there is strong argument for that - the damage, in this case, was by Newsom, not the constitution. If the supremes were intent on hearing the protection case why didn't they just hold the licenses in abeyance?

Now, in case you're right, and the cases DO win... well I have an irritating habit of parable; usually arcane and inappropriate, but always irritating. I leave you this one about fish.

The level of harvestable fish in the world's oceans has dropped through overproduction by more than 75%. Cod has been particularly hard hit. The level of cod had in recent years shown to be so close to complete destruction that emergency quotas on their production were adopted internationally. This temporary quota would allow the stocks to replenish, and save the species from extinction.

Now this made everybody happy, except the cod fishermen.

Villages of cod fishermen protested all over the world, in many instances violently, to have the quotas lifted. They had been cod fishermen for generations, and they wanted to keep on fishing as they always had, without governmental interference.

The governmental scientists shared the data that proved that if the quotas were not kept, the cod, these fisherman's livelihood, would completely die out. Their jobs would be gone. Their towns would dry up, their families and the families of everyone they knew would become impoverished.

But the fishermen, who were no more stupid or smart then you or I, did not care. They wanted, more than anything, to win the right to continue fishing as they had.

[Old Mouse]

209. And if you read my post

you would see what I am saying is the greater resources and planning that have gone into domestic partnership issues and promoting civil unions/marriage through outreach and negotiation in gay-friendly administrations, such as the Hawaii legislature, have been put at risk by an ill-conceived over publicized attempt t force the issue by well intentioned individuals who did not calculate the potential risks of their actions.

And I would further add that the intolerance of dissenting viewpoints within this forum is shocking. The automatic assumptions that any who disagree even with the timing of Newsom's actions must be homophobic only find parallel in the world of the Free Republic.

[Shakespeare]

212. Did I say you're homophobic? No, I did not.

Oh, I most certainly DID read your post. Be careful about attributing things to me that I did not say.

The anti-gay marriage arguments in this forum are, however, shameful as far as I'm concerned. We're the party that's supposed to be fighting for this.

Your suggestion that the Massachusetts and California actions is somehow harming the movement is a complete fallacy, as any of our GLBT members here will no doubt tell you, and in great detail. It simply isn't true.

You are using precisely the same bogus argument that Carrie Chapman Catt used to try to stop Alice Paul in the suffragist movement. She was wrong then--as the result of Paul's agitation have proven--just as you are wrong today to suggest the same thing.

[Old Mouse]

216. No, I didn't say YOU said that

I'm sorry not to be clearer. I spoke of the board as a whole, and this subject as a whole. But do suggest you try it. Post anything negative on the gay marriage issue and see what happens to you.

And on suffrage, Lincoln (I break my own rule against comparing separate civil rights movements by bringing this up, )was great and all, but the Jim Crow period is considered worse than slavery by many in the Black community. And it was created the same way, ignorance and poverty was manipulated by those in power to foster hatred in order to consolidate power. There was no truth to carpetbaggers profiting off of the poor southern communities, but that fact is still in our history books. As will history write of the "gay agenda" that threatened moral society in the year 2004. There is no "gay agenda" but fear of it is already affecting PBS.
I'm glad Lincoln did what he did, don't get me wrong, but he knew in advance what issues he was dealing with, and the possible repercussions.

You can't FORCE people into moral change. You have to win their hearts, change their perception of the issue. This was just a chance that presented itself and was taken. There was no long term projection of possible outcomes, or any realistic evaluation of the viewpoint of the public on the issue. There was no convincing, charismatic spokesperson, there weren't even talking points designed to invite the opposition to discuss the issue. There was just the stubborn stance to fight. It doesn't matter how just the cause is, you can't win without planning or support. Tactical mistake.

[StuckinKS]

215. I do appreciate that a great deal of planning went into DP rights

and Civil Unions. But those only help gays that happen to live in states where those are possible and even then, they are not equal rights.

I lived in the Bay Area of California and watched domestic partnership rights increase greatly from 1993 to 2004. As of January 1, 2005, those rights were equal to marriage in all state rights except joint filing for income taxes. Adoption rights for gays moved forward along a similar, yet separate path towards second parent adoptions to joint adoptions. My partner and I availed ourselves of these rights by registering as DPs and adopting three children. We also availed ourselves of Mayor Newsom's gesture by marrying at City Hall on Feb. 15, 2004.

In May of 2004, we had to move back to Kansas to take care of my ailing in-laws. I have none of those rights now and every right we have as a couple is at risk because of Kansas' proposed anti same-sex constitutional amendment.

My point (at long last) is that I believe the marriage movement will do more for me in the long run as a gay man in Kansas than all the DP benefits California can offer. All the resources and planning in the world will not bring DPs or CUs to Kansas. And we can't all move to CA, MA or VT. You will remember that California passed its own anti-gay initiative (Prop. 22) years ago. But brave people such as Mark Leno are keeping CA conservatives on the offensive with his pro gay marriage legislation. DPs in California will not move backward. Even in Massachussetts, they are polling to find that there is becoming an acceptance of gay marriage. THAT is where we are winning.

Also, I am almost positive in the thought that Mayor Newsom's right to perform the marriages was ruled on negatively but that the bigger constitutional question is still before the court.

[Old Mouse]

228. Wonderful post

Thank you, and all the best to your family. How old are your children?

I know a lot of people that married by Gavin's actions, and I absolutely agree civil unions are not and never will be equal to marriage.

My ex is starting adoption procedures now, and he is planning to have his marriage in Canada.

[StuckinKS]

229. Our boys

are now six, five and two. I am very lucky to be able to stay at home to care for them.

Needless to say, we are not among the almost mythical dual-income high earning gay couples with a great amount of disposable income for exquisitely decorated apartments and vacations to foreign lands.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Old Mouse]

230. The term is DINK

dual income NO KIDS

You so absolutely don't apply! What a great spread of ages. I expect many trips to the Exploritorium in your life.

[readmoreoften]

133. What an insult to those of us who have been struggling for years

Are you kidding? Decades of DPs are at risk because the GLBT community is fighting for it's survival. Where? In New York? In San Fran? DPs primarily exist in progressive communities. Furthermore, they don't really do shit.

Are you serious in saying that GLBT people have not spent time building political and financial support. You are truly ignorant and offensive and you need to do some research on our community before you post this kind of garbage.

[Old Mouse]

169. Are you for real?

The organized community was completely unprepared for this fight. If you were "involved" you would know this. All emphasis was on Hawaii and Canada. Not the sudden polarization that occurred ion Boston and San Francisco that caused the backlash throughout the Bible Belt and south.

[mitchtv]

174. bwahahahahaha...." less than equal"!

not even an attempt at "separate but equal".
oh yeah that'll do. I want this shit done in MY lifetime.
Note to Dem politicians: " I might support you, if you support me and my people"- no guarantees. Studies are now showing all pro -gay incumbents retained their seats. It' not such a dangerous stand.

[Old Mouse]

47. Well said

I don't expect my mayor (I'm a SF Mouse) to use national politics to decide what he believes is the best thing for the people of this city.

But I do think it was a tactical mistake and has resulted in a significant setback for civil rights.

I beginning to think the framing of the argument was too powerful, that without centralized organization and powerful, influential spokespeople, there wasn't an opportunity for compromise. Who spoke as the voice of authority for the left on this issue? No one really emerged as a national leader, just regional protests.

[mitchtv]

173. Newsom ably represented San Francisco

Too bad about about what they think in the "flyovers". Life is tough all over.This was a grass roots movement, driven by the people. We have the youth, we will win.

[LeftCoast]

51. That's my mayor!

:D

[zara]

75. There was a times when a majority of Americans opposed women's sufferage..

Right is Right.

[Behind the Aegis]

122. Why do I let this shock me?!

One would think that all the time I spend on this board, I would be used to so-called progressives that would easily sell out the civil rights of gays or blame us for their misfortunes of the Shrub mis-administration (as if gays are suffering).

So, I am going to make this REALLY simple!

If you think gays CHOOSE to be gay:
Suppose that in 2005, Jews are not allowed to marry. Their marriages would destroy the fabric of the institution of marriage. Would this be acceptable?

If you think gays are BORN gay:
Suppose that in 2005, Asians are not allowed to marry. Their marriages could undermine traditional Christian marriages. Would this be acceptable?

Hopefully, those who think civil unions are the answer, can look at the above "examples" and realize it is all about CIVIL RIGHTS! Separate is NOT equal!

If you do not support full marriage benefits for gays, you are not as progressive as you'd like to think.

[Vladimir]

123. If Kerry had shown in his campaign

half the mettle that Newsom showed in his stance on this issue... oh no, wait, can't afford to alienate the swing voters! My bad...

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[readmoreoften]

137. So okay

You flame people for telling you their experience of fighting for gay rights, and then you say *yawn*, how boring.

If you don't like the fighting, then stop fighting with us and start fighting beside us.

[Old Mouse]

165. I should have had my sarcasm more highlighted

and I, along side of my brother, sister and niece are very active in the community. Have been for decades. It never ceases to amaze me how any criticism of actions automatically means I cannot be in the community. Such prejudice. Such arrogance. Such ignorance.

That my viewpoint can have no meaning if it disagrees with your shows you are just as intolerant as those you protest against. Fight beside us? Such unbelievable gall!

[Q3JR4]

151. Wars have been fought over little more than

God is one entity that encompasses the father, the son and holy spirit. God is three entities that are those listed above.

No one ever thinks about the similarities, only the differences. Usually that's enough.

[Q3JR4]

148. ....

Do we elect a democratic leadership at all costs knowing that they will, if given a chance, renege on civil rights for any group of people that doesn't help them politically (something I think a democrat should NEVER do), or do we attempt to elect democratic leaders willing to stand up for what's right and equal under our constitution and system of government rather than what everyone expects them to?

If we had one well-known representative who was willing to stand up to the right and tell them, "you know, gay marriage isn't such a bad thing," then we would have progress. That person would be attacked on all sides by right wing groups and our media with more hate and vi trial than you could imagine. If a few more Representatives stood up with that person and told the country, "I think that Senator/Representative A is right," what would happen is a re-evaluation in the minds of some middle-of-the-roaders. (Senator A supports gay marriage, and I respect Senator A...why is gay marriage a bad thing?). Fundamentally, we WANT those people to re-evaluate their positions. We WANT them to wonder about the ulterior motives of the republicans.

If something doesn't change, many democrats aren't going to support the party because they have conceded so much on this issue (i.e., democrats don't support me, I don't want to support them). It makes us wonder, if they are so willing to compromise this civil rights issue, what else they'd be willing to compromise.

Last year I campaigned, made phone calls, and registered democratic voters for the democratic party and it got me nowhere. The democrats compromised on my rights, so I don't see a reason to help them again. Yes it may mean that the liberals loose in 2006, but I'm willing to take that chance. When you tell someone, "sit over there, shut up and if you don't like what we're doing then fuck off", what do you expect their response to be?

If the other 4% of the democratic voting GLBT individuals did the same thing, we would be looking at a republican dominated legislature, court system, and executive branch. Then again that's why (insert your god here) invented Canada.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[Duncan Grant]

157. You know what they say about opinions? They're just like assh**es,

everybody has one.

Thanks for sharing your informed and well documented analysis (pun intended).

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[natrat]

175. i think a politician is a scumbag and your response is shut the f up

the timing of his policy announcement seemed to play right into the hands of the republican campaign. Our own senator and others in the party are of a similar mind. Please use more civil discourse. You sound like a baby.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

187. you are the one using childish phrases like "scumbag" kido

so put up or shut up

[Biased Liberal Media]

163. Can you back up your statements with proof?

[sffreeways]

237. I can't prove anything

as there is no way to verify what I am going to post here but I know for a fact that Newsom takes money from very progressive republicans in San Francisco. He's personal friends with a family that has direct connections to Bush. Try a google on the name Lamond and Kvamme. They are close personal friends, he's been to their mansion on Vallejo St. They are big donors to the GOP, Kvamme being a Pioneer.

That doesn't mean he supported Gay marriage to throw the election to Bush. The republicans he is connected to with the exception of Kvamme (he's a xtian wack-job) are progressive socially and have no problem with the Gay community. Remember Condi Rice is provost at Stanford and many of these people are connected through Stanford and are all good friends. I've catered partys where they were all in attendance. Republicans in SF are a different breed from republicans in Kansas.

He's not a scumbag but he's not a liberal democrat either. There are alot of SF democrats that don't like him very much for some of his more conservative positions.

When it comes to San Francisco politics you are dealing with progressive republicans. I honestly thought Gavin was going to run as a repub but he would have gone nowhere if he had. I was surprised to see him on the Dem ticket and was even more surprised he won. But he has a ton, I mean a ton of money behind him. And it's GOP $$$

[Biased Liberal Media]

241. That's rather interesting

Guess I'll have to google some.

Thanks for responding.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

246. I googled a little on Newsom

and didn't find anything about this. Of course it's always interesting to look behind the curtain and see where the money is coming from.

But are you in fact suggesting that Newsom taking money from admittedly progressive Republicans in SF is a link to that other breed of Republicans who populate the WH?

Did Floyd Kvamme give Newsom money during his campaign? I tried googling that, found nothing.

Associations are a funny thing. Some of my best friends, and my husband, are Republicans. One (not my husband) could even be classified as a Republican "nut job" (believes what Limbaugh says anyway), but I visit his home often and trust him with my children.
Now I'm not the mayor of San Francisco, but neither was Gavin I bet before he became friends with Kvamme.

So let's talk about his politics. He seems to be taking some hits for not being particularly effective, rather than for not being liberal enough. It would be hard to be "liberal enough" in SF, I suppose.

He stood in the picket lines during the hotel strike, as did Jesse Jackson and my man Steve Earle. Was it a photo op?

I'm not in SF so I don't follow all of the politics there that closely, but I do know that I was incredibly moved by his courage during the Winter of Love. I wish more Democrats, particularly those in Washington, would do something simply because it's the right thing to do.

[sffreeways]

248. I only know what I saw first hand

I worked for some of these people and Newsom was their golden boy. He's good friends with David Lamond who is a repub and a billionaire. His father is the founder of National Semi Conductor and I know they were giving him money. These are not homophobic folks but they are uber rich and money is what matters. San Francisco is their playground. They have a mansion in SF where they throw these parties, they don't even live in it it's just there to hold the art, Piccasso, Matisse, Bacon (practically all of his stuff)the art collection is mind boggling and to throw lavish parties. Oh that film...Basic instinct was filmed in the mansion, I've been in the place. They are friends with Sharon Stone too and she is as liberal as it gets right ? It's all about money money money and Newsom has got money behind him. Remember in SF the gay community has big cashola. The Castro district is one of the most expensive nieghborhoods to live in. It's Upper class you can't touch property there for less than a million and that's for a shack.

The homeless thing he did was big with the rich and not big at all with the poor. He basically made it illegal to panhandle which the rich in SF hate. Makes the place look trashy.

When I heard that Newsom was doing this I thought right away that he was pulling something but that's just silly when you think about it. Or is it ? I don't know but I do know that he is connected and he's connected to republicans in SF. The rich don't see the political party thing the same way in SF. Some are dems some are repubs but they mix it up and power and money are what's important. If anything he was building a political power base and a war chest by making his powerful gay friends happy. Like I said I worked for one of these families and they are republican, powerful but definately pro gay rights all the way. The homophobe types that vote republican are the riffraff but they are who is keeping these folks at the top of the food chain when it comes to power politics.

Just google Kvamme and you will be floored by the amount of money he has given to Bush. He is a xtian goofball but I've never heard him or any of his family say a homophobic thing. Practically all of their employees are homos. The landscapers, the caterers, the housekeepers, interior designers, all gay. All GAY !

Once I was given a $1500.00 ticket to see the Dali LLama and Sharon Stone was there and so were all of these rich republicans and Newsom too. And they were all very friendly. Condi Rice..same thing, always at the parties and very comfortable with the liberals and the homos. Chef Traci des Jardins has catered some of the parties at the mansion and she is a big dyke and everybody knows it. She owns a high end restaurant behind the Opera House and Symphony that is a big hangout for the power players.

I honestly doubt that Bush himself is a homophobe but they know how to get votes and that is to throw a bloody bone of bigotry to the riffraff and it keeps them in power. So Newsom does the favor for the gays and everybody is happy, rich, repubs, gays and dems. That's how it works in SF.

Make of it what you will this is my first hand info.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

250. Interesting....but not surprising...

I don't doubt that it is all about money, rather than party politics, in a town like SF. People like Kvamme can't afford to be homophobic.

This is in fact I think what many people miss; it's not nearly as much about "values" as it is about some very rich people manipulating people in power to retain and expand their riches. It's disgusting, but I think it's just as common among powerful Dems as it is among Republicans, as much as we'd like to believe otherwise. This is especially true in California, where there are some very wealthy Dems.

[Behind the Aegis]

186. And?

You arrived at this conclusion how?

[sampsonblk]

167. With a wife THAT hot, why focus on gay marriage though?

Just speaking for myself, that probably wouldn't be the foremost issue on my mind.

He did the right thing though. I applaud his efforts.

[StuckinKS]

170. He's divorcing that hot wife

Bye bye Kimberly

[Old Mouse]

177. Or she's divorcing him...

[EFerrari]

180. I campaigned against Gavin as hard as I could

and, he's a real jerk about many issues but he rocks on this one.

And he needs a burger :)

[Old Mouse]

210. I didn't like any of our choices for mayor

and I think he messed up on this issue... but only on its effect on the national scale. As far as being the Mayor of San Francisco, it was the right thing to do. And his job is Mayor of San Francisco. Now I think... as you say... he rocks.

Maybe we need more young politician who don't know how the system works? Maybe that's the only way to get meaningful change?

[Tinoire]

244. Matt Gonzales(z)

That was my choice. I rally didn't appreciate the heavy-handed involvement of several big name Democrats in this election. They gave a clear message to the Independents and Greens that over their dead body will third parties be allowed to build up.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage but I was appalled at Newsom's timing. It's not like it couldn't have waited a few weeks. Any fool could have seen that this was not going to go over very well- especially after several GLBT groups BEGGED those couples in Hawaii to just wait a few damn weeks.

I am not so sure this cost us the election. I also don't believe that millions of Evangelical Christians just materialized who had never bothered to vote before and just woke up in 2004 determined to vote for Bush. All that is BS. What cost us the election imo is that we didn't make this war an issue. Let's have a drink sometime!

[Old Mouse]

257. VERY well put.

Love your Diebold pic!

[Tinoire]

242. So did I. His Bechtel backing was too disgusting for words

Are you still in SF?

[UCSBLiberalCat53]

184. It's about time

When will we stop crying "Now's not the time, now's not the time?" Hell, that just sounds so much like the typical conservative. They said that during the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and people are saying it again. People, we need to move FORWARD. History will vindicate us in the end...

[kayell]

199. I know, this is such an embarassing arguement to be having on a

supposedly liberal board. Can you imagine this place back in the '60s arguing over whether now was a politically expedient time for the Lovings to get married, or for integrated schools?

[UCSBLiberalCat53]

227. exactly!

damn right, it is! We don't want to be Regressives like the Repugs.

[sjgman9]

200. He never should have done it

Someone should have rung his neck when he started issuing marriage licenses. Marriage is for heterosexuals. Is it an issue that would cause me to vote Repub? Hell no! The time just isnt right for this. There should be more action on domestic partnership benefits from Democrats.

[StuckinKS]

201. Marriage is for heterosexuals??????

Thank you for assigning me, my partner and our three children to second class citizenship.

I see we are talking about liberty and justice for SOME.

Do equal rights belong to heterosexuals only?

[sjgman9]

204. i'm not assigning you guys to second class citizenship

I just think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. civil unions, domestic partnership benefits, whatever should do the trick.

Equal rights belong to all people. I just think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Is a constitutional amendment necessary? no.
I think the Defense of Marriage act by Bill Clinton will hold.

I wish you, your partner, and your children a long and happy life.

[Misunderestimator]

205. Since marriage brings along rights MARRIAGE should be for everyone.

You are contradicting yourself in your own post. Pretending to support equal rights for all, while saying marriage should be between a man and a woman, and then topping it all off with "I think the Defense of Marriage act by Bill Clinton will hold." GEEEEEEE..... Thanks a lot for not considering me a second-class citizen, then calling me one.

[StuckinKS]

217. There would be no need for gay marriage

if hets would cede the "right" to their marriages IN LAW.

Everyone gets civil unions.
Churches decide who gets religious marriage.

But that is not what the holy rollers want. A minister here in Wichita has said that heterosexual marriage is deserving of "special rights." Hmmmmm. Where have we heard that term before.

It's hard to have a completely happy life with fewer rights than my neighbors.

[Biased Liberal Media]

240. That is because that is what YOU were conditioned to believe

And please don't give me the religious angle. My husband and myself got married outside of the church in a NON-RELIGIOUS ceremony- why can't lesbian and gay couples do the same?? because people don't believe in it?? Uhh, that's called DISCRIMINATION!

[readmoreoften]

255. Actually, you don't wish us long happy lives

If I can't visit my partner in the hospital...
Share our social security benefits...
Share health care...
Raise children without fear of losing them...
Share her veterans benefits after she serves or dies in combat...
Pass property freely between us
If we can't move freely as a couple in and out of the country
And have the same financial tax benefits as you...
Then we are second class citizens without equal rights.

And to add insult to injury you think that your relationship is superior to mine.

[MissB]

202. "marriage is for heterosexuals"

You know, at one time people thought that interracial couples should not get married. It just wasn't for them. One of the lines back then was :it just isn't the right time. :eyes:

[UCSBLiberalCat53]

226. "it just isn't the right time"

Just think, if conservatives had their way, only the rich would be allowed to vote, women would still be second-class citizens, we'd still have slavery (Wall St. Conservatives were calling on the Republican Party to compromise to avoid secession), etc. History has always proven them to be on the wrong side and they're on the wrong side on this one too.

[libnnc]

235. Explain this to me like I'm a 4 year old, mmmkay?

"Marriage is between a man and a woman"

Please, I can't for the life of me understand the position that heterosexuals have in regards to the term "marriage". Why is that term so sacred to you? Why can't I use that term for my relationship? (12 years and counting, btw) Can you enlighten me? Help me understand you.

[Book Lover]

247. "Marriage is for heterosexuals" ?

Many rabbis and reverends think differently. Are you willing to take away their freedom of religion?

[Shakespeare]

218. All of the Newsom bashers should read this story.

I am stunned at the level of animosity directed at Newsom from within our own party. The man deserves our complete support, and, frankly, our great admiration for having the courage to do what he's doing. We bitch long and loud about how our democratic politicians have no backbone--well, here's one who does, and he gets attacked for it.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/23/CMGD9AHK721.DTL

Newsom in Four Acts
What shaped the man who took on homelessness, gay marriage, Bayview-Hunters Point and the hotel strike in one year

Since becoming mayor at 36, four acts have defined him in unexpected ways. Marrying men to men and women to women; joining a picket line of locked-out chambermaids and busboys; spending his weekends hanging out in Bayview and Hunters Point; and tackling the city's most intractable problem, homelessness, with his controversial Care Not Cash program.

You could be cynical about any of Newsom's actions, and notice that the constituencies to whom he has been appealing -- African Americans, labor, gays -- are those he did not do well with in the 2003 election. But every political moment is an opportunity and all political acts are opportunistic. What matters is which opportunities a politician chooses to seize.

What he has shown again and again is an instinct for protection and inclusion. If the opportunities he chose to seize tell anything about him, it is that he empathizes with vulnerability. And that is because he feels, close to his core, vulnerable himself.

more...

[croat]

219. Doing the right thing cannot be wrong

Unless equal rights are granted to all citizens, true civil rights in America are nothing but lip service and convenient propaganda. It cannot be wrong to fight for what is right, and same-sex marriages should be fought for as hard as we fought for every single other right that was denied in the past. As a liberal, I would be ashamed to look at myself in the mirror if I did not support same-sex marriage and if I did not fight for it just as hard as I fight for the environment, for animal rights, for peace...

[madmark]

225. Its Flat Wrong

State discrimination against homosexuals is flat wrong and fuck anybody that has a problem with that. What is ironic in this so called "debate" is that the most virulent anti-homos tend to be closet types or men that I quite frankly find to be effeminate. Anecdotally speaking, I am not aware of any of my normal, confident hetero male friends, including the republicans, giving a fuck about people being gay or ever wanting the state to discriminate against them.

[OR Ruminator]

249. Did Newsom donate to Bush in 2000?

An article in Indymedia gives some evidence that Newsom donated money to the * campaign in 2000.

Has anyone heard about any response from Newsom about this? Is it true? When I read that, I started taking concerns about his being some kind of GOP mole more seriously.

Here is the link:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1662786_comment.php

Is anyone aware of Newsom's response to this?

I want to think he is idealistic and doing the right thing, but this gives me pause.