Rebel Dean inspires gays in Florida

[True_Blue]

With a rebel now heading the Democratic Party, Florida's gay Democrats vowed Saturday to be puppets of their party no longer and to bring social issues to the front of their party's concerns.

"I don't want to reach across the aisle; I want to win," said Orlando City Commissioner Patty Sheehan, who is openly gay. "Republicans used our community as a wedge in the <2004> election."

Sheehan was one of about 40 Democrats from across the state to attend the quarterly meeting of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual Caucus of the Florida Democratic Party in Orlando. Agreeing that a lack of organization hurt Democrats in November, they said unity will be vital if they are to overcome roadblocks to gay civil rights.

"We have four more years with George , and we have a big X on our heads," caucus President Michael Albetta said.
more....
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/orl-asecflgays13021305feb13,0,465766.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

[Upfront]

1. Democrats

Are a party that believes in equal rights for all people, but most do not believe in gay marriage. Dean said something like this yesterday and I think he is correct. Gay marriage is a loser for Democrats. I wish gay Democrats would understand this. Much more is at stake then gay marriage in the coming elections. If gays have equal rights, why must they take us down on marriage? Flame away.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

2. Is it equal rights?

I've personally found the argument not so much why do gay people need special attention, but why does the nation give such a large fuss about the issue when it involves the term 'gay'? Looking at the times of the witch hunts, I'd say there IS a lot more at stake than gay rights, but stemming from gay rights. If we give them any leighway on this, the republican right wing that is, we risk an alienative society which is far more commanding than controlling what marriage is. I think that's why democrats should fight for this, because what goes against the constitution in part goes against the constitution in whole.

The gay community makes up a sum of democratic supporters and I don't think they should have to follow like sheep while members of their own party stigmatize their battle for their rights. I'm for the environment and it's my personal reason for even voting during the elections -- does that mean if it's someone else's opinion that the environment isn't as important as health care, I shouldn't be allowed to stress concern about the environment? I agree, democrats should get in the elections and not weigh themselves down to lose. However, republicans attack every one of our goals, so democrats should be willing to fix every goal instead of leaving some of the 'less important' individual goals of the party in limbo. I'm willing to say that's how a lot of these problems get started. Democrats should not jetisan what is right to win an election, or else we'd already lost.

[Upfront]

4. When We Lose

We give a monster like Bush and his gang an opportunity to attack SS, Medicare, Medicaid, education, public schools. He gets to insure tax cuts for the top 2% stand, and much more way to lengthy to list. The big one, is he gets to drag out the war because we lost the election , and intern bankrupt the country so as not to fund all the social programs that the Democratic party has gave us and most Americans depand on, while making his backers rich with no bid contracts in Iraq. This is the right wing dream. Gay marriage was far from the only issue that lost the election, but it was huge. I will fight for equal rights but not gay marriage because I to am tired of losing and we will again and again if we can't decide what we need to fight for that is right and a winning strategy. Much more is at stake then gay marriage.

[Mountainman]

3. Replace the word gay with the term for other groups

Why should we be for interracial marriage? Why should we be for interdenominational marriage?

Because it is the right thing to do. The argument against gay marriage embraces the idea that gays are sinful or evil or chose to live a deviant lifestyle. We support those ideas if we don't stand up to them.

We can be leaders and not followers. We should not abandon a group of our own because their cause is not popular. I believe that someday gay marriage will be main stream just as interracial marriage is

[sonicx]

5. maybe but...

how long are gay people suppose to wait?

[w4rma]

9. 50 - 60 years. Maybe longer. Maybe less. Maybe never. Dependant on tactics

persuasiveness, etc. IF you ever do get gay marriage you had better darn well have support of the marjority because it won't last if everyone who voted for it gets wiped out the next elections.

[CAcyclist]

12. Exactly

MLK,Jr. said - from my memory, not an exact quote - that the time is never right, but that now is the time rights have to be demanded. he also said - sometimes there's a very small window of time to accomplish something and sometimes,if you wait to long, that chance passes and it becomes too late.

I am not gay, but I believe in equal rights for everyone and if we , as a society, give special rights to married people, then we *must* allow everyone to marry, even gays.

If the religious fundamentalists want to make it a fight, then by god, let's fight. Let's go on the offensive. Let's go for broke and let the chips fall where they may.Because its a good thing for gays to marry - its good for society, its good for them, it strengthens the community when people make commitments to each other, it inspires those of us who are heterosexual and skeptical of marriage, that maybe there's really something good there.

Allowing hatred to succeed is damaging to society, so, for that reason alone, we should not let the fanatics think they are winning.

Finally, fighting for the rights of gays to marry will not harm the democratic party if we are committed to our message - we have so much more to benefit everyone that people will see it is in their best interest to support us, gays and all.

[AndyTiedye]

13. EVERY ISSUE Is a Loser for Democrats As Long as the Repubs Own the News!

What issue can we possibly win on, when everything most people hear about
the issue is what is reported by "news" media that is under regime control?

Jobs? They tell us Boosh** is creating jobs. They don't tell us that
those jobs are being created in India and China.
They don't tell us that Boosh** gives them a tax break for moving
jobs overseas and throwing Americans out of work.

The war? They don't tell us anything. They only cheerlead. Even the
foreign press only has limited information because the Army restricts
access by reporters, and most have to be in-bed with them to get any
news at all.

Gay marriage? They don't tell folks that Kerry, Boosh** AND Dean ALL
supported civil unions as of last Election Day (Boosh** being the
biggest flip-flopper of all time on this issue).


We will see what happens with Social Security. That is the most
sacred of all the sacred cows in Washington, or at least it used
to be. If Boosh** can gut Social Security, that indicates his control
over the media, and by extension the country, is absolute. He can
fool enough of the people all of the time that the rest don't matter.

[keopeli]

23. I advocate tempering the terminology to achieve equality

What we need to do is think in reality. As the world changes, we must alter our tactics to achieve our goals.

The reality is that nothing will change while Bush* is in office. So 4 years minimum. MINIMUM! During that time, we'd better start getting Congress back and making strides in truthful media coverage. To do that, we need to pop this balloon that Bush* blew up over a year ago with Anti-Gay Ammendments. The best way to do that is with the truth.

I have several gay friends that are married, some with licences from Oregon and California, but most were married in a church somewhere. No laws or ammendments will change that. In fact, all society can do is oppress them with bigotry and hatred.

Gay people are already married. Everywhere. In Texas, in Washington, in Hawaii, in Wisconsin...everywhere.

What we're talking about is a licence to combine your assets and responsibilites, issued by the government - currently called a marriage licence. This has already happened with Civil Unions in some places.

We must take the sting out of the terminology to get what we want. I want equal rights. That means that, not only do I want the right to combine assets and responsibilities if I choose to do so, but I also want everyone who makes the same choice to be issued the same little piece of paper by the government, and with the same word (marriage, civil union, partnership, whatever).

So, first thing is to get smart and promote candidates who agree with you to voters in your area. As with any sales pitch, the words you choose to use mean EVERYTHING to making the sale.

Like big factories react when told about the "Clean Skies Initiative", I could care less if you call it "Civil Unions". What matters to me today is to get the equal rights. Changing the names later will be easy. (In fact, I think it will appear silly and we may have to keep it around as a 'cultural heritage' thing or some nonsense like that.)

This is not compromising morals, imho. It is simply advocating for my rights in a constructive and deliberate way to achieve equality for our children.

Keo

[Behind the Aegis]

6. More insulting

I am used to right-wingers being bigots and hateful, but when I hear Democrats telling gays to "take a back seat," it really pisses me off! I am sick and tired of being a 2nd class citizen and I sure as Hell won't let my own party relegate me to that position!

[Kenergy]

7. If you are a U.S. Citizen and pay taxes,

you should have the same rights and privileges as any other
citizen, regardless of your religion or sexual orientation, PERIOD.
This attack on gays is nothing more than bigotry.
I don't understand the psychology behind it, but some
people have a need to hate other people who are different from themselves.

[Upfront]

11. Could Be As you Say

But I don't think so. What I have said is not meant to be an attack on gays at all and I do not hate them. I believe in live and let live. I am simply saying the truth as I see it. Gay marriage is a loser for Democrats. So is gun control as it costs us tons of votes every election. I mean no insult or harm to anyone but can't grasp why this issue is above all else to some. The Democrats have backed off on raising hell about gun control although they mostly support it as I do. It has helped get votes in many areas. You can't bring about change for the good if you are out of power. Did not mean to offend, sorry if I did. Just think these kind of talks are needed if we are to ever win again.

[CAcyclist]

14. Then how did Blacks and Women Ever Get the Right To Vote?

Be defeatist. I disagree with you.

[Nashvilliberal]

15. It didn't happen overnight...

1874
People in favor of women's rights argued before the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote. The Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The Supreme Court denied their claim saying that being a citizen does not automatically give a person the right to vote and that it was not unconstitutional for states to deny the vote to women.

1890
Wyoming joins the Union as the first state with voting rights for women.

1900
Women have full voting rights in Utah, Colorado and Idaho.

1910
Washington grants the vote to women.

1911
California grants the vote to women.

1912
Voting referendums giving women the right to vote are passed in Arizona, Kansas and Oregon.

1914
Montana and Nevada grant voting rights to women.

1915
Restrictive voting laws that were enacted by state governments were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, over forty-five years after the 15th Amendment had been passed. Many of the laws that limited the right of blacks to vote lasted even longer than that.

1917
New York passed a State Constitutional referendum granting women the vote. Other states which granted women some form of voting, usually school board elections--North Dakota, Indiana, Vermont, Rhode Island, Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska and Arkansas.

As women took on jobs left vacant by Conscription in World War I and contributed as volunteers to the war effort, the old slogans about "woman's place" came under scrutiny.

1918
Michigan, Oklahoma and South Dakota pass referendums giving women the right to vote.

1919
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the vote, was sent to the states for ratification.

1920
The 19th Amendment was ratified. It says:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Women had the right to vote!

1924
The United States Congress passed legislation extending United States citizenship to all Indians born in the United States.

American Indians had the right to vote!

1964
The 24th Amendment was added to the Constitution prohibiting the use of poll taxes as a means of denying the right to vote in federal elections.

1965
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act which gave additional protection for voting rights by authorizing the federal government to take over registration of voters in areas where state officials had regularly prevented blacks from registering to vote.

1966

The Supreme Court ruled that the use of poll taxes in state elections was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Thus, by the mid-60s, great progress had been made in ensuring that blacks could enjoy the right to vote which had been guaranteed in the 15th Amendment to the Constitution almost a century earlier.

[CAcyclist]

18. Not my point

My point was that blacks and women didn't have a majority in the legislature - they didn't wait for someone to "give" them/us anything - the same arguments that the "time is not right, that its too soon, etc" were being made at every single step of advancement and its by no means over. Voter disenfranchisement of minorities cost us the election - if we had paid closer attention to the needs of minority voters earlier, we might not even be in this situation.

[CAcyclist]

16. You probably wouldn't understand what my "above all else "

is either. Bicycle rights.

How many times has your life been threatened by someone who clearly thinks they have more of a right to exist than you do? You wouldn't like feeling like a second class citizen and you wouldn't like feeling that someone might kill you just because they could. You wouldn't like feeling that if someone did kill you that you know they most likely would not pay - it would just be dismissed as an accident or the killer would get sympathy because the cyclist just "turned in their path".

I can stop riding my bike and let society kill me slowly by forcing me into a car instead, but gays can't stop being gay. They shouldn't have to be closeted, they should be able to fully enjoy all the rights we have. People who are actually against gay marriage are against gays. Democrats may say they are not for gay marriage, but if they truly are democrats, they are only strategizing like you are.

We need to stand for what is right. Allowing gays to marry is right. Opposing anti-gay bigots is also right.

[norml]

8. Don't Call It "The Dean Scream" Call It "Dean's Rebel Yell"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3103203 Don't Call It "The Dean Scream" Call It "Dean's Rebel Yell"


The Rebel Yell


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A distinctive feature of the Southern soldier was the rebel yell, a long, quavering sound that became legendary. One of the challenges of reenacting is to determine what this famous call actually sounded like.

After the war a number of veterans sought to describe the yell in print. One of the most detailed descriptions came from J. Harvie Drew, a soldier in the 9th Virginia Cavalry. He gave this transcription of the rebel yell:

"Woh--who--ey! Who--ey! Who--ey! Woh--who--ey! Who--ey! (The best illustration of this "true yell" which can be given the reader is by spelling it as above, with directions to sound the first syllable "woh" short and low, and the second "who" with a very high and prolonged note deflecting upon the third syllable "ey.")
Others rendered the yell as "yai, yai, yi, yai, yi" and "y-yo yo-wo-wo." From these examples, it would appear the yell was both multi-syllable and also composed of pattern that was repeated several times.

snip http://members.aol.com/h4texas/yell.htm

[gorbal]

10. Mobilization and education, not capitulation

It wasn't whether or not Jimmy thought gays were gross that won or lost the election, it's whether he was mobilized to vote and educated on the issues. Dean impressed me with his insight when he discussed how higher turnout in heavily Democratic areas could have won Kerry the election .

While everyone is mucking about thinking about whether or not Democrats should be spotted next to gay people, people on the lower end of the pay scale just couldn't wait in line ten hours to vote for someone who might possibly one day help them a little bit. (as far as anyone who watched CNN would have known anyway)

Not that I don't think Kerry wouldn't have helped people out, I just think perhaps he was a little to careful in spelling out his policies in fear of being considered (gasp) liberal.

[Gyre]

17. I hate to be the one to say it but if

" don't want to reach across the aisle; want to win,", you and the rest of your gay friends are going to sit down, shut up, and let to dems appeal to middle-America without the pro-gay rhetoric. Because frankly, your lifestyle makes middle-Americans cringe.

I don't have any problems with gays, but I'm from California. Those with less exposure have a silly-assed illogical fear of gays. Hang the purple banner around the dems necks and they're dead again.

Gyre

[renaissanceguy]

19. Screw that idea.

Quite frankly, I DON'T CARE if people cringe at my "lifestyle." I'm a human being, god damn it. And I deserve respect.

Shame on you for suggesting we cower like dogs and let others treat us like we're subhuman. It's apathetic people like YOU who are just as much a problem as the bigots.

</rant>

[Divine Discontent]

24. well we lose respect when we say things that go against others' beliefs

like blasphemy. you can say it all you want, but it hurts your message, the people we are trying to get to understand gays have rights to marriage, even if they don't approve, would feel you are disrespectful of their beliefs if you talk in that manner. we must bridge the differences by talking with respect.

when a right wing "religious" bigot says, "faggots are gross and God is gonna burn em all", they lose all right to normal discourse with those of us who are trying to find a hope in some of their side who aren't that way (name callers), and just don't understand the need for gays to have the same rights. we cannot succeed with a 25-35% minority supporting us, so we must take it to them with our leaders and speak with respect on all issues.

I received an email tonight about "target dept. stores supporting gay & lesbian groups but not military memorials for vets", it was so homophobic, eronious, and yet, sent to millions I'm sure, and most people just EAT IT UP. So, perhaps the marriage thing will have to wait til we get a strong dem. pres & the congress back, and instead focus on the evils of the bushco empire that hurt us in other ways (soc. sec., war, enviro)

keep voicing your beliefs but be willing to compromise, that is how things slowly get accomplished.

[Straight Shooter]

20. I don't know why ANYBODY wants to get married, but it's their right.

AFAIC, gays also have the hopes and dreams in their heart of going through a marriage ceremony and publicly stating to their friends, their family, and the world, that they are in love with one another and wish to legalize their commitment to one another.

That's what marriage is, a public commitment of love and devotion, with all the attendant legal benefits and detriments.

Now, what the hell is wrong with gays getting married? I don't get it. I'm sorry, I really don't get it.

As far as the right-wingers and homophobes are concerned, keeping gays from marrying isn't going to keep them from being sexually active, so the only purpose it can serve is to punish them for being gay. I cannot be part of something that punishes an entire group of people because of the way God created them. And if anyone believes in God, then they have to believe God created homosexuality.

I remember a poster from years back, a little kid with big eyes, and the caption read, "I am good, because God does not make junk."

[killbotfactory]

21. Good. No one ever won their rights by sitting down and being quiet

and hoping the majority someday might realize the error of their ways.

you gotta fight... for your right... to uhh.. marry?

[VegasWolf]

22. Dean's the man! n/t